Description

Dana (Victoria Foyt) and Sean (Stephen Dillane) are strangers, yet they have a strong sense of belonging together. They also have no interest in upending their lives and long-term romances, so they part instead of following their hearts. But love may not be so easily denied. ... Read more

Reviews (40)

The very best that Jaglom has yet created!
I caught this film recently on "WE" cable network and was glued to the tv and completely drawn into Deja Vu's world - I felt as if I were living Dana and Sean's story. I have seen several of Mr. Jaglom's films but this is absolutely the best he has ever created. Vicoria Foyt and Stephen Dillane were so wonderful and believable (the whole supporting cast was so perfect especially Vanessa Redgrave) I must agree with so many of the reviewers who stated that this movie has now replaced Casablanca for them. Ditto for me! This movie has something to teach us all about settling for less than true bliss. Then again, I believe that very few of us ever meet our true love/soul mate. But the whole premise (of true love, serendipity, fate, the choices we make, the consequences we must live with) was beautifully and hauntingly handled in this film. Thank you Mr. Jaglom, for a new classic.

Dillane makes it all worthwhile
Deja Vu is an intriguing film that is flawed but worth seeing, chiefly for the brilliant acting of Stephen Dillane and the original, compelling premise of the story.

Unfortunately, the lead actress, Victoria Foyt, brought the film down a notch in my eyes. She is whiny and annoying, and doesn't have the kind of compelling presence the part requires. But then again, she is director Henry Jaglom's wife, so I guess she was a shoo-in!

I liked how the characters had to wrestle with their situation - while their attraction was immediate and undeniable, their loyalty to their existing relationships caused them to wrestle with their consciences and really delve into the importance of love, fate and personal fulfillment.

I had not seen Dillane's work before seeing this film, but have since found his acting to be of consistently high caliber. He does not look like a traditional leading man, but has a magnetic, thoughtful quality that is quite compelling.

Deja Vu is an interesting, quirky film, that could have been truly memorable with a different lead actress, some script tightening (hearing the actors exclaim "What are you doing here?" over and over becomes really grating after a while)and editing, but it is still an enjoyable film that is well worth seeing.

Less than it could have been.
After the terrific reviews, I had expected better.
The Idea is indeed a good one, but the lead actress is... awfull (I'm sorry to say it, but there it is.) She is whiny, complaining, selfish, and just generally irritating.
While watching the movie, I just kept wondering why any of these people would want to spent time with her, let alone, seek her out or leave their wife for her.
To say something good about the film, the filming locations (Paris, Cliffs of Dover, etc.) were excellent and beautiful. And the rest of the cast could act and was wonderful!

DEJA VU: Have you met the love of your life?
If you're a hopeless romantic, then this is the movie for you! Not only does it examine the lifestyles we choose or settle for when it comes to love, but it also deals with the inner struggle we experience between our heart and mind when falling in love, and how coincidences can(if we let them)transform our lives. I promise you that the very last scene of this movie will melt your heart completely.

Deja Vu
Waited a year for this great movie to come out in DVD letterbox (widescreen)...what happened? Normal aspect ratio cuts off people at the edges! When a conservation is going on with facial expressions you miss alot. I'm disappointed! I'm sure the director/producer knows what I'm talking about. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Filming on location in France during the 1999 Cannes Film Festival, Henry Jaglom goes behind the scenes to explore how movies get made (and unmade). He would know--he's been making them for decades now. In this one, he takes an Altman-meets-Cassavetes approach to his subject. While former actress Alice (Greta Scacchi), for instance, is trying to get her directorial debut off the ground, film icon Millie (Anouk Aimée) is trying to decide between the lead in Alice's indie and a (better-paying) cameo in the new Tom Hanks vehicle. As in The Player, Jaglom focuses on several characters and, as in many Cassavetes pictures, the dialogue feels improvised. If Festival in Cannes is less emotionally involving than 1997's Déjà Vu (arguably his best), it still provides a fine showcase for a talented cast, including Maximilian Schell as Millie's husband and Ron Silver as the producer behind the Hanks project. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (9)

If you're a fan of improvisation, this is among the best
I'm a Henry Jaglom fan and you probably have to appreciate a quality of his films, or at least be aware of it, to understand this movie. For the most part, the dialogue is improvised. With that said, I'm not surprised that a lot of the reviewers here didn't realize this. You might not get the witty lines of a Woody Allen film (as one reviewer criticized), but it's still interesting--and this is key. Jaglom is primarily concerned with interesting dialogue and situations, not one-liners. The fact that the movie stars Hollywood insiders grants the film with a legitimate knowledge over the subject matter. I found this film both funny at times (a scene between Silver and Norman is classic), and touching at times (primarily the scenes between Silver and Scacchi). I don't like all of Jaglom films because not all of them work, but I found this one quite satisfying. Even if the resolution of the plot isn't completely given, it is, at least, implied.

