So much promise, so little delivery. Considering how much talent was involved in this production, one would expect a great deal more--but there are precious few highlights in this muddled Euro flick. Julie Christie looks good but barely breaks a sweat, Adolfo Celi over-emotes, Michael Sarrazin phones in his performance, and only John Hurt seems to be making much of an effort on camera. None of them are done any favors by Tonino Guerra's bloodless screenplay, and the photography of Otto Heller and Giorgio Tonti is unimaginative at best. The print currently airing on Sundance also seems washed out--the film looks like it was shot in Eastmancolor, but wasn't--and Georgie Fame's theme tune is genuinely wretched. Is there anything here to recommend? Well, Hurt is good, but his character is peripheral to most of the action, and Ron Grainer provides some good music for a bizarre recording sequence that imagines the title character as a wacky hybrid of composers Harry Partch and David Whitaker. Only recommended for hardcore admirers of la Christie.
10 Reviews
In Search of Meaning
FANatic-1021 February 2010
I can only echo what the other reviewers have said of this curious film. I watched it to see one of my favorite stars, Julie Christie, in one of her most obscure films. It is very much a product of its time, rather like a third-rate imitation of Antonioni, but more light and whimsical, or should I say pointless and inconsequential? Its very hard to see what drove Christie to make this, other than I think I remember reading that she owed producer Joseph Janni a last film under a contract...maybe he needed a tax write-off? Oh well, if you feel nostalgic for the sixties its a lulling time-waster, with the always lovely Julie. I enjoyed the last scenes at the Geneva airport, whose look reminded me of something out of Jacques Tati's "Playtime". Plus, you get a look at Michael Sarrazin's butt, but not, unfortunately, Julie's.
Disconnected with Julie Christie
wes-connors5 August 2010
Beautiful blue-eyed Julie Christie (as Catherine Morelli) flies to Geneva for the latest wedding of father Adolfo Celi (as Max), who pronounces himself healthy enough for ten wives. Papa promises Ms. Christie might meet her ideal man - tall, dark, and handsome Michael Sarrazin (as Gregory Mulvey). So, Christie goes "In Search of Gregory". First, she re-connects with brother John Hurt (as Dan). After Christie's bra and panties scene, she listens as Mr. Hurt relates how Mr. Sarrazin's "Gregory" gave him a driving lesson.
This hair-raising driving sequence features Sarrazin climbing out of the speeding car's passenger seat, climbing over the windscreen, and crawling back in to take over for frightened driver Hurt. You probably should NOT try this trick at home, but it's fun wonder how it might work anyway, it occurs about 20 minutes in, and is the highlight of the movie. Unfortunately, after this exciting introduction, Sarrazin's "Gregory" is made lame, Hurt turns from scared to lost, and Christie simply models chic outfits until a slightly picked-up ending.
***** In Search of Gregory (11/69) Peter Wood ~ Julie Christie, Michael Sarrazin, John Hurt, Adolfo Celi
This hair-raising driving sequence features Sarrazin climbing out of the speeding car's passenger seat, climbing over the windscreen, and crawling back in to take over for frightened driver Hurt. You probably should NOT try this trick at home, but it's fun wonder how it might work anyway, it occurs about 20 minutes in, and is the highlight of the movie. Unfortunately, after this exciting introduction, Sarrazin's "Gregory" is made lame, Hurt turns from scared to lost, and Christie simply models chic outfits until a slightly picked-up ending.
***** In Search of Gregory (11/69) Peter Wood ~ Julie Christie, Michael Sarrazin, John Hurt, Adolfo Celi
emptiness, boredom, longing
mukava99131 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Contains Spoiler.
