CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.0/10
1.5 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaAn amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.An amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.An amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.
- Nominado a 2 premios Óscar
- 2 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIn his memoirs "The Garner Files" (2011), James Garner rated this as his worst movie. His comment about it: "I'd summarize the plot, but to this day, I have no clue what it is. Worst picture I ever made. What where they thinking? What was I thinking?" (page 256).
- ErroresAt about the 0:46:00 mark a woman walking by stops and points at James Garner, recognizing him as he goes into the drugstore.
- Citas
Mister Buddwing: I don't know where I was last night. I woke up in Central Park. As God is my witness, that's all I know.
- ConexionesEdited into Voskovec & Werich - paralelní osudy (2012)
Opinión destacada
"Mister Buddwing" has an interesting start. Seen from the POV of the protagonist, we find ourselves in Central Park. Searching our pockets for clues to our identity--because already it is clear that we have amnesia--we find a train schedule, 2 pills, a phone number and a ring with an inscription. As a jazz track plays in the background, we make our way out of the park and into a hotel where we see our reflection. We are James Garner!
Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.
Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.
According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.
The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.
When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.
Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).
One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.
After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.
Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.
Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.
According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.
The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.
When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.
Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).
One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.
After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.
- atlasmb
- 28 jul 2014
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Mister Buddwing?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Buddwing
- Locaciones de filmación
- Nueva York, Nueva York, Estados Unidos(New York University)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 40 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Mister Buddwing (1966) officially released in India in English?
Responda