Undefinable
If you look for "Festival in Cannes" at your local video store, chances are that you will find, as I did, that it is catalogued under Comedy, when, in fact, it is not. Nor is it a drama. "Festival in Cannes" cannot really be put into one genre or another, because it really doesn't fit into any one place. Though it shows a very interesting protrayal of Hollywood and the process of getting a movie put together, it can at times drag a little. I began the film wondering when it would end, and ended it hoping for a little more.

The plot is rather jumpy, and doesn't really let us get too close to any of the characters. It mainly focuses on Alice Palmer (Greta Scacchi), an actress who has decided to write and direct a film for the first time. At the Cannes film festival, she meets a sleazy, virtually unknown producer(Zack Norman) who wants to make her dream a reality. The catch: Alice wants the French actress Millie Marquand(Anouk Aimee) to star. However, the producer of another film (Ron Silver), would also like Millie in his film in a cameo appearance. There is also a sidestory in which a young woman(Jenny Gabrielle) is making her first appearance in a film that has become an unexpected hit at Cannes, and is quickly turning her into something she has no wish to become: A star.

Gabrielle's character Blue seemed to have an interesting background, and I felt that her character should have been either more developed, or removed from the film entirely, as it really only seemed to be a confusing diversion from the actual plot of the film. The end doesn't really give you a resolution to any of the conflicts at hand, and left me disappointed. I felt as though I'd been brought to the top of a hill, and then discovered that it just drops off at the end.

But "Festival" does provide an interesting little visit into the world of Hollywood and filmmaking. All the characters, though some were rather ill-developed, seemed like they really could be real people, and I wondered whether writer-director Henry Jaglom had actually based some of the characters on people in the business.

If you're a real movie buff, I'd say give "Festival" a look. But it's really not a movie for everyone, and I'd say it's probably not worth owning, or even watching more than just once.

Characters in search of an author
"Festival at Cannes" is worth watching once, not for its plot but for its fine collection of actors. Everyone seems to be having fun portraying a variety of movie industry hacks, producers, and tired-out stars. These several people wander about in the beautiful south of France town, having various intrigues and minor romances. The film has a feminist edge, as many of the women in the film come out strong in comparison with some of the lost, power-mad men. It should be noted that I never actually cared much for any of the characters; the film's major flaw is that it assumes that just because we have a bunch of interesting characters wandering around, we will end up liking one or more of them. The romance between a high powered producer and an aspiring indie director woman seems particularly unlikely, though the relationship between an older director and ex-star actress is touching and interesting. The film doesn't have much of an ending, it just kind of peters out; however, for the setting and talky dialogue, it's worth a look.

Must be film lover
One really has to love film to respect Jaglom's attempt at satire. Finally, Jaglom entertains without being preachy. I am very surprised at some of the negative reviews because in many ways this film is funnier, wittier and more inside than "The Player". Greta Sacchi is perfect as the actress turned writer turned hopeful director. Ron Silver couldn't be slimier or more sympathetic in the final reel. The end of the movie reminds me of "The Way We Were" but with more realism.

Anouk Aimee is used properly as the star she is, and every supporting actor contributes the right feel for a bunch of hustlers on the Rivera.

This is not a movie to wait for the punchline or for the action...it is a mood piece on the big machine that Hollywood became in the 1980's and in many ways is still today. The 80's were the machine at its worst, but slowly things are beginning to change. Even the blockbusters of today tend to have a little more substance than they used to.....with apologies to Tom Hanks.