This tale of emptiness, boredom and longing is empty, boring and long (even at 90 minutes, it's long). Co-scripted by Antonioni's collaborator Tonino Guerra (whose credits include L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, BLOW UP) this film resembles that director's work superficially. It's about an idle rich girl Catherine (Julie Christie), whose father (Adolfo Celi) lures her to his fourth or fifth wedding in Geneva by telling her he will introduce her to a fascinating young American named Gregory. At the Geneva airport she sees a poster of an auto-ball player (Michael Sarrazin) and from there on she visualizes Sarrazin when she fantasizes about Gregory. All of the fantasy sequences are insipid and dull; they wouldn't even be worth watching as reality. In the course of the next hour she interacts with her somewhat incestuous, wimpy brother (John Hurt, several years before his breakthrough in THE NAKED CIVIL SERVANT), her father, her father's new bride (Paola Pitagora) and various bit players in her frustrated search for Gregory. But the object of her romantic fantasy has always just left or was expected to show up but hasn't. At one point on her wild goose chase she ends up in a room containing crates of canned Alpine air(!). The warehouse employee opens one for her and of course it is empty. This moment seems to sum up the whole film. From the opening credits onward a pop song is either sung or played in various arrangements as instrumental underscoring. It's actually pretty catchy in a precious 60s sort of way. ***SPOILER***: Catherine finally gives up on meeting Gregory and heads back to Rome. At the Geneva airport she encounters Sarrazin and has a soulless tryst with him at the airport hotel. He is revealed not to be Gregory. After they separate she calls her brother who happens to be on another phone with the actual Gregory but doesn't bother to tell her so. The brother, an immature neurotic who cannot deal with complexity or challenge of any kind, puts the two phones down side by side and walks away, leaving Gregory and Catherine's disembodied voices buzzing at each other without their knowledge. It is then revealed that Catherine and Gregory are standing in adjacent phone booths at the airport (though the camera never lets us see Gregory's face). Catherine hangs up and steps onto an automatic sidewalk and glides away, alone in the huge, cold, impersonal airport. All this just to reiterate the trite observation that modern people are lonely and isolated? This pretentious piffle is worth seeing only because of the magnetic presence of Julie Christie who was at the height of her fame when it was filmed in the summer of 1968. It was deemed so bad by Universal that they delayed its US opening until the spring of 1970. It played in very limited release (definitely in New York City, but perhaps nowhere else) and then vanished until recently when it began appearing on cable channels.
This tale of emptiness, boredom and longing is empty, boring and long (even at 90 minutes, it's long). Co-scripted by Antonioni's collaborator Tonino Guerra (whose credits include L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, BLOW UP) this film resembles that director's work superficially. It's about an idle rich girl Catherine (Julie Christie), whose father (Adolfo Celi) lures her to his fourth or fifth wedding in Geneva by telling her he will introduce her to a fascinating young American named Gregory. At the Geneva airport she sees a poster of an auto-ball player (Michael Sarrazin) and from there on she visualizes Sarrazin when she fantasizes about Gregory. All of the fantasy sequences are insipid and dull; they wouldn't even be worth watching as reality. In the course of the next hour she interacts with her somewhat incestuous, wimpy brother (John Hurt, several years before his breakthrough in THE NAKED CIVIL SERVANT), her father, her father's new bride (Paola Pitagora) and various bit players in her frustrated search for Gregory. But the object of her romantic fantasy has always just left or was expected to show up but hasn't. At one point on her wild goose chase she ends up in a room containing crates of canned Alpine air(!). The warehouse employee opens one for her and of course it is empty. This moment seems to sum up the whole film. From the opening credits onward a pop song is either sung or played in various arrangements as instrumental underscoring. It's actually pretty catchy in a precious 60s sort of way. ***SPOILER***: Catherine finally gives up on meeting Gregory and heads back to Rome. At the Geneva airport she encounters Sarrazin and has a soulless tryst with him at the airport hotel. He is revealed not to be Gregory. After they separate she calls her brother who happens to be on another phone with the actual Gregory but doesn't bother to tell her so. The brother, an immature neurotic who cannot deal with complexity or challenge of any kind, puts the two phones down side by side and walks away, leaving Gregory and Catherine's disembodied voices buzzing at each other without their knowledge. It is then revealed that Catherine and Gregory are standing in adjacent phone booths at the airport (though the camera never lets us see Gregory's face). Catherine hangs up and steps onto an automatic sidewalk and glides away, alone in the huge, cold, impersonal airport. All this just to reiterate the trite observation that modern people are lonely and isolated? This pretentious piffle is worth seeing only because of the magnetic presence of Julie Christie who was at the height of her fame when it was filmed in the summer of 1968. It was deemed so bad by Universal that they delayed its US opening until the spring of 1970. It played in very limited release (definitely in New York City, but perhaps nowhere else) and then vanished until recently when it began appearing on cable channels.
