rodrig58 And very current, in 2018, after 51 years. Patty Duke is giving a great performance in this. Extremely beautiful Barbara Parkins and Sharon Tate, they are not even inferior. Under the subtle direction of Mark Robson, Paul Burke, Tony Scotti, Martin Milner, Charles Drake, Alexander Davion, Lee Grant, Susan Hayward, they are shining too. A successful film in the 1960s, which resists until today.

Brian T. Whitlock (GOWBTW) Getting into the world of acting is always going to be cutthroat. For three women, it's a common thing. There's one who is a natural talent (Patty Duke), a blonde(Sharon Tate) who can sing, but has limited talent, and a secretary(Barbara Parkins). Once these three got together, it was no stopping them. Neely(Duke), meets a Broadway star(Susan Hayward) who is flat out arrogant, get fired from the show. After a successful telethon, she heads out to Hollywood. However, she falls victim to egotistical behavior, and her marriage is in ruins due to pressure and drug use. Jennifer(Tate) follow the same path as Neely with a different result. Her husband gets sick, she became pregnant, and ends up doing skin flicks to support her family. Like Neely, she turned to drugs as well. Anne(Parkins) also fall into the same trap like the other two. Only she ended up being the strong one. The "Dolls" are considered to be part of the actresses' downfall. And only one that really redeemed herself. The acting is well made. The star quality waa there. I really enjoyed this film very much. 5 stars.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 15 December 1967 by Red Lion Productions. Released through 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening simultaneously at the Criterion and the Festival: 15 December 1967. U.S. release: 15 December 1967. U.K. release: 11 February 1968. Australian release: 1 August 1968. Sydney opening at the Plaza. 11,086 feet. 123 minutes. Censored by approximately 90 seconds in Australia.SYNOPSIS: Filled with innocent enthusiasm, Anne Welles arrives in New York from New England and lands a secretarial job with a leading theatrical law firm. On her first day, she is present at a Broadway rehearsal when a hard-boiled musical comedy star, Helen Lawson, sacks a talented newcomer named Neely O'Hara because she threatens to steal the show from her. Although disillusioned, Anne stays with her job because of Lyon Burke, an associate in the law firm. Lyon gets Neely a spot on a TV show which catapults her to instant stardom in Hollywood. NOTES: Location scenes filmed in New York and New England. On 21 July 1967, shortly after shooting on "Valley of the Dolls" was completed, producer David Weisbart, 52, died of a stroke he suffered while playing golf with Mark Robson, the film's director.The role of Helen Lawson was originally slated for Judy Garland. After 20th Century-Fox claimed that she "withdrew for personal reasons" (a statement denied by Miss Garland), both Bette Davis and Tammy Grimes were announced as her replacement. When Susan Hayward was ultimately signed for the part, arrangements were made for Margaret Whiting to do the dubbing for Miss Hayward's one song number.With gross rentals of $20 million, this movie was equal 4th at U.S./Canadian ticket-windows for 1968. On the other hand, the movie did not figure on either British or Australian top-success lists at all!COMMENT: The womenfolk may dote on this slickly-produced parade of souped-up emotions and super-charged clichés. For us men, however, it's a somewhat disappointing affair. We see almost nothing of Hollywood at work. The book was a sensational best-seller because it reputedly lifted the lid off the private lives of some well-known stars. But all this has been deleted in the film. There is some resemblance between the Patty Duke character and Judy Garland, between Barbara Parkins and Suzy Parker, while Sharon Tate's Jennifer North seems to have originally been a combination of Marilyn Monroe and Anita Ekberg.Alas, even these superficial resemblances in the original novel scarcely exist any more in the film version. All we are left with is a soap-opera plot straight out of a daytime television serial. True, the direction is slick, and the acting very capable (with the one exception of Miss Parkins, who is unable to surmount some very unattractive hair styles).Other assets include lavish production values (though Daniels' color photography, as usual, looks washed-out); exciting special effects incorporating a slice of a French "art" film and an incredibly tasteless TV commercial — evidently intended as a satire, it was taken perfectly straight by the predominantly female audience at the session I attended, — and a few excellent montages of the New England countryside (accompanied by the pleasant singing of Dionne Warwick).

Chrid Mann Have been reading through the reviews here and am amazed that no one has pointed out the thing that is most weird about this film. Which is: that this film is set in 1967 and yet there is absolutely NO pop music in it. Not even in the background on the radio! And remember this is the year of the Monterey Festival, the Summer of Love, Swinging London, Pepper, Forever Changes, Hendrix (the list could go on and on).Some of the other reviewers say this film is 'pure sixties' but no, no, NO! There's a tiny nod at fashion with Parkins' up-market outfits but that's about it. There's no fab gear, no op art, no e-type jags, no mini cars or mini skirts, this is just NOT 1967!This film hasn't even tried to be 'with-it', hasn't even put any 'token' pop or rock music in. You know the kind: 'groovy' party music with Hammond organs and bongos and electric guitars and go-go girls!There IS 'music' in this film, however, a LOT of it. You can't stop it. It keeps popping up to torture you like the monster in a horror movie. Now, I dislike show music, even when it's competent, but this is BAD show music! Others have gone into detail about it so I won't repeat their comments.You can't believe that in this same year you had The Graduate with wonderful songs by Simon and Garfunkel! It's like the makers of this film were on a totally different planet - the planet of Fuddie-duddie!I did watch it all the way though (albeit noodling on the guitar the whole time) and I have to agree with nearly everyone about one thing: Sharon Tate is very sweet.Thanks for reading! Bye!