NOT THE BEST
Here is a perfect example of a film that had everything going for it but it did not make it. It got lost in Cannes. The best known actors took a part in this film. Everyone was well known and rightly so. Location was perfect. The screen play could make the screen play of the year. The idea was a really good one. So, what happened? Why such great actors didn't know what to do and how to handle the part, and the film was not filmed right and the complecity of the screen play was lost right on the beginning? Where did the passion go? Was it a director? Or everyone thought that they were so great already that nothing else was needed? I don't really know what happened there but in my book this film made only two stars but out of respect for the best I gave it three stars. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

This is a film for theatre people!!!
In the same way that Waiting for Guffman is truly appreciated by theatre people by the simple fact that we've known and worked with people in our lives like the characters in the movie.

This film also exemplifies how the love that is spurned from creating art with people is strong enough to withstand life's trials. A truly inspiring film. This film is also very similar to "Peter's Friends" starring a cast of amazing British acotrs including Kenneth Branaugh (sp?) and Emma Thompson.

This is a movie for theatre people!!!
I understand that most people wouldn't understand or like this movie becuase you have to be a true theatre person to be able to relate to this dysfuntional family dynamic. The love that is spurned from creating art together is something that can cause a lot of the dysfuntion explored in this film, but that love is also strong enough to withstand the hardships. I think theatre people relate to this movie the same way they relate and understand Waiting for Guffman.

but it is a great movie!
I rarely take the time to sit and write movie or book reviews, but having seen all these negative reviews for "Last Summer in the Hamptons" I feel compelled to speak my piece.

What is so powerful here is not the dysfunctionality of the family portrayed within, but what is at the core of this dysfunctionality: it is the inability of its members to walk away from its greatness, its fame within the highest circles of the artistic world. This movie is, in a way, a modern "Buddenbrooks", but it delves much more deeply into the reasons for the family's implosion. From the teenager who is pathologically rebellious because, as she explains to her cousins, it is the only way she can find to establish her independence from this great theatrical institution which is her family; to the brilliant director who, in order to create, has renounced, monk-like fashion, all sexual contact; to the most deeply studied pair of characters: the brother and sister pair who are so caught up in the web of their family, that their own sexual passions are trapped within the family, self-directed in an incestuous relationship.

This is the saga of a family which is admired, coveted, and idolized from outside, yet whose members are suffocating under the weight and tremendous magnet of its fame. It is a family which is the embodiment of Blake's sick rose.

This is a great movie, or a great play; it is a very powerful piece which will stay with you for a long time.

This movie is just plain bad.
Thinking it was an updated Big Chill-type flick with a spectacular cast, I looked hi and low for this movie so my wife & I could enjoy it. All I can say is what a complete waste of time and money - and nothing like the Big Chill! If this movie was one of the year's 10 best (LA Times), a recipient of 4 stars (NY Post, LA Times), brilliant, enchanting & exquisite (60 Second Preview), & finally Two Thumbs Up, than I must have no idea what a good movie is. This was one of most ridiculous films we've ever seen.

I don't live in a big market city and I do realize that some think I lead a sheltered life, but give me a break! What kind of characters are in this flop? Well, there was a gay guy that somehow was able to seduce a guy who wasn't gay. If fact, this confused guy had just slept with the gay guy's sister and she revealed how jealous she was of him because he always winds up taking her boyfriends. HUH? Then come to find out the sister of the gay guy had sexual feelings for him and even acted on those feelings.

There was an actress that had to 'act' as a baby seal at one point and a perform as a leopard to 'deal' with issues in her life.

The only thing the reviewers and I could agree upon is this sentence: 'Perhaps the world's most dysfunctional family.' And how.

If Henry Jaglom is 'the definitive Hollywood filmmaker,' and this film was 'his best yet,' I think we'll heed that advice and never watch another of his films. I'd rather be locked in a room and be subjected to 'Dumb & Dumber' for 108 straight hours than watch this 108 minutes again.

