They All Laughed (1981)

Sorry, this movie sucks

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

I usually avoid criticizing other movie viewers' comments. After all, we are all different people with many different tastes, interests and appeals. But, when I see a film with a wide split of opinions – most strongly of one view or the other, I wonder if there isn't something to account for such a clear difference. This film is a good example. As of the time of my writing here, very few place "They All Laughed" in the middle range. Most find it devoid of plot and screenplay, or they love it for reasons that aren't clear – in spite of the film's lack of a plot. I think I've discovered how this could be. It's due to one of two situations. First is a viewer who thinks this is one of the best movies of the 1980s. By a stretch of the imagination, one might be able to see how someone who has been isolated in a Siberian gulag for 30 years gets released and the first thing he or she sees is this 1981 movie. Some of us might think we were still being tortured. But, with nothing else to compare it to and not having seen a movie in 30 years, some might conceivably think this is a good movie. Still, to consider it great would suggest to me likely frostbite of the brain. Second is a viewer who thinks this film is highly underrated (at 6.2 to 6.4). I can see that after dozing off, waking up, dozing off again, and repeating this several times while watching this film, one might feel that he or she hasn't seen the best of the film, and therefore one must have missed some of the best parts. Still, after backing it up to replay it, and having the same thing happen again, and then again, and even another time, one should get the message that the film is a "napper." That is, it was made to be shown during siesta time. If that's what one means by underrated, then I must agree. I highly recommend this movie for insomniacs, and for all others who must have a little noise in the background in order to go to sleep. Now, for a less serious note. My three stars are for the scenes and street shots in New York. They were the only thing about this film that is any good. But, because there is no paucity of Big Apple scenes in the realm of filmdom, I can give it only the three stars. The cast is a good collection of actors, but actors with empty roles and poor or no scripts are like bobbers floating on a lake that aren't attached to the fishing line. They may look colorful from the shore but they won't dangle the bait to lure the fish and hook a catch. I don't know which there was more of for Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazzara – no lines, or poor lines. The sad note about this film is that it is one of several mediocre to poor films in the last 10 years of Audrey Hepburn's career. The petite-figured Hepburn was beloved by fans and movie buffs everywhere during the first 15 years of her relatively short career. She became a great humanitarian and ambassador for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). She was just 63 when she died of a rare cancer that spread from her appendix. It was discovered just three months before her death, and doctors determined that it had been spreading for years. Hepburn seemed to age markedly in her last 10 years – as seen in this and her other films, which may have been due to the cancer in her body. Thankfully, generations to come will have a portfolio of some outstanding Audrey Hepburn films from the 1950s and 1960s. And, the few bombs such as this one will slide into oblivion.

How this film could get a rating of 6.2 on this site is a mystery to me. It's crystal clear why this film bombed upon release. It's the least funny romantic comedy ever made!The people who worked making it had a little too much fun and thought they were being adorable. There's hardly any plot - just people falling in love and bantering. So many bad ideas, especially the title which is so inappropriate it actually fits this terrible comedy!Bogdanovich was too much in love making this film, blinding him. It's embarrassing to see him trying to put himself in the movie in John Ritters character and having Colleeen Camp pretending to be Cybill Shepherd pretending to be a screwball comedienne!What makes this film interesting, though, is all the beautiful women displayed in front of the camera. Audrey Hepbun, Patti Hansen and Dorothy Stratten are gorgeous. Then there are the horrifying ones like the one playing the kid in the film and...Blaine Novak.

Most of the major actors here do their best with not much to work with. The plot is nonsensical and way over the top. The dialogue seemed to be written by an amateur even though Peter Bogdanovich actually wrote it. This is supposed to be a romantic comedy. If so it's a comedy without any comedy and not much romance. The saving grace here is the nostalgic factor. Watching Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazarra is a pleasure and in a different movie they may have further contributed to their impressive careers. In this mess, their scenes are impressive to watch precisely for their skill but what their characters do defies logic and you simply just don't buy it. John Ritter is very good and Dorothy Stratton holds her own because all she really has to do is look gorgeous. Collen Camp is, at best, mediocre and the weakest link in this cast. This film is only for film buffs who want to relive an era and marvel at the grace and charm of Ms. Hepburn. They may have all laughed but they weren't watching this movie when they did!!!

I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.