Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

flyingcandy This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.

lippp-1 Most of the major actors here do their best with not much to work with. The plot is nonsensical and way over the top. The dialogue seemed to be written by an amateur even though Peter Bogdanovich actually wrote it. This is supposed to be a romantic comedy. If so it's a comedy without any comedy and not much romance. The saving grace here is the nostalgic factor. Watching Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazarra is a pleasure and in a different movie they may have further contributed to their impressive careers. In this mess, their scenes are impressive to watch precisely for their skill but what their characters do defies logic and you simply just don't buy it. John Ritter is very good and Dorothy Stratton holds her own because all she really has to do is look gorgeous. Collen Camp is, at best, mediocre and the weakest link in this cast. This film is only for film buffs who want to relive an era and marvel at the grace and charm of Ms. Hepburn. They may have all laughed but they weren't watching this movie when they did!!!

Lee Eisenberg Peter Bogdanovich was one of the new wave of American directors in the early '70s, with movies like "The Last Picture Show", "What's Up, Doc?" and "Paper Moon". So did he just make "They All Laughed" for fun or something? I couldn't determine that the movie was actually trying to say anything; it almost seemed like an excuse to have a bunch of stars. No matter, I didn't think it was a bad movie. The plot centers on a detective investigating a number of people in New York, and the various things that happen as a result. Stars Ben Gazzara, Audrey Hepburn, and John Ritter almost just seem like they're wondering around a lot. Kind of strange.But either way, I wouldn't agree with the previous reviewer who called "They All Laughed" the worst movie ever. Maybe it didn't have any social value or anything, but it was worth seeing. As far as I'm concerned, you can't even talk about the worst movie ever unless you've seen "Baryshnya-Krestyanka"; that is two hours of my life that I'm never going to get back, and Alexander Pushkin must spin in his grave every time that someone watches that garbage, knowing how they fouled up his novel. All in all, you may want to check out "They All Laughed", but it's definitely not for everyone.

pmullinsj I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.