Blah!
I like to read movie reviews in the newspaper, in magazines, and on the internet to find out about movies that I otherwise might never find out about. Over the years, this has led to many wonderful films that I otherwise never would have known about. So, when this movie was releaed, I read several reviews from critics, and I noticed that this movie had gotten quite a few very positive reviews. So I went to the theater and I saw it. Boy was I ever disappointed! This movie is nothing more than a bunch of people siting around talking. Now, if the characters and their conversations are interesting, then that can make for a fine movie. For example, I loved the movie "Smoke" with Harvey Keitel. That movie had lots of interesting characters with plenty of interesting things to say. But "Last Summer in the Hamptons" lacks those good things. The characters in this movie are boring, their conversations are boring, and their lives are boring. And what makes it even worse is that the characters are not aware of the fact that they are boring. Instead, they all think that they are just oh so important. Simply put, this movie is the very definiton of the phrase "artsy fartsy." I think that there must be some kind of a clause in movie critics' employment contracts that requires them to give this movie a positive review and a high rating. Or, perhaps the critics are just trying to pretend that they can see something that the ordinary "common man" cannot see. Well, whatever the reason, the critics are wrong about this one. This movie is boring and dull and the characters are pretentious and boring and dull. And the movie is bad and I didn't like it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Unruly but comically enterprising, Henry Jaglom's comedy Sitting Ducks is spirited, smart nonsense about a crime syndicate's bookkeeper, Simon (Michael Emil), who runs off with a pile of mob money. An essential Jaglom character, Simon is a born naif with no shortage of skewed observations about the world, crime, sex, and survival. Exhilarated, he takes off with cohort Sidney (Zack Norman) on an escape plan leading, eventually, to Latin America. Inevitably these losers complicate their lives by hooking up with a pair of sexy-neurotic exiles (Patrice Townsend, Irene Forest) who bring added dimension to thejourney. The result is a funny, twitchy, but expansive milestone in the early independent film movement, and timely proof in 1980 that the then-controversial Jaglom really was a talent worth watching. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Amazon.com

Long before Sex and the City, Henry Jaglom (Déjà Vu) directed this chatty exposé on women and body image. Sure, there's some talk about men and relationships, but the film's upper-class California females spend most of their time discussing weight and dieting (with stops along the way for plastic surgery, bulimia, and abortion). The occasion is a multiple-birthday party for Kate (Mary Crosby), who is turning 30, Helene (Lisa Richards), who is turning 40, and Sadie (Marlena Giovi), who is turning 50. Subtitled A Very Serious Comedy about Women and Food, Eating plays like a low-budget cross between The Decline of the American Empire and The Anniversary Party. As with the rest of Jaglom's oeuvre, the tone is as self-conscious as Woody Allen, the approach as loose as John Cassavetes. If it doesn't quite hit those heights, Eating provides--if you'll pardon the pun--plenty of food for thought. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (3)

4 1/2 stars: What Women Think About Food
This low budget, thoroughly entertaining look at a group of women gathering for a luncheon party is a rare critique of how women have come to be obsessed with food. Quasi-documentary in form, actresses in this film seems to teeter between acting and reality. Certainly many lines are blurred, and the result is fascinating.

While something of a "chick flick", men will come away from this film with plenty to think about. Whole film is a real conversation-starter, highly amusing and never gets too heavy. Excellent and very unique in subject matter. Amazing how seldom we see people eating and enjoying their food in movies, yet it is such an important part of our lives. Hollywood sense of beauty is blasted between the lines.

Only aspect I objected to was the lack of polish in the production itself. It could have been visually smoother in parts. But Jaglom films always look like this, I suppose. Still a winner.

don't offer these women a cherry pie!
One has to wonder about Henry Jaglom's mother, when he dedicates a film about women suffering from eating disorders to her. This is one of Jaglom's more successful efforts since there is some dramatic conflict amongst the cinema verite talkfest that is his trademark. One might even mistake this film as a documentary with all the to-the-camera discourse. Otherwise his camera is thankfully still, aided by the excuse of a Frenchwoman making a documentary at an exclusively female (and enormously populated) birthday party. Maybe it's a very "L.A." thing but it's shocking how so many beautiful women have food issues, and the association they make with food and sex, and food and love, makes for a compelling (for Jaglom) social study. He begins uncertainly, as the women gather. Jaglom gets a little carried away with cross-cutting, and there is a definite lesbian subtext which turns out to be misleading. But as the film develops our initial judgment of the women presented, as shallow and stupid gives way to depths of feeling and marvel at the openness and emotional accessibility of the female species. As the eldest of the group and the mother of Helene (Lisa Richards), who resides in the house where the celebrations occur, Frances Bergen represents the voice of reason and the sounding board for the confessions. Jaglom cleverly maintains our empathy for her, aided by Bergen's wonderful naturalness, even when her reaction to news of an infidelity defines the survival strategies of women of her generation. In spite of the heaviness of the subject, there is much humour to be found, partly from the women's own insight into their behaviour, and also from the idea of having Helene seek out the mistress under the guise of mingling. Richards' performance improves considerably after she stops pecking. As her predatory best friend, Gwen Welles adds some amusing spite to the proceedings. Her demonstration of the use of a present of anger-releasing padded poles gets a big laugh. It's no surprise to learn of Welles' bulimia since she looks anorexic, and she is about the only one who doesn't seem to think they are "fat". When the birthday cake is cut, no-one wants to eat it. Since the cast is so large some actors get lost in the mosaic, but mention should be made of Toni Basil in Carmen Miranda get-up as an actress quitting her agent ("If Michael Jackson can fire his father ..."); Aloma Ichinose who has a great riff about smoking; and Mary Crosby looking like a fawn and being very I-shot-JR in a bathroom confrontation. I particularly liked the line "I'm looking for a man who can excite me as much as a baked potato".

