5/10
It was like someones fantasy of what 1967 was.
9 September 2014
Rather than it actually being representational of what 1967 was, to me anyway. I think 67 was a big year for The Beatles & The Rolling Stones-the space race was very in the news as was The Vietnam war. None of those things makes the slightest appearance in this film and thats why I think it is representational of someones wishes about what was 1967-or 1966 for that matter since Valley of the Dolls was first published in 1966.It was an important book because it was-I am told-the first time a woman had even published a large novel (442 pages long) in the USA. Sounds kinda odd since women had been writing books for quite some time-the Bronte sisters wrote Wuthering Heights & Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein when she was 19, well before 1966. Go figure. The only thing that seems to be representational of 1967 in this film is the repeated references to popping pills. The soundtrack was done by Dionne Warwick and is not bad in stark contrast to the genuinely skin crawling numbers done by the cast members but not by actress Sharon Tate who is good in this film, as a daughter who sends money home to her mother but who ultimately kills herself when she is diagnosed with cancer. Sharon Tate was the best part of this otherwise silly movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed