Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Too much of everything

Absolutely Fantastic

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The movie opens in a Swiss hotel in the 1880s, with young Randall emerging from his room and committing acts that justify Oscar Wilde's recommendation that children should be struck regularly like gongs.Then we are introduced to some tangled social relationships involving mainly Cybill Shepherd as Daisy and Barry Brown as a fellow American who wants to be her suitor. They meet in Vevey, Switzerland, and again in Rome. Brown discovers that established European and ex-pat American society considers Daisy reckless in that she waltzes around in public with men on her arm -- sometimes arms -- and is rumored to have been "intimate" with the family courtier. In other words, she'd defying all these mores with her American willfulness. Brown is caught between two worlds and is only willing to remain in this conflict because of his love for Daisy. But even he, an American, is surprised and disappointed when Daisy begins seeing an Italian and smooching him under her parasol. In any case, she solves the problem by malaria ex machina.I understand that Henry James' novella was a slight work and difficult to transpose to the screen. I never read it myself. But it's all laid out in plain celluloid in this adaptation. There are no directorial fireworks. None at all. It's done in the classic style that director Bogdanovitch feels comfortable with. Maybe he uses traditional techniques a bit too much. There are innumerable close ups, more than would ever appear in something by John Ford, Howard Hawks, or Orson Welles. And when a character is about to project some important communication, the camera moves in meaningfully, just so we get the point. The scene in which Brown learns of Daisy's death is very decorously handled though, shot through a lace curtain and rendered in barely audible Italian.But the film has a fundamental problem. What makes Daisy so attractive? Of course Cybill Shepherd is beautiful but that's about it. She prattles on breathlessly like a bipolar in a manic episode. She taunts Brown maliciously. She willingly and knowingly violates the local conventions. That's not American independence. That's self indulgence. Nor does she show any interest in historical structures or art or, indeed, anything else that doesn't impact her body sheath.Watching it, I sensed a painful intensity behind the production, as of trying too hard, but I may be wrong.

This is a film adaptation of Henry James' Novella, "Daisy Miller." It is available on YouTube with annoying sub-titles.Cybil Shepherd more than adequately interpreted James' character, Daisy Miller. Something of an insubstantial flibbertigibbet, Miss Shepherd conveys that with a speeded, clipped speaking pattern. Never mind, the character Daisy Miller has something of a self-centeredness to her, to the point of self-destruction.The other principals were more than adequate, but that is why they get paid the sums they do.Peter Bogdonavich attempted fidelity to James' novella. But an important part of the James novella is the role of the omniscient narrator unfolding the story through interior monologue, a voice over, if you will; but not quite a voice over nor really similar to voice over.While Frederick Winterbourne provides the first person omniscient narrator, the reader is not fooled that this is Henry James speaking through Winterbourne. And James/Winterbourne can make any number of comments (ironic or snide) and observations that do not appear in the overt spoken dialogue of the story line.Look at James' narration following the opening gambit of dialogue: "The young lady inspected her flounces and smoothed her ribbons again; and Winterbourne presently risked an observation upon the beauty of the view. He was ceasing to be embarrassed, for he had begun to perceive that she was not in the least embarrassed herself. There had not been the slightest alteration in her charming complexion; she was evidently neither offended nor flattered. If she looked another way when he spoke to her, and seemed not particularly to hear him, this was simply her habit, her manner. Yet, as he talked a little more and pointed out some of the objects of interest in the view, with which she appeared quite unacquainted, she gradually gave him more of the benefit of her glance; and then he saw that this glance was perfectly direct and unshrinking. It was not, however, what would have been called an immodest glance, for the young girl's eyes were singularly honest and fresh. They were wonderfully pretty eyes; and, indeed, Winterbourne had not seen for a long time anything prettier than his fair countrywoman's various features—her complexion, her nose, her ears, her teeth. He had a great relish for feminine beauty; he was addicted to observing and analyzing it; and as regards this young lady's face he made several observations. It was not at all insipid, but it was not exactly expressive; and though it was eminently delicate, Winterbourne mentally accused it—very forgivingly—of a want of finish. He thought it very possible that Master Randolph's sister was a coquette; he was sure she had a spirit of her own; but in her bright, sweet, superficial little visage there was no mockery, no irony." That dialogue has to be filled in by the camera without commentary; the commentary/observation must be made by the audience which may or may not (mostly not) fill in. What the author saw as important, and the videographer saw as important, the audience may overlook completely. The omniscient narrator gives voice, while the videographer interprets that interior monologue and records in silence.So to say the film is 'faithful' to James' text is to speak to a lie and misunderstanding of the author's intent, the author's aesthetic, something that few films can capture without an extensive omniscient narrative voice over.The movie was worth seeing to revisit James' novella; it was competently produced with competent acting. But as always with any film adaptation of a novel too much subtly is lost, too much reliance on the audience to fill in the blanks, a capacity the audience may lack.

It almost feels mean to criticise Cybill Shepherd for being so unsuitable for this role, as she is so miscast. She plays the Daisy of the title, and is dull. When we first meet her, she's a pretty, spoilt, self-obsessed tease, and that's it. 90 minutes later that's still it. Barry Brown (Frederick) is, unfortunately, equally dull and one-note. Frederick chases Daisy, she teases him, and repeat until the end credits. That's a tough watch - especially when you've seen Ms Shepherd do it before, more concisely. Mr Brown has few expressions which give a hint of anything inside him that we may care to know more about. This film needed stars, or, at least, compelling character actors. The boredom is relieved by occasional flashes of melodrama in Eileen Brennan's eyes (but even they become repetitive), and some lovely photography, but the whole is empty of story, character, history, social milieu; even the dialogue goes on too much and is either commonplace or flatly rendered. There are moments of interesting observation, but there are scant. I shall read the Henry James story on which the film is based and try to work out what it was that the makers of this vacant film were striving for.

What is "Daisy Miller" about? Why did I watch this movie? To find out that what Europeans consider good behavior is not important? Is this something that we have to teach society? I can understand that it may have been important in Henry James's time, but by 1974, this story is extremely dated and has lost its meaning.