Brief Encounter (1974 TV Movie) User Reviews

Should Have Been Briefer...

[xerses13 · 4/10 · 1 March 2010]

Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.

BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.

Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.

Flat film.

[gridoon · 4/10 · 2 August 2001]

Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)

All too brief

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 22 November 2013]

29 years after the first film version of Brief Encounter was made and made stars of Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson this television version with Richard Burton and Sophia Loren was done for British television. My same criticism stands, I would love to have seen Noel Coward and Gertrude Lawrence do Coward's original one act play for the screen.

Both versions are considerably expanded from Coward's stage play. But the 1945 version had a real sense of urgency about it. It was set in wartime where such things if not approved of, at least expected and somewhat tolerated. Updating the play was a mistake, both Loren and Burton in this setting treat their situation as more of an inconvenience.

Of course bringing it back to 1945 would have been impossible because British soldiers just did not bring back brides from the recent enemy's country and no way could Sophia Loren have played the part. And she had to because her husband Carlo Ponti was the producer.

This Brief Encounter is all right, but if you don't encounter it you won't miss all that much.

Ghastly and pointless remake

[James_Byrne · 1/10 · 13 October 2005]

BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs.

Unnecessary. See the original.

[starzinhereyes7 · 11 August 2010]

To adapt and update a film that needs no adaptation is one thing. To entirely miss the point of the original film is another. The main flaw is Sophia Loren. I do not mean to suggest anything wrong with the actress herself – she is simply miscast in this film. Loren is far too gorgeous and exotic-looking for the role. What makes Brief Encounter so heart-breaking is that Celia Johnson, although she grows more attractive as the film continues, is not movie-star pretty. We could therefore easily believe – indeed, we know – that the affair is the most exciting event of her life, that it is the closest her life will ever come to resembling a Hollywood film. With Loren, we could more easily believe that she had once been a model who enjoyed many glamorous affairs before settling down, and she was now indulging in a bit of nostalgia. This leads to another problem: the original Brief Encounter is about love, this is about indulgence. Johnston's character was a housewife with too much time to spare, whereas Loren's character is a social worker. Her dalliances therefore have genuine consequences. Perhaps this could have made the film more interesting, but it instead it makes the film less of a love story and more of a rebuke to the selfish and the self-indulgent. It may have been different if we really believed Loren's character really loved Burton's character, but it seems more likely she was looking for a fun distraction from an admirable job she wasn't especially passionate about. I could find other flaws, but I will leave it at this: See the original. It cuts to the heart where this film leaves a scratch. If you love the original and want to see more of its kind, see A Man and a Woman or Before Sunrise/Sunset. Brief Encounter most likely inspired these lovely films, but they tell the classic story of a chance meeting turning into a love story charmingly and effectively.

Richard Burton and Sophia Loren in Celia Johnson's and Trevor Howard's railway café.

[clanciai · 7/10 · 29 December 2018]

Richard Burton is not Trevor Howard, and Sophia Loren is not Celia Johnson, and although they were two of the world's leading actors, they fall flat to the David Lean version 29 years earlier. The differences are interesting to observe. The David Lean film consists mostly of flashbacks, but there is no flashback at all here. Also there is no Rachmaninov's second piano concerto, but instead there is a very good music score by Cyril Ornadel, which saves the film, together with all the domestic natural scenes of Winchester and its countryside. John le Mesurier plays the part of the friend who drags an ideal love affair to a more banal level of "sordid squalidness", which ultimately shatters the love story. Dolly enters in the last moment to complete the destruction, but in the end we are left hanging, as doctor Harvey here has a wife, who is quite beautiful, and we can't guess the rest. What we miss most of all in this film is the very gentlemanly part of Trevor Howard, replaced by Richard Burton's more embarassed bluntness, and the very English Celia Johnson, who is replaced by Sophia Loren, who fortunately though confesses to her Italianness. It's a good film, but, like most remakes, a bleak shadow to the original, in spite of it being in colour.

A little flat

[HotToastyRag · 4/10 · 21 July 2017]

This movie reminded me of Falling in Love, starring Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro in 1984, since both plots involve two married people falling in love when they meet during their daily train ride to work. In both movies, the affair is built on companionship rather than sex, but when I looked it up to find out if Falling in Love was a remake of Brief Encounter, the director and screenwriter specifically stated that their film wasn't a remake. I suppose in Hollywood, you can get away with something like that, but in my opinion, the original deserved a nod and credit as such. Also, this version is itself a remake of the 1945 Brief Encounter, but at least it gives credit to the Noel Coward play both films were based on.