nice set up, bad execution
vandino118 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The always appealing Julie Christie and a very young John Hurt help this otherwise unworkable curiosity. It starts off badly with Brit pop star Georgie Fame warbling a second-rate ballad over the opening credits with a remarkably off-key voice. We begin with Julie Christie in Rome getting an invitation from her father to attend his fifth wedding (taking place in Geneva). But I must admit the invitation is delivered in one of the most bizarre bits I've ever seen or heard of. The invite is on a recording in the shape of a large postcard, and for some reason, Christie's friend has a turntable in the dashboard of his sports car, and he plays the postcard for her. It's so odd it's almost worth catching the film for this alone---and since it's in the first scene you can skip the rest of the movie.
And the rest of the movie fumbles its central premise: Christie becomes obsessed with a man she never meets, the title character. Too bad he's embodied by the Lurch-like dullard Michael Sarrazin. This character should be dynamic and charming and all the things a woman like Christie's character should fantasize about, not a vacuous lump like Sarrazin. His casting sinks the film. If anything, it would've been better to have made Christie the object of a man's obsession---now that would be more believable. Still, it's a nice idea for a set-up, as the stories of Gregory mount up and turn him into a Harry Lime-like mystery man. But the confusion starts early as Christie sees a poster of Sarrazin at the airport and for some unknown reason seems to think that is Gregory (or is she already half-delusional and the film is really about a neurotic young woman?) This continues throughout as she fantasizes about Gregory with Sarrazin's face, even though there is no definite determination that Gregory looks like her Sarrazin-shaped mental picture (we never see the real Gregory). Then, as an illogical late-movie trick, she runs across Sarrazin at the airport and thinks it's Gregory (as do we) and takes him to bed. Turns out he's NOT Gregory, but a complete stranger, yet he looks just like the picture of Gregory in her head. That's the kind of weird idea that could work in a novel, but on film is all wrong. As is this film, including a second helping of Georgie Fame at the end, continuing his off-key warbling. Incidentally, this film was partly made by Universal Pictures U.K. branch but obviously looked like such a dud that Universal in the U.S. never gave it any kind of release here. No loss to cinema.
And the rest of the movie fumbles its central premise: Christie becomes obsessed with a man she never meets, the title character. Too bad he's embodied by the Lurch-like dullard Michael Sarrazin. This character should be dynamic and charming and all the things a woman like Christie's character should fantasize about, not a vacuous lump like Sarrazin. His casting sinks the film. If anything, it would've been better to have made Christie the object of a man's obsession---now that would be more believable. Still, it's a nice idea for a set-up, as the stories of Gregory mount up and turn him into a Harry Lime-like mystery man. But the confusion starts early as Christie sees a poster of Sarrazin at the airport and for some unknown reason seems to think that is Gregory (or is she already half-delusional and the film is really about a neurotic young woman?) This continues throughout as she fantasizes about Gregory with Sarrazin's face, even though there is no definite determination that Gregory looks like her Sarrazin-shaped mental picture (we never see the real Gregory). Then, as an illogical late-movie trick, she runs across Sarrazin at the airport and thinks it's Gregory (as do we) and takes him to bed. Turns out he's NOT Gregory, but a complete stranger, yet he looks just like the picture of Gregory in her head. That's the kind of weird idea that could work in a novel, but on film is all wrong. As is this film, including a second helping of Georgie Fame at the end, continuing his off-key warbling. Incidentally, this film was partly made by Universal Pictures U.K. branch but obviously looked like such a dud that Universal in the U.S. never gave it any kind of release here. No loss to cinema.