Offbeat look at women and their eating habits
This movie is hilarious and sad at the same time. Henry Jaglom assembled an enormous cast of recognizable but mostly unknown actresses in this examination of Southern California women and their eating habits. There are three sympathetic characters in this film: (1) the lovely French protagonist played by Nelly Alard, who has come to Los Angeles to do a documentary on eating, finding perfect fodder in the many attendees of a party thrown to celebrate the birthdays of three different women; (2) the mother of the birthday girl whose home is the setting for this potentially disastrous gathering (played with aplomb by Candice Bergen's own mother); and (3) Mary Crosby who is refreshing as the kind and balanced best friend of the birthday girl/host. Everyone else seems to be out-of-her-mind neurotic when it comes to food. I watched this movie in total fascination because I personally don't know any women like these but know who they are (that makes no sense unless you've seen this film). Dare I say it - most of these women are snotty, superficial and whiny, but totally representative of a certain type of woman indigenous to wealth and So Cal. Just view it and you'll see what I mean. We discover everyone's passionate responses to food through the eyes of the film maker, as she interviews each woman throughout the long afternoon. One of the funniest and most definitive scenes in EATING shows three birthday cakes on the table, and one bedeviled slice being passed around as all the women refuse it. The humor in EATING is in recognizing the eating habits/problems that so many women will be able to relate to. It is also the saddest thing about this movie. That, and how nasty and self centered most of these women are. Although there are no men in this film, I recommend anyone, male or female, watch it. Short of a documentary (and I've never seen one on this subject), this film is curious, funny and educational. Jaglom presents a huge cast whose characters are so engaging, you don't seem to lose track of or interest in them. ... Read more

Amazon.com

For over three decades, Henry Jaglom has been traveling a cinematic path unlike any other director's:his noodling, searching, utterly un-commercial pictures (with dialogue largely improvised) are as personal as novels. Venice/Venice is vintage Jaglom, which will spell pleasure for his many fans and exasperation for nonbelievers. Jaglom plays a movie director visiting the Venice Film Festival--with footage captured during one of his visits there--whose romantic fling contrasts with his home life back in Venice, California. Jaglom's needy persona, and his unseemly tendency to linger over close-ups of his own teddy bear face, become tiresome here (he's wisely put others center-stage in subsequent films). But for all the dorm-room philosophizing, there is something dreamlike that emerges from this film as it nears its end. All the self-indulgent nattering does lead to something personal, and though the journey is something annoying, at least it's an authentic journey. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (4)

"Happily Ever After" in a nutshell
Wow - this is the first Henry Jaglom movie that I have seen, but you can bet I'll be seeing more. His interviews with the women and how the movies influenced their perceptions of how relationships "should be" was incredible. In almost every single interview segment, I had a little, "yup, that sounds right" experience. Yes, the romance was wonderful, as was the duality of the Venice, Italy life with the Venice, California life. And I had my own "wouldn't it be wonderful to be floating around on a canal in Venice" point of view. So I was doing exactly what he shows us the movies do! ;) Anyway, a wonderful film, I plan to buy it, and replay it whenever I feel the urge to run after that "perfect man who will sweep me away and solve all my problems."

