daoldiges This film is occupied by a great cast and is full of interesting characters and performances. In particular I enjoyed Hepburn's Violet Venable, her eccentricities and open scenes in the garden, especially with the Venus Fly Trap. The story is a bit veiled to make palatable for the times but overall I think its still expressed affectively. Being based on a play it does feel a bit stagey at times. It also feels a bit melodramatic at times, but despite these shortcomings I found this film very interesting and entertaining. It's definitely not for everyone and I guess I could identify it as a guilty pleasure, but for those who are curious I think you should give it a try and judge for yourself.

bombersflyup Suddenly, Last Summer was mostly uninteresting due to its story line despite the solid cast.The present day situation of Mrs. Violet wanting to lobotomize Catherine is interesting enough and the acting is solid, but the reason for it all and the resolution of story is ludicrous and uninteresting.

gkeith_1 Spoilers. Observations. Opinions. Riveting. Elizabeth brings a great method emotional extravaganza toward the end. Her monologues before that are also quite interesting. Katharine is really the crazy one. You can see that she was in love and lust for her son. Clift had the wallpaper role. He was mild. He stood in the background while the two lead women chewed the scenery. The mother was ridiculous and totally cowed by Hepburn's character. The creepy boys were totally bizarre. These are all great character studies.

smatysia Another Tennessee Williams drama, rich with conflict and symbolism. I'll not offer a plot synopsis, as many previous commentators have done so, far better than I could. There were exceptional performances, as one would expect, from Elizabeth Taylor and Katherine Hepburn. A more pedestrian performance from Montgomery Clift, and an interesting Albert Dekker playing a bit against type. The events begin with revelations of Hepburn's Violet Venable and her creepily inappropriate relationship with her adult son, a "poet". While almost certainly not actually incestuous, it was weird and icky. It turns out that the son was gay, a not really open concept in 1937, or 1959 for that matter. There appears to be a lot of Freudian symbolism, which was much in vogue at the time, and I recommend reading the comments on the message board for a lot of thoughts on that. But the film, while having a fair amount of monologues, as adaptations from theater often do, is still an intense psychological drama.