Brief Encounter stars Richard Burton and Sophia Loren, but for some unknown reason, there isn't much chemistry between the two. And it's Sophia Loren—are we really supposed to believe Richard Burton is only interested in her personality? He's awkward and anxious at best, and she seems utterly disinterested in him, so the overall story doesn't really work. I'd recommend watching the 1984 version instead; it's quite cute.

A difficult watch

[Harthacnut · 6/10 · 25 October 2022]

Not because it's so bad, as many reviewers would have you believe. We should not compare with David Lean's masterpiece. That was a romance. It sweeps us along with period charm, superb cinematography and Rachmaninov's gushing music. This is altogether different. We are disturbed and embarrassed because that's what the "sordid affair" is! We just want the two "lovers" to stop and we hate Dr. Harvey for his selfishness. The goings on of ordinary life - the excellent soundtrack conveys this - is a jarring accompaniment and distraction. We just want the pair to blend back into it and return to their day jobs and, in the case of Anna/Laura, her family. I was glad when it was all over. Good job!

A remake of a different color

[SimonJack · 5/10 · 2 June 2015]

Other reviewers have noted the differences in plot, setting and circumstance between the original 1945 film and this 1974 TV remake of "Brief Encounter." I agree that the circumstances are so different that it's impossible to change the situation of the encounter and make it work. For instance, this rendition struck me rather clearly as the story of an unhappy and unsatisfied middle-aged man putting the make on a beautiful woman he meets. Richard Burton's character, Alec Harvey, is having what today is called a man's midlife crisis. But there's no such sign of unhappiness or uneasiness in Sophia Loren's Anna Jesson. It's almost laughable that Alec declares that they love each other after just a couple of meetings when she shows no sign of anything more than interest in him.

So, this isn't anything like the original play and movie set in wartime England. But perhaps the producer, Carlo Ponti, and/or the director and writers intended such a different situation in a more modern setting. Suppose they wanted the film to be about an encounter in which one person is clearly "on the make," while this other is not, but instead is confronted with the temptations the encounter presents. Then I can see this movie develop as it did. For it clearly shows Anna's struggles after a time. She loves her husband and family, and wouldn't hurt them or leave them for anything in the world. On the other hand, the allure of a forbidden romance with an attractive and persuasive man like Alec leads to her confusion. The film shows this struggle with temptation quite well, I think. But, whether that was an intended redirection of the story, I don't know.

Indeed, some of Anna's lines lead one to believe that that may have been the intent of this film's makers all along. If that is the case, I think they might better have changed the name to divert as much direct comparison that was sure to find many flaws. So, here are some telltale lines from Anna that point in this direction.

"Loving each other isn't enough. Other things matter … decency, self- respect."

"It all seemed so innocent to start with. Meeting by the cathedral. Having lunch. It was so innocent. It couldn't be dirty or furtive. It was like a dream of love. Well, we know the answer now. It is degrading."

Because this film doesn't have the circumstances of the original, it moves very slowly, as others have noted. Some said they found it boring. It didn't quite seem that way to me, because I was interested in seeing how Anna dealt with the conflicting thoughts and temptations. From that standpoint, I like the way the film ended.

But, as others have noted, there isn't much more to this remake. And it can't hold a candle to the quality, plot, direction and story of the original film that starred Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. Still, this film is worth a watch for movie buffs to see two big box office draws of the past in a calmer and more mature setting in later life – and beyond the hay days of their stardom.

Grit in the eyes.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 6/10 · 30 September 2012]

Struggleing to find a suitable present to give a friend for their upcoming birthday,I suddenly remembered,that I had heard a while ago about a near-forgotten remake of one of their fav films.

Quickly searching round on Amazon,and eventually getting past the endless re- releases of the original,I was pleased to finally find a DVD of the movie,which would allow my friend to have a second,different brief encounter.

The plot:

Rushing into a near by tea room to get some water to remove grit that has got in her eyes,Anna Jesson runs into Dr.Alec Harvey,who is sitting in the tea room having a drink before he has to board his train.Leaving behind any thoughts about the train,Harvey makes sure to stay with Anna until her eyes are completely clean.Hearing that the train is about to go,Alec tells Jesson that he sadly has to leave,but would be very grateful towards Anna,if she gives him the opportunity to meet her again soon.

Attempting to leave the memories of her meeting with Harvey behind by trying to get back into her routine life of working at a Citizen Advice Beaure and taking care of her husband and children,Anna quickly realises that she cant resit the opportunity to have another brief encounter with Harvey.

