SnoopyStyle The many women of sculptor David Fowler (Burt Reynolds) have gathered for his funeral. Among them is his psychiatrist Marianna (Julie Andrews) who recounts the story of his womanizing. He was living with Courtney Wade but he became enamored with a pair of legs. He chased the legs to Agnes Chapman (Marilu Henner) but she claimed that the legs are actually her cousin. There's Nancy who he saved from prostitution and put to work as one of his helpers. There's Louise (Kim Basinger), the wife of rich Texan Roy Carr (Barry Corbin). Louise shoots Roy and David has to testify in her trial. It's a long line of women and Marianna could be next.This is a remake of a French film from director Blake Edwards. I'm sure the French original had an art house appeal. Edwards has no such cushion to work with here. In the end, not all of the women are compelling. The least appealing is probably Basinger. Reynolds is not that much better. He may be a sex symbol back in the day but his persona lacks an intellectual aspect that is required by this role. There are a few intriguing stories but these women are dropped all too quickly. His story is not compelling.

PhantomofDopera2 This review is being extensively rewritten.While rewriting this review, I learned with great sadness that Blake Edwards had passed away. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to Julie Edwards and to her entire family. The world will certainly miss a truly great director. I would have dearly, dearly loved to have met him while he was alive."The Man Who Loved Women" should be considered one of the world's greatest masterpieces. The film is one of the most brilliant, most deceptive, and one of the world's deepest films ever filmed in Hollywood or anyplace else in the world. The film should have won multiple Oscars for all concerned including Best Picture. And if it were at all possible Blake Edwards should have been awarded a Nobel Prize for the screenplay for its extreme complexity, extreme subtlety, and richness of symbolism. The screenplay is worthy of world class literature status and should be in every class room anthology that students have to read. If they can study Harry Potter in school, they sure should be able to read Blake Edwards extreme masterpiece. It is my intention to prove to you and to the rest of the world that that this film deserves all that I claim and more! And at the end, I would very much like future reviews to indicate how many stars, Oscars, and Nobels that they would award. And yes, you can totally disagree with everything that I will explain.I was reading one of the boards and noted one post that asked, "What is this movie about?" I can honestly say without ego that I'm probably the only person in the world who can understand about 99% of the movie. That is why this movie has had such great fascination for me over the years and why I believe so strongly that Blake Edwards should have been awarded a Nobel for the screenplay. This movie which on the surface app ears so utterly simple is, in fact, quite complex.But first, you must understand the purpose of the film. Along time ago, there was an unauthorized biography of Julie Edwards running around. In the book, Blake Edwards says something to the effect that-and this not a direct quote- that his wife is one of the deepest and most pro found women in the world. This fact is something that I've known for years long before the book came out. Anyway that leaves a problem. A big problem. And that is how to show it or pay tribute to her. I think Blake Edwards found away. In fact, I know he found a way.And now to the review, there are two major motion pictures and one minor motion picture interwoven into each other to form one great masterpiece. The minor motion picture is "The Man Who Loved Women." The other is Irving Stone's "The Agony and The Ecstasy" which based on the life of Michaelangelo. The other I will discuss later. In other words he used a minor motion picture to hide two major motion pictures behind it. And to prove my point, I have to discuss plots to two movies. If you have not seen either, DO NOT PROCEED. We are going to use DF for David Fowler and MA for Michaelangelo. So let's look at these "forced coincidence". These are not my words but come from another source. 1 DF Sculpture,writer. 2 MA Sculpture,writer. 3 DF Sports a beard. 4 MA Sports a beard. 5 DF Trouble with women. 6 MA Trouble with a women. 7 DF Trouble with a block of stone. 8 MA Trouble with a ceiling. 9. DF Goes to Marianna to get help. 10. MA goes to Contesstina to get answers 11. DF tells Nancy "thats my work." A piece of sculpture in the center of the floor. 12. MA Charleton Heston in voice over goes over the life work of Michangelo at beginning of movie. 13. DF Roy tells David Fowler, "I don't completely understand it." (Refering to David's sculptor.) "Something like my wife." 14. MA Michaelangelo complains to Pope Julius II, "why you send these fools to judge my work?" 15. DF Nanc y says over the phone' "Understand your time problem." 16. MA Pope Juliu s II asks, "when will you make an end?" 17. DF David has commission in Houston,TX not LA. 18. MA Michaelangelo has a commission in Rome not in Florence nor Bologna. 19. DF There is a work area at his house and shop. 20 . MA There is a work area at his apartment and Sistine Chapel. 21. DF Mariana comes to nurse maid David back to health at his place not hers. 22 . Contesstina comes to nurse maid Michaelangelo back to health at his place not her place. 23. DF David goes back to sculpting. 24. MA Michaelangelo goes back to painting. 25. DF David complains to Mariana about hyperventilating aka an attack to the lungs. 26. MA Pope Julius II whacks Michaelangelo on the back aka an attack to the lungs.

Henryk von Babenberg It is true that this re-make does not measure up to the French original, but it is still not half as bad as some reviewers make it out to be. In fact it is quite good if you try to disregard the more "American" details. It starts out with a funeral and works its way back from there. Reynolds is enough of a hunk to make the story plausible and Julie Andrews was never more beautiful. All thruout the film, Blake Edwards succeeds in maintaining an infinitely "sad" note, which works excellently and undoubtedly adds to the quality of the film. 6 out of 10 points.

David Atfield Blake Edwards in the Sixties was an amazing director, with a strong visual flair. I mean he directed "Breakfast at Tiffany's", "Days of Wine and Roses", and "An Experiment in Terror"! But somewhere in all that Pink Panthering he did in the Seventies he lost that visual flair and became boring. The only film in the last thirty years that showed any of the old panache was "Victor/Victoria". It's like there are two Blake Edwards.That's not to say that this film is terrible - it's just that I think he could have done so much better. It's so dull to look at - despite the presence of his enchanting wife Julie Andrews, and one of Burt Reynolds' best performances. Also of note is a very young Kim Basinger displaying a strong flair for comedy. But Edwards' pacing of the action is so slow and ponderous that the moments of slapstick comedy seem completely incongruous and fall completely flat.Come on Blake - give us some more of that old magic! I know it's still in you.