namashi_1 The Late/Great Sidney Lumet's 'The Morning After' is a A Well-Done Mystery Thriller! The narrative holds you, at most times. Also, the performances are ace!'The Morning After' Synopsis: A woman wakes up next to a murdered man. Did she do it herself, and if not, is she in danger herself?'The Morning After' is definitely a worthy watch. But, the Writing could've been tighter. James Hicks's Screenplay is good, of course. But, I wasn't thoroughly engrossed in the first-hour. I did like the characters all through, but they deserved a more interesting fate in the first-hour. The second-hour, however, picks up momentum & the culmination, when the culprit is revealed, is superb.Lumet's Direction is excellent, as always. He has handled every scene with conviction. Cinematography & Editing are fine. Performance-Wise: Jeff Bridges is natural to the core, enacting his part like a pro. Jane Fonda is terrific, despite a few hammy moments. The Late/Great Raul Julia is the scene-stealer, undoubtedly. What a stellar performance!On the whole, 'The Morning After' packs a punch.

Wizard-8 "The Morning After" is a very strange movie, mainly because it seems like two completely different movies put together. On one hand, it's a murder mystery with a chief suspect on the run attempting to prove her innocence. On the other hand, it's also a study of two completely different people thrust together and developing some sort of relationship. To tell the truth, I would have preferred if the movie had completely stuck to the second kind of story. The murder mystery is standard stuff at best, right down to the climatic man to man struggle. But I did find the relationship between the characters played by Fonda and Bridges to be interesting. Both characters are interestingly written, and the performances by both actors help considerably to sell these fictional characters. While the murder mystery angle of the movie is not that well done - making this portion of the movie tired and familiar - the parts of the movie that focus on the Fonda and Bridges characters interacting are good enough that the movie despite its flaws is worth a look.

jjnxn-1 Jane Fonda gives an incredibly nuanced performance as a spiraling down drunkard, she researched the tragic 40's star Gail Russell who drank herself to death at 36 to fully understand her characters plight of a once promising actress reduced to blackouts and infamy. Jeff Bridges is almost as strong as a stranger trying to help her out of a situation she can't even remember. The rest of the cast gives good support starting with Raul Julia on down to a pre-stardom Kathy Bates in a tiny role, the problem is that the script that all this superior work is working with is ill conceived and not terribly well directed by the usually excellent Lumet.

donwc1996 This has to be one of the worst films ever made. As I sat through it I kept asking myself why am I watching it? Maybe I wanted to know for sure that it was actually as bad as I thought it was. And it was. I was a big fan of Jeff Bridges but not really for any of his films and certainly not this one - I just always liked him probably because I liked his dad so much. But I actually thought that Jane Fonda's role was absolutely laughable. She was completely unbelievable as was Raul Julia. Casting against type never works and it definitely does not work here. And the fact that Sidney Lumet directed this mish-mash is the biggest shock of all. One wonders how so much talent could be utterly wasted in so much tripe. Actually, the most interesting performance, I thought, was by Diane Salinger who I remember most vividly from the film whereas everyone else sort of washes out. I looked up Salinger and learned that she has an acting academy in Los Angeles which makes perfect sense since she really shines in this catastrophe.