sometimes even self-absorbed dilletantes hit home runs : )
the only other jagfilms i've seen are hamptons & babyfever,neither of which are NEARLY so good. dualities (man/woman,movies/life, italy/l.a. etc.) resonated through this one poetically,accompanied as they were by that exQUISite music which i pray is released someday (both the score and the marshall barer/david colin ross song halfway thru)! a woman i showed this to remarked, "henry's a jerk, but he's a cool jerk." to which i'd add, "his flick may be bull#$@$, but it's marvelous, transporting bull@#$$." btw, v/v's washed-out light & color palette makes it ideal viewing on a sunny winter afternoon :) vt

Jaglom 101
This film allows the first time Jaglom viewer access to some of the director's best work, w/o the guessing usually involved in exporing an artist for the firsts time. A must for anyone serious about film.

the man has the consistency and essence of vomit
I just saw this movie and would only buy the book if 80 million dollars was at stake. I am a woman, an attractive and intelligent woman and I am completely alienated from his "vision". He portrays only the Cathy Guisewite view of womankind and all woman should chase him down and put wasabi on his oily, phony, grotesquely malformed testicles. I have never been so repulsed by another human.I imagine htis review is not suitable in that I did not suffer it in book form but I feel the need to warn the inoccent. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Nobody mixes sexy and crazy like Karen Black (Five Easy Pieces, Nashville). Black plays Zee, a paranoid New Yorker whose boyfriend has just left her. So when Eli (Michael Emil) picks her up at a cafe, she goes along with it--despite his unfortunate comb-over haircut--and the two engage in a mismatched romance. Can She Bake a Cherry Pie? can be thought of as writer-director Henry Jaglom's version of Annie Hall, with two neurotics trying to find mutual ground for love. Though the movie sometimes gets bogged down in its extensive dialogue, there are moments when both the bickering and the flirting feel remarkably genuine. Black is dynamic and makes her erratic behavior not only convincing but sympathetic. Jaglom delves into the human psyche, sometimes at the expense of story momentum, but you have to admire his willingness to let characters reveal themselves at length. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Amazon.com

The many mysteries of marriage are explored in Always, a movie from love-him-or-hate-him writer-director Henry Jaglom. Jaglom himself plays David, who's about to get divorced from his wife, Judy (Patrice Townsend). But when a notary comes to sign the papers, David and Judy are so affectionate that the notary insists they reconsider over the Fourth of July weekend--a weekend that turns out to be filled with botulism, visiting friends, infidelity, barbecue, and lots and lots of talk about happiness and love. Jaglom's films are notorious for their psychobabble, but generally, just when you think you can't take another moment of narcissistic self-indulgence, something happens--sometimes something surprisingly moving, sometimes something joltingly funny. Jaglom has an ear and an eye for genuine human behavior; his characters can be annoying, but they rarely seem false. By the end, Always may prove to be unexpectedly involving. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So glad to have finally found it on video!
I saw this film back in 1986 (during a Fourth of July weekend no less) and it instantly hit an emotional cord that has rarely been touched since. The home movie-like setting makes this life "tale" so much more realistic! To rate the acting is almost unfair as the turmoil of a couple coming of age is so brilliantly portrayed by REAL life ex-spouses Townsend and Jaglon; one word however comes to mind: Poignant. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED...OR DIVORCED.

Always (not forever)
"Always" is Henry Jaglom's insightful retrospective take on his divorce. Combining poignancy with hilarity, the movie is more in the spirit of Woody Allen than Ingmar Bergman. It begins after a two year separation, with David, (played by Henry Jaglom) and Judy, (played by Jaglom's real life ex-wife Patrice Townsend), sharing their last dinner together as a married couple. The notary (delightfully portrayed by Amnon Meskin), arrives with the necessary divorce documents. He is moved by the obvious affection the couple share for each other. His professional objectivity slips and he refuses to notarize the documents, asking them, "why get divorced?" He insists they think it over, and then leaves David and Judy to spend the July 4th weekend to examine what went wrong in their marriage. They are joined by friends and family, whose relationships are also in various stages of turmoil. The DVD includes an introduction by the director. In every respect, this movie is a joy to watch!

Sadly beautiful!
Since watching this film, I have recommended it to everyone I know. It involves one of the most honest discussions about love I have ever witnessed anywhere. It also does not lack a comical element. Watching Henry Jaglom films makes one want to be a better person, to create better relationships with people. See them all!

