Watch Days of Wine and Roses For Free

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

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

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Blake Edwards, who gave us Breakfast at Tiffany's and Experiment in Terror, has now come up with a movie that, by contrast, is rather dull. But the main trouble doesn't actually lie with Mr. Edwards, but with the writing by J.P. Miller. You'll notice that although the movie won quite a few awards, none of them were for Best Writing! In fact, writing was not even nominated! The screenplay rambles all over the place, starting off with what seems to be a satire at the expense of the publicity and P.R. boys. But then it switches to a romantic comedy. Well and good! But before you can say, "Lee Remick", it's all about alcoholism. The film was nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role (Lee Remick) by both the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes and actually won multiple awards in quite a few other famous film festivals. But, as said above, none of these awards were for Writing!

Both Jack Lemmon and Blake Edwards have done some great work in their careers, but it's work that couldn't be any more different to the serious subject of alcoholism that Days of Wine and Roses approaches, whereas both are known for their comedy work. The work for both Lemmon and Edwards however in Days of Wine and Roses is a great example of being successful for doing something different to what they usually do.Edwards very wisely restrains here and he brings to the film and its story a surprising amount of poignancy, for someone who directed the Pink Panther films that is not something that you'd expect from him and it's remarkable here. Lemmon was a very funny and likable actor, and in a role that is unlike anything else he's done he's heart-wrenchingly powerful. Did he deserve his Oscar nomination? Yes, but because of the competition that year(Gregory Peck and especially Peter O'Toole) it wasn't a problem that he didn't win. Lee Remick, also deservedly Oscar-nominated(while perhaps the weakest of the nominees, which is in no way a dump, just comparatively), is beguiling and is also very moving. Their chemistry is altogether riveting. Charles Bickford and especially Jack Klugman give excellent supporting turns.Visually, Days of Wine and Roses is sumptuous and gritty, suiting the subject matter very well. Henry Mancini's music score is stylish and appropriately understated, he also penned the haunting Oscar-winning theme song(a deserved win and one of his best). The script is honest and uncompromising, with some irreverent wit to start with, but mostly very poignant and hard-hitting with plenty to say and exposing it very truthfully. The story is still very powerful and affecting(for back then also pretty progressive), especially the Greenhouse and ending- which was the perfect and only logical way to end the film- scenes, and is as relevant today(with alcohol still very much a problem) as it was then, the message making its point without being preachy or sugar-coated. It also paints a mostly plausible and realistic depiction of alcoholism, with the mood swings and the denial for examples and I did like that it did touch upon Kirsten's addictive personality, but what could have been depicted more was the desperate need for alcohol and the guilt when giving in.To conclude, a heart-rending and surprising film, and one of the better films to depict alcoholism. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I would nominate "Days of Wine and Roses" as being one of the finest films ever made. It is a haunting depiction of addiction - a journey from the joys of finding true love to the desperation and degradation of alcoholism. It is a study of co-dependency which is the most dangerous form of addiction as first one, Joe Clay, and then his wife seduce each other into binging in scenes that are almost unbearable as you anticipate the inevitable. You are shown how good their lives could have been as they enjoy a roll in the hay after a period of abstinence and then the seduction of Kirsten as Joe does a symbolically mock strip tease to reveal the smuggled bottles of booze taped to his legs. The thunderstorm rages as the pair lose control. Lemmon transforms Joe into a simian creature as he goes on the hunt for the bottle he has hidden in Kirsten's father's greenhouse. He swings and falls from the tree outside the window and shambles towards the greenhouse with ape-like limbs.His confident anticipation of finding the bottle is turned to frustration and then wild desperation as he initially cannot find the pot that contains the bottle. When he has been reduced to a degraded beast, writhing in mud and making noises that are at once pitiful and irksome, Joe finds the bottle and greedily sucks from it. It is a scene that should have won Lemmon two Oscars. Equally shocking is the scene in which Joe finds Kirsten in a fleabag motel after she has binged with a series of men with whom she has traded sex for booze and drinking companionship. To see such a sweet and beautiful person transformed into a degraded and sexually manipulative hag is one of the most heartbreaking scenes put on film. I have detailed two scenes but every other scene is as brilliantly thought-provoking and unforgettable in its staging. And Edwards does not allow the audience the easy solution of love being the final answer."Isn't love, love?" pleads Joe when trying to grasp how Kirsten has abandoned him for a binge. He is reminded by his A.A. mentor played by Jack Klugman that the bottle to an alcoholic is god and its power supersedes even love. The flashing bar sign that repeatedly reflects on Joe's face as Kirsten walks away from her two great loves, Joe and her own daughter, is the final reminder that there is no such thing as an end to addiction, just the ongoing battle to be fought. Watch this film and you will never forget it.

A very uneven film about the horrors of alcoholism. The problem seems to be Blake Edwards' and Jack Lemmon's penchant for comedy. The story, at its base, is pure tragedy, but it's like Edwards doesn't want it to be too dark, so he cast a clown in the lead. Lemmon sparkles during the scenes where he's supposed to be charming, but he's not very convincing during the more dramatic sequences. Oh, and he can't do a drunk act worth a damn. I guess that's the film's biggest problem, really. No one in the classic era could play a convincing drunk. They always seem to overact terribly, and Lemmon in particular is bad at it. His co-star, Lee Remick, isn't quite as bad, but during her big drunk scene she comes off as not that good, either. In fact, she's pretty bad at it, but does seem fairly excellent in comparison with Lemmon. Remick is actually very good in the non-drunk scenes. The biggest flop of the film is the big, dramatic sequence where, after having been dry for a while at Remick's father's farm, Lemmon sneaks in a couple of bottles which they share. Cut to Lemmon jumping up and down on the bed with the two of them giggling like school children. That's the film's idea of alcoholics: they get goofy like kids and then throw tantrums like kids when they finish up their booze. Jesus, Lemmon's scene in the greenhouse, where he's tearing it to shreds trying to find a bottle he hid and freaking out, it's just embarrassing. Contrast that with the film's final sequence. You can see just how good the film could have been if it didn't go so over-the-top. The ending of the movie is heartbreaking.