Perfect cast and a good story

Lack of good storyline.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Despite solid competition from Scott Fitzgerald and Irwin Shaw John O'Hara was the indisputable Master of the American short story in the twentieth century. In a career spanning just over forty years (1928-1970)he could skewer a person/situation in 750 to 1,000 words as his earliest New Yorker stories demonstrate. During the last decade of his life he published six outstanding collections of stories with each one boasting at least one (and often more than one) 'long' short story (another form he had mastered in the early thirties with his prize-winning long story 'The Doctor's Son'. 'Natica Jackson' dates from his last decade and in fifty + pages O'Hara nails thirties Hollywood to the wall in a combination of narration and dialogue which tells us all we need to know about how Hollywood works. This occupies about four fifths of the story leaving only one fifth for the story of Natica Jackson, a high profile star who, in the wake of an auto accident, falls in love with a research chemist with tragic results. Hitherto happily married with two children the chemist reciprocates Jackson's feeling with the result that his wife, in an act of revenge, calmly takes their two children out in a boat and drowns them making it easy to dismiss Natica Jackson as a modern take on Medea. It is, of course, so much more but the screenplay reverses the original ratio making Natica four fifths of the story which was probably wise as most film-goers/television watchers, unlike myself CAN get enough of Hollywoodiana. As an example of O'Hara's writing it is invaluable.

Missed this TV film and recently obtained the DVD for One Buck and thought it was a very well produced and directed film. The film portrays the 1930's and you will see all the antique cars, fashions and old furniture. There is an older film producer and his wife who have been around Hollywood for a long time and his wife Goes One Way in the marriage and he goes The Other Way. If the husband likes a young innocent gal looking for stardom, he eventually puts her on a casting couch and nature takes it's course. Michelle Pfeiffer,(Natica Jackson),"What Lies Beneath",2000, is a big Hollywood star who has had many men, but finds herself falling in love with a man who has a wife and several children. There is plenty of romance, drama and typical Hollywood problems in the 1930's.

I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.

Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.Here Kitty, Kitty...Tom Willett