View on the film:

Using a number of good tracking walk and talk shots,director Alan Bridges fully shows the beautiful Winchester location and also shows the tight-knitted,"nosey parker"-ness of the village,which leads to Anna doing everything to keep her deep desire for Harvey undercover.Helping Bridges to create a sense of the tight knitted community,the late set designer Bruno Cesari brilliantly builds an environment filled with tired,worn down objects and interiors which show the spark that Anna is desperate to enter her life.

Despite the adaptation of Noel Coward's play Still Life screenplay by John Bowen featuring a number of distinctive moments which should have truly sparkled, (such as Anna and Alec warming to each other as Alec talks to her about different types of chest infection!) the unique moments in the movie sadly crumble quickly,thanks to the unexpected,disappointing performance from Sophia Loren.

Whilst Anna Jesson is meant to be living a humbled lifestyle,Loren (whose husband produced the film) makes Jesson look like someone who dreams of being a Hollywood star,with Loren wearing heavy make-up and also wearing some less then humble clothes.Along with Anna's appearance,Loren also sadly leaves the character without any of the emotions to pull the audience in to the developing relationship between Anna and Alec.(played by a likable,late replacement for Robert Shaw Richard Burton)

With the many scenes that are meant to show the warmth and nervousness that Anna has for Alec,instead turned cold,by Loren's cold shoulder performance,which leads this to being an encounter that you will want to be as brief as possible.

Lightning did not strike twice.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 5 August 2017]

By 1974, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor were preparing to call it quits for the second and last time (reuniting only for a stage production of Noel Coward's "Private Lives"), and so Burton teamed with the equally legendary Sophia Loren for two films. The second was a version of this Noel Coward screenplay, successfully filmed in 1945 and only adapted for the stage just a few years ago. Their teaming here is not a successful one, lacking in chemistry in an updated version of Coward's script that is old fashioned and dull.

The two are married to other people and meet by chance while waiting for trains going opposite ways. She gets a piece of grit in her eye, and he, being a doctor, gently removes it. A few more chance encounters occur before they start to plan on them. Their spouses are no more the wiser (so they think), although Loren almost reveals all when she asks her husband if he's ever been unfaithful. It's guilt that is their punishment, and what was potent 30 years before seems out of place minus much drama in the sexually free 1970's, even in jolly old England.

While Burton and Loren are fine in their acting, it's the personal relationship between them that seems forced. This happens with every famous actor, and in their case, their legend is too big and their characters too normal to make them as exciting as the legend that was Richard Burton and Sophia Loren, both better when they have more troubled characters. Here, they just seem bored and in a rut, and that doesn't warrant interest in a relationship between them that the audience knows can't last. It worked better for Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson in the original film because they came off as ordinary. One thing I wish at the end when Loren ran into a non-stop talking acquaintance is that she either totally walked away or told the magpie to button her lip.

Beautiful film, brilliant performances

[med77_99 · 9/10 · 14 February 2021]

I don't understand the low ratings for this film. It is quite a treat with brilliant performances by both Richard Burton and Sophia loren. I've read most negative reviews about the lack of chemistry between the two, I am not sure I noticed any lack of chemistry here. Yes the whole encounter and the subsequent relationship is awkward because it simply is. The two characters understand the awkwardness of their fling and choose to ignore it, yet it still feels uncomfortable to them. I thought this is reflected on their emotions and is why viewers interpreted as lack of chemistry, if anything, it is brilliant performances and acting by the leads. Our new generation doesn't understand love anymore, this kind of relationship displayed here is rare nowadays when all the current relationships now mostly involve sex and lust.

I loved this film, a must watch.

A silly crush

[selffamily · 6/10 · 10 March 2018]

I am not a romantic. Sometimes I like to watch a romance but when I found this in a bargain bin, I grabbed it, being a long-time fan of Ms Loren and her work. I can take or leave Mr Burton, his ego always overshadowed any work he did in my opinion, although Anne of the Thousand days was interesting. I thought he came over as a grubbby little mid-life crisis driven man, while she was in a Big Rut despite loving her husband and family to distraction, she was bored. Meeting a beautiful woman and having the chance to strike up a conversation would have boosted his ego no end, and So Dr Harvey hopes to meet her again... and again and before he knows it, he has a massive crush on her. She is flattered, as her husband is preoccupied with life and the kids, whereas most of her maternal duties seem taken over by the nanny or au pair, and she dabbles in voluntary work. As he pushes hard to make this more than it probably is, she is swept along until it's impossible to get out. Inevitably, it cannot last, it is not real and bruised as they are, they must part. I thought she acted him off the screen, however I had wondered if they had indeed had an affaire while making the move - there's no sign of chemistry here. I know he had his health problems but he had become a sad, seedy middle-aged man when he made this - Liz had no need to worry.