"He must be a magician...but I'm not under his spell."
moonspinner5514 May 2016
Julie Christie plays a single, uninhibited lass who travels from Rome to Geneva for the sixth wedding of her wealthy father, who has promised she will meet a dashing, unattached American named Gregory at the ceremony. Trivial vehicle for then-hot property Christie seems to be about romantic delusion and disappointment, but it never gets out of first gear. Christie's flirtatious relationship with her brother (a very green John Hurt) is certainly curious--he appears to be both homosexual and housebound--but Michael Sarrazin is less enigmatic as he is misplaced in this wispy world of lost lovers. Director Peter Wood has an eye for character detail, but no filmmaker could do much with Tonino Guerra and Lucile Laks' exceptionally mild screenplay. *1/2 from ****
In search of a purpose.
mark.waltz21 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Outside of the fact that making this film meant to free trip to Italy, there's no reason for it being. There's really no story, and there's not even a real scene between the leading character of Katherine (Julie Christie) and the title character (Michael Sarrazin). However, Sarrazin and Christie do share scenes with the charscter of Daniel (John Hurt), Catherine's brother, a shy loser who has a difficult time relating to women and only comes to life went around Gregory.
Catherine is considering for the wedding of her father (Adolfo Celi) to a younger woman, and spends the film asking about the elusive Gregory and getting to know her brother, whom one might suspect is gay. In fact, Hurt is the only really interesting character in the film, and the character of Gregory is boring in spite of seemingly having a very vivacious life. The only time that Sarrazin and Christine are even in a scene together is at a very loud and violent smash up derby sequence where Gregory is a driver.
A good looking film on the surface, that's really all this has to offer outside of Hurt's performance. Even the Oscar-winning Christie is sadly dull here. This is not so much a bad film as it is just a pointless one, a huge waste of time that audiences were spared rushing to during the highlight of Christie's popularity. But just because it wasn't accessible to film goers back in 1969 doesn't mean that it's easy to escape now, and curiosity Seekers will regret that they even wasted an hour and a half on it.
Catherine is considering for the wedding of her father (Adolfo Celi) to a younger woman, and spends the film asking about the elusive Gregory and getting to know her brother, whom one might suspect is gay. In fact, Hurt is the only really interesting character in the film, and the character of Gregory is boring in spite of seemingly having a very vivacious life. The only time that Sarrazin and Christine are even in a scene together is at a very loud and violent smash up derby sequence where Gregory is a driver.
A good looking film on the surface, that's really all this has to offer outside of Hurt's performance. Even the Oscar-winning Christie is sadly dull here. This is not so much a bad film as it is just a pointless one, a huge waste of time that audiences were spared rushing to during the highlight of Christie's popularity. But just because it wasn't accessible to film goers back in 1969 doesn't mean that it's easy to escape now, and curiosity Seekers will regret that they even wasted an hour and a half on it.
Odd Little Movie
redanman2 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
08.02.2010 was on TCM today as it was Julie Christie Day
Interesting vehicle for a snapshot of the transitional time set in the very short time of the late 1960's to early '70's when the world fundamentally changed forever. Long before airport security, political correctness and at the start of sex without feeling and/or consequences our characters soldier on in a time capsule.
It is a lovely little look at curious characters and a character who perhaps does not exist. It is a rare period piece of the period that garnered much more attention at the "New Extreme" rather than this hold on of the "Old Guard", an extension of former moralities with a creeping in of the new modern world, almost unaware that it exists.
John Hurt plays a curious little man-boy who is very socially awkward whose role does not become clear until the last 20 minutes. Julie Christie is a divine little character living in a world that may or may not really exist and Michael Sarrrazin, well, he is an idealized character that Adrian Grenier's calls to mind or vice versa.
In the end it was far too long a run for the very short hop. The snapshot of a very small part of that time is indeed captured well, but there really is no story and no metaphor, just a fantasy and not a drug-fueled one. Recommended only for Movie Nutcases.
Interesting vehicle for a snapshot of the transitional time set in the very short time of the late 1960's to early '70's when the world fundamentally changed forever. Long before airport security, political correctness and at the start of sex without feeling and/or consequences our characters soldier on in a time capsule.
It is a lovely little look at curious characters and a character who perhaps does not exist. It is a rare period piece of the period that garnered much more attention at the "New Extreme" rather than this hold on of the "Old Guard", an extension of former moralities with a creeping in of the new modern world, almost unaware that it exists.
John Hurt plays a curious little man-boy who is very socially awkward whose role does not become clear until the last 20 minutes. Julie Christie is a divine little character living in a world that may or may not really exist and Michael Sarrrazin, well, he is an idealized character that Adrian Grenier's calls to mind or vice versa.
In the end it was far too long a run for the very short hop. The snapshot of a very small part of that time is indeed captured well, but there really is no story and no metaphor, just a fantasy and not a drug-fueled one. Recommended only for Movie Nutcases.
One Of My Favorites
tckmek196114 October 2006
Well, I have always loved this movie. I saw it on TV as a youth in the early 70s. I ached to see it for decades afterward. I was thrilled when the Romance Channel played it a few years ago. I love the music in it. I wish they'd made a single of the theme song. I also like seeing the 60s European scenery. I originally saw it because I was a Michael Sarrazin fan. Because of it I came to be a fan of John Hurt. I've enjoyed watching John Hurt age and become a big star afterward. I also appreciate Julie Christie too. And I like Adolfo Celi! He just brightens up the whole thing. Don't be dissuaded from watching this. Check it out and form your own opinion.
I love this film.
nickrogers196929 May 2009
I saw it as a teenager maybe 15 years ago. I've searched high and low for it ever since then. It was nowhere to be found, the forgotten film, if it had not been for Julie Christie in it.
She's absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film with long brown hair and long slim legs. I wonder why she made it. She was a huge star then and this film isn't much, a little trifle of a movie. The story is so slight it leaves a lot of space for Julies beauty.
There's a nice pleasant Sunday atmosphere in the film. I remembered it as much more gloomy but it is more of a romantic comedy, although with a very slow pace. We don't learn much about these beautiful and rich people who are not completely spoiled and quite charming. What I remembered after the first time I saw it was how empty their lives are. You can't feel sorry for them, though.
I would like to thank the people who made this film and wonder what it felt when it just disappeared. I wish this film was more known and loved. Films like this don't get made anymore. I can see why it wasn't a hit since no one comes out happier, neither the characters nor the audience.
The script was by Tonino Guerra, the same man behind "Blow Up". This can explain the brilliant and poetic ending to the film, set at an empty airport, which made me always remember "In Search of Gregory", love it, and start my own search for it.
She's absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film with long brown hair and long slim legs. I wonder why she made it. She was a huge star then and this film isn't much, a little trifle of a movie. The story is so slight it leaves a lot of space for Julies beauty.
There's a nice pleasant Sunday atmosphere in the film. I remembered it as much more gloomy but it is more of a romantic comedy, although with a very slow pace. We don't learn much about these beautiful and rich people who are not completely spoiled and quite charming. What I remembered after the first time I saw it was how empty their lives are. You can't feel sorry for them, though.
I would like to thank the people who made this film and wonder what it felt when it just disappeared. I wish this film was more known and loved. Films like this don't get made anymore. I can see why it wasn't a hit since no one comes out happier, neither the characters nor the audience.
The script was by Tonino Guerra, the same man behind "Blow Up". This can explain the brilliant and poetic ending to the film, set at an empty airport, which made me always remember "In Search of Gregory", love it, and start my own search for it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