Jaglom at his best--DON'T MISS THIS
Henry Jaglom was an independent filmmaker long before it became trendy. His films, which are conversational, have their own rhythm and style. "Always" is one of the best.

Basically, it's about relationships and is centered on his own relationship with Patrice Townsend which went sour BEFORE the movie was made. It's a token to their relationship that she agreed to make this film AFTER their divorce.

Some of what we see during a strange Fourth of July weekend is uncomfortable to watch because the feelings are very real. In two hours, we get to understand what made their very close relationship tick, and why love wasn't enough to keep them together forever.

Add in a wonderful soundtrack of oldies and you have a film about people who could be your close friends. As an another bonus, you get to see a VERY young Melissa Leo (of Homicide fame) making her debut.

Jaglom's films haven't been cheap on videotape so you'd better grab this while you can! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

One of the TOP 10 Women's Movies of ALL TIME!
Like all of Henry Jaglom films, Babyfever will only appeal to the top 20% of the world's population that are intelligent enough to understand and appreciate the genius of Henry Jaglom's films and who actually bother to honestly think about where their lives have been, presently are, seem to be going, and why. This film is a MUST SEE for all who've had children and who still can have children or who plan to have families through alternative means. There has never been a film before or since that maps out the treacherous territory of contemporary motherhood. Those who love this movie should also be sure to read Anne Crittenden's "The Price of Motherhood" for further discussion and exploration of these issues. This film is one of my favorite films of ALL TIME!

what baby food is to food, this is to good Jaglom
Having recently discovered Jaglom's films, particularly Eating, and Last Summer in the Hamptons which featured the charming Melanie Mayron look-alike Victoria Foyt (and Jaglom's wife), I was curious about this title. However the extreme reactions of the existing reviews gave me caution. The format is similar to Eating, where straight to camera interviews are intercut with a narrative. Jaglom's strength is in presenting cinema verite conversations between actors, but since he takes nearly an hour to begin the baby shower that the cast assemble for, we have to endure Foyt with Matt Salinger. These scenes feel improvised to the miniscule degree and Foyt overplays her discomfort, especially when she barks to release tension. Her energy in general here seems lower than it was in Hamptons, and soon her anguish over Salinger and whether or not she is pregant to him becomes tiresome. There is an unnecessary diversion with Zack Norman as the husband of the shower hostess, Norman being the least talented of the Jaglom/Emil/Norman triumvirate. Thankfully Eric Roberts turns up for one scene (odd casting even for Jaglom) as a past suitor and brings some edge. However things pick up for the shower when the film populates. Jaglom amusingly shows us a wall of cascading water to coincide with the confirmed pregnant women, though surprisingly the one with a born child is removed quickly. Foyt is better when she has scenes with the deep-voiced Dinah Henney, and scores a laugh when the aforementioned baby reacts badly to her. I liked Henney's line referring to Salinger, that you can't marry someone who deals in golf metaphors. The range of opinions expressed to camera covers alternative views, including career women with no interest in childbirth, a lesbian couple, women married to men who don't want children, those infertile, and those who believe motherhood has deprived them of careers. We also get a female doctor on hand, who herself looks pregnant, to deliver technical advice which bogs down proceedings. Perhaps the confessions have less depth and reveal less pain than the shameful feelings on display in Eating, but I guess this topic is less prone to such negative emotions. Unlike the end of Eating where Jaglom identified each actor by face and name, there are some quirky touches that I am unable to attach to an actor, though perhaps not being able to identify the singer who delivers some bum notes in her performance is a blessing.

I Couldn't Take It Anymore!
Now, this may read strangely coming from a Jaglom fan, and a young father at that, but "Babyfever" was excrutiating to watch. I made it roughly midway and had to (1) stop, (2) rewind and (3)return. Sorry.

A must for all women between the ages fo 30 and 48
I have watched this about ten times and every time I am overwhelmed at the emotions I feel. I laugh, but most of all I cry, sometimes happy tears, sometimes sad tears, but most of the time because I never saw my feelings expressed before the way they are in this film. Henry Jaglom and Victoria Foyt are true geniuses and this is such a moving and important film. I cannot give it enough praise except to say, buy it and see for yourself. ... Read more