JohnHowardReid I've not read Sheldon's book but I've no doubt the movie is a fairly faithful transcription. It has all the elements that appeal to the ladies. For a start, it's concerned with the loves and passions of the rich, and it moves – in scenes of incredible luxury – against a background of war, fashion, politics, and even Hollywood. It also has a soap opera plot that relies on twists rather than believability, plus soap opera characters who can turn on emotional fire-works with as little depth as a pizza, and who revel in dialogue that they can chew around and waste a grand amount of time enunciating. And yet, despite everything, this soap opera is so skillfully tailored and fashioned, it's hard to resist its overblown appeal. No doubt the producer had hysterics when he saw the editor's final cut in which he threw away scene after expensive scene of incredible period detail in order to concentrate on TV-style close-ups of the cardboard characters. The producer also went to the trouble to utilize real locations in Greece at enormous cost, but what the editor left on the screen was so minuscule, it wasn't worth even one per cent of the expense. In fact, they would actually have done much better to forget about Greece and simply played against a process screen in Hollywood.

John T. Ryan WE ARE QUITE familiar with this film; having worked part time at the old United Artists Theatre in Downtown Chicagoduring its premierre run. It is quite possible that, had it not been for that circumstance, it would be an unknown commodity. ONE CAN ONLY describe it as a sort of Film Noir Romance Murder Mystery in Full Colour. Is that perfectly clear? AS FAR AS the physical look of the production, it is truly beautiful, bright and colorful. Location shooting and studio sets are all well coordinated and add to the impressive story telling. The exteriors done in Europe are interesting; competing successfully with those of any of the old travelogues.* THE STORY ITSELF, based on the novel by Sydney Sheldon, appears to have incorporated the actual true life occurrences from several different incidents into the scenario. Of particular interest is a Greek Shipping Tycoon; who bears an obvious character resemblance to Aristotle Onassis.THE WELL EXECUTED cinematography includes a lot of sex scenes with a heaping helping dose of "Now you see it, now you don't" nudity. The tawdry bedroom goings on lead us to believe that, rather than being an example of the romantic novel, it is more of an exercise in titillation and celluloid masturbation.WE HAVE RECENTLY read that 20th Century-Fox, its studio had projected that THE OTHER SIDE OF MIDNIGHT would be its biggest money maker of that Summer of 1977 and adjusted its rental price. It had a less higher expectation for another Summer release, STAR WARS, which went into distribution for Le$$ BuckS! NOTE: * For all of those among you (our readers) who are under 60, a TRAVELOGUE is a film which highlights a particular city, state, or country. Typically, one would contain a lot of interesting and varied outdoor scenes accompanied by flowery voice over narration. They were short subjects of about 20-30 minutes in length.

preppy-3 This takes place from 1939 to 1948. An innocent French girl named Noelle (Marie-France Pisier) falls in love with American pilot Larry Douglas (John Beck). They live together for a while then he leaves her and promises to return. He's lying of course and leaves her alone and pregnant. He meets ditzy but intelligent Catherine (Susan Sarandon) and marries her. However Noelle marries a billionaire (Raf Vallone) and decides to take out her revenge on Larry.This was supposed to be a big hit. It was based on a HUGE bestseller by Sidney Sheldon and they spent a lot of money on the production. It was shot on location in Greece, Italy and the US. The settings are beautiful, the costumes great and there's a wonderful music score propelling the movie. Also Pisier and Sarandon are wonderful in their roles. Unfortunately the movie bombed. It's easy to see why. It's WAY too long (165 minutes) and Beck is all wrong in his role. He's supposed to be sexually attractive and dynamic...but Beck can't pull it off. He's a total blank in the role and he's not good-looking at all. Considering he's one of the main characters it totally drains the film of any interest and makes it a chore to watch. I dozed off TWICE! Even worse some of the dialogue is SO bad it's incredible. Dull and stupid. Read the book instead.

sunznc The Other Side of Midnight is often dismissed as being so bad it's good or a lurid soapy drama. I can't condemn the film that easily. When I first saw this I was a young man fascinated with the sex scenes which today seem very, very mild. Is the DVD a different cut? Perhaps. But whenever the film came on Showtime or TV I would watch it. Why the interest? Well, there are many elements that make this film interesting. First of all, the actors. Susan Sarandon, John Beck, Marie France Pisier and even the actors in small roles really brought something to this despite some of the lousy dialogue. Also, the locations. Even if they aren't authentic, the sets seem great and the outdoor shots beautiful. The film switches back & forth between America and Europe and you can't help but become absorbed by the differences in the sets and speech.I think it is also fun to see Noelle's innocence in the beginning and watch her become this bloodthirsty & ruthless person who will do anything to get what she wants. It's a role Joan Collins would have died for!Some of it is very dated today. I recently watched it and laughed every time I saw Marie in her clunky, tall platform heels. Every drag queen would love to have a pair just like that. So, I think people will find some of this very dated and perhaps old fashioned but there is no denying the thrill of watching some of this drama unfold on screen.