IMDb RATING
6.0/10
1.5K
YOUR RATING
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.An amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.
- Nominated for 2 Oscars
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I recently saw this on TCM and was surprised that I had never seen this before. Based on the novel by popular novelist/writer Evan Hunter who wrote such classics as The blackboard Jungle and the screenplay for The Birds this was adapted for the screen by Hunter and Dale Wasserman. this is the story of an amnesiac (James Garner) who wakes up on a Central Park park bench with no idea who he is. Dressed in a gray suit he discovers only two possible clues to his identity, a ring with the initials G.V. inscribed and a piece of paper with a telephone number on it. He has the name of Grace in his mind who he assumes must be his wife and so with the lack of a name of his own his creates one on the spur of the moment in Sam Buddwing and begins his search through Manhattan of himself and of Grace. His adventure brings him to several memorable characters in Angela Lansbury as the loose woman with a kind heart Gloria, Suzanne Pleshette as actress Fiddle Corwin, Katherine Ross as the pretty and studious Janet, Jack Gifford as restaurant owner Izzy Schwartz, Joe Mantell as the 1st cab driver, George Voskovec as a shabby old man who calls himself God and Jean Simmons as the high society blonde out on treasure hunt for a party. This film was nominated for two Academy Awards for Best Black and White Art direction and Best Black and White Costume. It has a gritty New York location feel and frequently uses hand-held cameras and is photographed by cinematographer Ellsworth Fredricks. Directed by Delbert Mann best known for directing such classics as Marty, Desire Under the elms and Separate Tables this is not one of his best but it's quirky and interesting and hold your interest thanks to great on screen performances by the fine cast. Garner is better served as an actor when he has some light comedic roles and he falls a little short in this straight dramatic role where he only smiles once briefly in the entire film. The ending falls short too but all in all it's a different film and I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.
Th is was a cool offbeat film. The real treat is the actresses. They are all lovely and give good performances. They truly elevate the material.
There are also some really cool shots of mid 60s New York, some of which no longer exist.
There are also some really cool shots of mid 60s New York, some of which no longer exist.
The whole feel of this film is great - soundtrack, cinematography, location filming - but ultimately, the storyline reveals its secrets well before the final scene. The actors attracted me to this film, shown very early in the morning on Turner
Classic Movies. Late night viewing is perfect for a mid-sixties, black-and-white, jazzy sort of feature. For the first thirty minutes, I was quite intrigued by the plot. It reminds me of Gregory Peck's "Mirage," a similar (and superior) amnesia- based movie from the 60s. The location filming is perfect, though I know NYC is never that dead, having taken a walk by the Plaza Hotel at 7 in the morning, on a Sunday.
The actors cannot be at fault, and I'm certain that the original novel is quite interesting. Perhaps this particular amnesia variation just doesn't work on film.
After the first "flashback," involving Katherine Ross, her "real-life" presence simply vanishes, unlike the other two women who later provide Garner's
character with memory enhancers. This must be to initially throw us off track, as viewers. Incorrectly, I assumed Ross's character was a complete fabrication. Then, later in the film, Suzanne and Simmons are indicated to be real, as is
Lansbury's "Gloria." Garner simply uses their presence to reformulate images of his wife. There is also a bit of cheating regarding repetitive dialogue between the three women. The "real" Simmons repeats dialogue of the "imaginary"
Suzanne; this must be pure coincidence, as Garner cannot dictate what an
"actual" person says. (Believe me, this makes sense, if you've seen the film.)
The film is ultimately disappointing. By the half-way mark, I knew what the
outcome would be.
One side note - that scene with the cop in Washington Square is totally dated and ridiculous. And, PLEASE, can we avoid all NYC scenes involving
characters running into a dead-end alley?????? It has become one of the
major clichés of NYC-based films and TV series.
I don't know why this web site messes up my paragraphs and spacing!!?????
Classic Movies. Late night viewing is perfect for a mid-sixties, black-and-white, jazzy sort of feature. For the first thirty minutes, I was quite intrigued by the plot. It reminds me of Gregory Peck's "Mirage," a similar (and superior) amnesia- based movie from the 60s. The location filming is perfect, though I know NYC is never that dead, having taken a walk by the Plaza Hotel at 7 in the morning, on a Sunday.
The actors cannot be at fault, and I'm certain that the original novel is quite interesting. Perhaps this particular amnesia variation just doesn't work on film.
After the first "flashback," involving Katherine Ross, her "real-life" presence simply vanishes, unlike the other two women who later provide Garner's
character with memory enhancers. This must be to initially throw us off track, as viewers. Incorrectly, I assumed Ross's character was a complete fabrication. Then, later in the film, Suzanne and Simmons are indicated to be real, as is
Lansbury's "Gloria." Garner simply uses their presence to reformulate images of his wife. There is also a bit of cheating regarding repetitive dialogue between the three women. The "real" Simmons repeats dialogue of the "imaginary"
Suzanne; this must be pure coincidence, as Garner cannot dictate what an
"actual" person says. (Believe me, this makes sense, if you've seen the film.)
The film is ultimately disappointing. By the half-way mark, I knew what the
outcome would be.
One side note - that scene with the cop in Washington Square is totally dated and ridiculous. And, PLEASE, can we avoid all NYC scenes involving
characters running into a dead-end alley?????? It has become one of the
major clichés of NYC-based films and TV series.
I don't know why this web site messes up my paragraphs and spacing!!?????
Other commentators are probably right to say that the plot is totally unlikely, poorly acted and perhaps badly directed. I am no film critic hence do not judge the film from a critical point of view.
Yes, I was aware, while watching the film on TV, that it was completely unlikely, that people just don't act in such a way. Yet I found it compelling, enjoyable, enthralling, haunting. I just had to watch it to the end, and this doesn't happen to me very often these days.
I see the film as an allegory of a man who has lost sight of himself after a personal traumatic drama and is in search of himself through various unlikely encounters, mostly intriguing women. I enjoyed the film as I would enjoy a haunting melody. I guess I see in it an allegory for my own condition.
Yes, I was aware, while watching the film on TV, that it was completely unlikely, that people just don't act in such a way. Yet I found it compelling, enjoyable, enthralling, haunting. I just had to watch it to the end, and this doesn't happen to me very often these days.
I see the film as an allegory of a man who has lost sight of himself after a personal traumatic drama and is in search of himself through various unlikely encounters, mostly intriguing women. I enjoyed the film as I would enjoy a haunting melody. I guess I see in it an allegory for my own condition.
The 60's were skinny ties and lapels, three-martini lunches, Chrysler convertible pavement yachts and Brylcreem, if you were lucky. If you were somehow less satisfied, it was protest or dogged acceptance that the game had been fixed long before you appeared on the scene, or more politely, you simply hadn't been invited to the party. James Garner (Rockford, Support Your Local Sheriff, They Only Kill Their Masters, etc) portrays a once successful but displaced everyman who has to wallow in the mire to face long-buried demons. A string of attractive women appear and vanish, like identifying a catchy tune by its chorus, each providing shards of who Buddwing is and why he tried to run. A barely recognizable New York is Supporting Actor, and the visual style leaves one feeling an effect similar to liberal dosages of NyQuil. It will strike you, however briefly.
Did you know
- 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).
- GoofsAt about the 0:46:00 mark a woman walking by stops and points at James Garner, recognizing him as he goes into the drugstore.
- ConnectionsEdited into Voskovec & Werich - paralelní osudy (2012)
- How long is Mister Buddwing?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 40m(100 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content