Xfinity gave me 1 choice, the wrong one

[coda_william · 1/10 · 24 September 2019]

After watching mrs paltry at the claridge hotel , a terrific film,with its glowing mention of this film, I was looking forward to this, but got steered to this dreadful remake. if you can't understand all the whispering, it is just as well.how could sophia loren fall for a guy with a bad toupee. her husband, playing the boring husband, had more charisma. I'ff have to look for the original

Interesting shots of rural England, but nothing much more!!

[alicecbr · 30 September 1999]

Is it the age we live in, or is it that objectively this is a slow-moving quaint view of the 50's England? Sophia Loren is lovely as usual, and you can't help but think that this film was also a commentary on her private life. Her husband, Carlos Ponti, produced this film. A much older man, he must have had to face the dilemma featured in this movie often. And the answer was obviously always the same: the allure of a sexually titillating romance could not be overcome for a victim of WWII the wonderful stability of home and family, no matter how 'boring'. Definitely a morality tale, 'Brief Encounter' is based on a Noel Coward play which I find intriguing. The movement is slow, the dialogue similarly, and you are left wondering what exactly was missing from her home life that she should turn to this fellow. It's perfectly obvious what's missing from his, when his wife barely looks up from her writing to say, "Our love slipped away so long ago, I hardly noticed it. But why is love necessary, anyhow?"

Thank god it was a BRIEF encounter...

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 5/10 · 21 February 2021]

...I don't think I could have hung around for a long affair!

I was glad to see this film pop up on Amazon Prime. When I was a kid there were two actresses I always thought were the most beautiful women -- Sophia Loren and Lana Turner. So I was happy to see a flick of Loren's that I had seen before. Add in Richard Burton -- not a favorite of mine, but I hadn't watched him in decades, so I thought perhaps I could re-evaluate. Over the years I thought Carlo Ponti did a fine job directing Loren's career...but he sure goofed this time. She was still beautiful (and it's amazing that 47 years after making this film she is still making films!), and I still loved her laugh (which I remember so well from "It Started In Naples" with Clark Gable)...but otherwise, this was a horrible film for her to be in. Burton just seemed to wander through the story. "Nothing to see here", as a cop might say. I expect affairs to have a bit of passion...and I expect Loren and Burton to have a bit of passion. But this film just falls flat. Seems to be just two people in a mid-life crisis...and boring crises at that.

And then there's supporting actor (and here, Loren's husband) Jack Hedley...or as I think I'll call him...The Mumbler. How can actor speak so unintelligibly? No wonder Loren's character was bored with their marriage.

The older version of this film is a classic. This version is a mistake.

Disappointing and weak.

[imbluzclooby · 5/10 · 24 April 2019]

With two very charismatic stars I was hoping to see some major sparks fly. Unfortunately, the restrained British manner which the two main characters possess doesn't build up much from their initial polite consciousness from their first meeting. Loren and Burton really could have made the sparks fly with their magnetic appeal. The chemistry was there, the eye contact was there and the opportunity was there to really see some tension. But why was it so flat? Perhaps the fault lies in the direction. The script certainly offered some buildup, but the action didn't seem to follow or match. Two strangers meet at a railway station. He's a physician and she's a Social worker for a women's assistance bureau. Both admit to being married, but inevitably fall for each other. Burton's character is more pursuant while Loren is more coy. I did like the honest dialogue where both characters weigh and commiserate over the possible repercussions of infidelity and divorce. The outcome being more disastrous for her since she's raising two children. I do appreciate that a story can acknowledge the risks of the situation and all those involved, but that would disappoint those who are looking for a steamy affair to consummate. The affair lasts but a few weeks as the two agree to meet every Wednesday afternoon. They engage in simple outings such as walks in the park or dining in cafes. But when the chance comes for them to get together for that rendezvous finale they are interrupted unexpectedly which destroys their evening and ultimately ends the fling.

I like both of these stars and both possess finesse and class. But their approach for their characters here left me high and dry.

Just like that!

[Chuck-223 · 2/10 · 4 May 2020]

It was called Brief Encounter, when, after looking at each other once, and then into each other's eyes, Richard Burton asked, "You know what's happened, don't you?" Sophia Loren replied, "Yes!" and Richard said, "We've fallen in love." As Tommy Cooper would have said, "Just like that!"

Moral: Some things are much easier to get into than get out of.

Very slow and boring

[sauravjoshi85 · 3/10 · 19 April 2021]

Brief Encounter is a romantic drama movie directed by Alan Bridges and stars Late Richard Burton and Sophia Loren.

