Eaglegrafix I watched this movie because of Sandy Dennis. I don't know a lot about Dennis but I have been watching her movies to become more familiar. She has a quirky way about her that it wonderfully exploited in this film. She never fully reveals why she does what she does with her men in this movie. Whether it is truly to provide therapy for her guests or if it is a clever way of having intimacy without commitment is no made clear since she has an angle in just about every other enterprise she runs.What makes this movie good is how well Dennis play the character which fits her quirkiness. While the movie is a great comedy, it has a compelling ending. Of course if you've seen the 2001 version, then it has already spoiled it for you. But if you, like me, have not watched the 2001 version because....well because then this movie will be very enjoyable. There is no Keneau stardom stardom to get in the way and you will enjoy the characters.

moonspinner55 Although "Sweet November" features Sandy Dennis and Anthony Newley in the leads, the real stars of this picture turn out to be the talented art directors--and also that amazing New York City skyline, circa 1967. Plush romantic comedy is weighted with flibbertigibbet whimsy and sentiment, however it looks good enough to eat. The pathos are never too annoying because the look of the film (and also the music score by Michel Legrand) is so inviting. Opening with one of those fabulous aerial shots of the Big Apple which marked many a theatrical feature and TV series intro in the 1960s, we soon meet Newley as a British box manufacturer and Dennis playing a 23-year-old landlord (they have a meet-cute at the DMV!). After some 20 minutes of colorless exposition, Dennis discloses her romantic situation: she takes one lover a month into her cozy abode, helping to mold the man's character before sending him on his way. Newley quickly agrees to be Mr. November, yet we never learn what attracts him to Dennis. Yes, she's rather adorable in a flaky, distracted sort of way, though her noodle-headed ramblings--mixed with sure-handed chatter about minute things like hardware and pigeons--would surely send most bachelors in the opposite direction. The heart of the story seems to go missing, as screenwriter Herman Raucher introduces other kooky characters while inching us toward a romantic showdown between the protagonists (the film is preconceived to be a valentine without getting the ingredients right). Dennis and Newley (a curious yet effective screen match) approach the wafty material carefully, and both are attractive and likable, but Newley plays his lines for laughs while Dennis is perhaps too rigid or prim. Their performances improve in the second-half, but what exactly is the girl teaching this huffy businessman...to reconnect with his inner-child? Perhaps living 'free' makes for less inhibitions in the bedroom, but the movie is too coy and glossy to discuss sex in a grown-up manner. It's a valentine all right, and a little soft in the middle. **1/2 from ****

pylary-1 I saw this film as a very young adult when it first came out. I have never forgotten it. Sandy Dennis was a fabulous character actress who appeared in several movies containing socially provocative subject matters not previously well-explored in "polite circles"; in other words, in general release. For sure, there were other films addressing titillating lifestyle choices, but the overriding end-message was that if you stray from the accepted societal path, bad things will happen to you (Butterfield 8, Suddenly Last Summer, come to mind.)For those of us growing up in the '60s, society began changing in profound ways that afforded opportunities for self-expression and self- determination previously smothered in veneers of inhibition. Today,there is no societal inhibition...there is literally no subject matter that hasn't been addressed in graphic and/or grotesque detail. I believe a certain handful of films in the relationship genre will have real staying power (Brokeback Mountain). Other films may only be historically significant to individuals uniquely affected by that film, or to film buffs and other super-serious film students/teachers.Rarely does a remake of the original film meet or exceed the goal set by the original, perhaps because the times have just changed too markedly. That was certainly the case here. For me, the Charlize Theron reprise of Sandy Dennis's original role was almost unwatchable, and I like Charlize Theron. I just didn't much care about her, how she lived, or what fate befell her in the remake. Society had moved on.Now, the Hilary Swank characters in Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby...there were young woman you could care about, as much as I cared about Sandy Dennis's character back in the day. Predictably, however, when those characters eschewed inhibition and embraced self-expression and determination, bad things happened. In our collective societal consciences, then, have we really moved on all that far?

skyhawk I only saw this movie one time and that was when it was first released, over 30 years ago. But this movie was such a sweet yet bitter sweet movie that I have never forgotten it. The story was so powerful that it has lasted in my memory for 3 decades. Maybe it was because it was the kind of love that i longed for; one that is total and complete. Then ends never to be found again.