Watch Mister Buddwing For Free

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This is probably a spoiler. I watched the film wondering what reality was being depicted. The movie runs nearly two hours covering a span of maybe a dozen years. The man's (James Garner's) real time might have been anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Understanding that the entire film is the man's nightmare is the key to figuring it out. It seems that the movie was not really released in the US, I think it had little popular appeal because the viewer needs to think in order to understand it. I disagree with James Garner's assessment that it was the worst movie he ever made, rather I believe it might be the darkest and artsiest film he ever made. The man's name is Edward Volner, it took two viewings to figure that out. It is important to understand that the film is a recurring nightmare, pay attention to the opening shot and the final few seconds. The unhappy lower class house wife, Angela Landsbury, thrusting a handful of cash on him, Jack Gilford happily feeding him free of charge, the crowd that comes to his aid thwarting an over zealous policeman form a flash protest mob complete with signs; make little sense until the viewer realizes the entire film is a dream.

"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.

Groggy and well-suited, James Garner wakes up in New York City's Central Park with two pills and a phone number in his pocket. Before you can say, "Been there, done that," note Mr. Garner also has amnesia. He decides to call himself "Sam Budweiser" after calling the phone number, seeing a Budweiser beer truck, then a plane. Garner first visits floozy Angela Lansbury (as Gloria). She thinks her drunken husband gave Garner the phone number for a good time. The pills are not explained. In succession, Garner encounters pretty young Katharine Ross (as Janet), sexy actress Suzanne Pleshette (as Fiddle), and blonde lush Jean Simmons - driven on screen by ex-"Dead End" kid Billy Halop! Claiming to be twenty-five years old, "Sam Buddwing" meets several other interesting New Yorkers. Garner is recognized as Jewish by cracker Jack Gilford (as Mr. Schwartz). Shabby old man George Voskovec thinks Garner's a paranoid schizophrenic. Before playing biker Buzz on "Dark Shadows" (1967), counterperson Michael Hadge believes Garner's problems to be psychosomatic. Loved it when Ms. Pleshette tells him, "We'll be tigers and we'll drink blood." You also get Nichelle Nichols tossing dice before her "Star Trek". This could have been a quirky classic with someone like George Segal or Sal Mineo in the lead. Garner needs to play something closer to home, and with a little humor.***** Mister Buddwing (7/15/66) Delbert Mann ~ James Garner, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pleshette, Katharine Ross

I like the film for its New York mid-60s esthetic, but I agree with others who liken the film to a religious allegory. The use of the name "Grace" and the frequent mentions of God....allegorical. But instead of reminding me of other amnesia films, instead it somewhat reminds me of The Swimmer with its conversations that begin as if we already know all the characters involved and the circumstances therein.Jean Simmons and Suzanne Pleshette give performances that are called for in this type of production (what fun to see Correges white fashion boots on Pleshette, just like the ones I wore in high school in 1966!). And I do love James Garner, but as someone else has stated, Anthony Perkins would have owned this film.One of Garner's best films ever was another B&W called "The Americanization of Emily."