The movie was a remake of 1945 classic with the same name.

The movie could've been a decent romantic movie had the movie been decently executed with a decent pace but due to slow pace the movie falls flatly.

The acting was good in fact the acting was superb, Sophia Loren was charming and Late Burton was great. Screenplay was very slow and is the main reason for the debacle of the movie. Climax was average.

Overall if you have a lots of patience then this is the movie for you otherwise please ignore.

An "F" In Screen Chemistry 101

[adkturn · 4/10 · 12 September 2020]

Whatever pathos and drama the director was striving for craters at each turn. Where Lean's 1945 b-and-w masterpiece had elegant pacing, Rachmaninoff's concerto and the inspired casting of Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson as conflicted lovers, this clam of a remake fumbles every pass: a so-so musical leitmotiv, editorial cutting that destroys any sense of a natural unfolding of Burton and Loren's passion, updated screenplay that murders Coward's original dialogue, pointless subplots.

Burton's professions of love might sound convincing if they had been delivered by Irwin Rommel. Sadly, Troilus with a medical degree Sir Richard is not. Loren's performance veers from comatose passivity to frenetic turmoil. And the lovers' interminable stroll through the countryside is better suited to a Xanax infomercial than to the requiem of a love affair.

The ending is such an emotional nonevent compared to Lean's, this remake would have fared better as a parody in the hands of Monty Python.

Verdict: don't improve on perfection.

OK BUT NOT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL

[catsforever-42343 · 5/10 · 13 July 2023]

I only saw this because I fancied watching a Richard Burton film, and I wish I had watched Night of The Iguana or The Sandpiper etc. It was ok, but it lacked the desperate longing of Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson that anyone who has ever been in love knows only too well. My eyes were completely dry which they never are when watching the original. Hey ho, Ive seen it now. I don't think it works in a more modern setting, albeit the 1970s, as it loses something fundemental. Sophia Loren is of course beautiful and Burton's performance is for once quite understated and his voice as gorgeous as ever. My overall view is it was an unnecessary remake of a beautiful original.

Not Brief Enough

[Skylightmovies · 1/10 · 28 May 2021]

And there was I thinking that clipped and proper english accents represented icy, 'stuff and nonsense' emotions. Lean's BE proved me wrong

In this horribly lit excursion, we are told that this is a very attractive man who has everything in 'Good ole first world Blighty' but chooses on a whim to make real its fantasies built on the briefest of moments.

I've always had a problem with Loren's English and here it annoys no end.

I keep expecting that fish mouth to open and close making loud ungainly Neapolitan sheep noises while the rock hard, lacquered coiffed, brown mask slips to reveal the ugly emperor underneath.

And I suspect this is how the studios sold us many Euro actors as 'attractive''. People were unused to foreigners living next door and put down any red flags of repulsion to ''well, they're foreign right?'' An excuse on which Bardot's career was built. Sassoon did not push big hair to hide humungus skulls for nothing.

But this TV knock off was not made to compete with Lean's gentle direction.

It's purpose was far sinister.

The remake attracts curiousty for 70's morals, nostalgia for picture postcard Surrey and permission to deride the folk who lived there.

The railway station is run by the budding imposed demographic - miserable women and immigrants , the carefully chosen male replacement.

The subtext of errant men, boring men, abusive men and slavishly devoted providers is taken for granted as the parade of bug eyed women read their scripts glumly.

BTW - did Rosemary leach say she was 28? Maybe I heard wrong.

Anyway - Burton tries to resurrect the passion he owned in Anne of The Thousand Days but looks like a hungry rat against this hunk of Italian prosciutto. Seventies eyebrows with a fake tan don't do anyone any favours. But the lie must be upheld. Fashion was designed by men for men. Now it's four caterpillars on the brow bone, 34 pairs of eyelashes and swollen toilet plunger lips.

Women were being led by the Loren into questioning their contentment all the way through to ungodly ungrateful selfish thoughts.

One would have thought that this seemingly happy marriage needed spicing up not an adulterous distraction for which we were told Burton and Loren are blameless. Surrounded by money, house, kids , job, the awareness that others were in dire straights did not bring gratitude or emotional loyalty. How disappointing.

This disgraceful copy was to push feminism when it was not needed and destroy the divine feminine. It is funny that real women would never think like this publicly until tall, wide shouldered, silicone pumped, big headed foreign men made it seem exotic. No one had a problem with Danny La Rue, Les Dawson or Edna Everage, but tricksters never know when to stop. Seems the stage and government has always been for free may sons.