User reviews

Many reviewers here seem to have confused the story and characters with the film and the actors.

Yes, Daisy in the film is rather flat and monotonous. But that's a high compliment -- that the ravishing Cybill Shepherd could so accurately portray such a flat character. Henry James at one point describes Daisy's expression as a "light, slightly monotonous smile", in another her voice as a "little soft, flat monotone". He says late in the story that "there was always, in her conversation, the same odd mixture of audacity and puerility". No, she wouldn't be a very pleasant person to be around for long. But that was part of James's point: that our attraction to people (especially those of the opposite sex) often defies reason. Shepard makes the point well.

Some have commented that they wished the story had been filled out. Some of those apparently haven't read the story. One of those critics even places the story wrong by forty years. Though called a novella, it's barely more than a short story. In fact the film does a remarkable job of portraying the events and (more importantly) the characters very much as they are in the story. The great majority of the dialog in the film is verbatim from the story.

In some instances, the scenes and characters were significantly expanded from the James story. How far should a director go, if the aim is to film a classic story, not just to make something derived from that story? James's characters were pretty flat, a lot flatter than those in the film. One could justifiably criticize the film for telling the story far better than James did.

Do you think James's story is dated and flat in the modern world? Well, in many ways so do I. A polemical assault on discrimination based on manners and birth is truly dated. Yet an assault on personal discrimination remains fully current. The modern world is certainly not devoid of personal discrimination. Perhaps it's not often so ugly, not in the first world anyway, but prejudice is very much alive.

James's story is also unsubtle: two groups of people with differing views, one person caught with one foot in each camp, unhappy results. That's about it. Should one film the classic story, or build something different? It's a choice; great films have been made both ways. The choice for this film was unambiguous: to film the classic story.

The photography is truly gorgeous -- the film (at least the outdoor parts) was shot on location in Vevey, Switzerland and Rome, Italy. Despite the long stretches of dialog, including Daisy's run-on commentaries, one need not strain to understand the words. If the story were as good as the production and acting (several good performances) then this would be a 10. The faithfulness to the original weights it down.

Had this movie been free standing or based on a different book, it could have turned into a dramedy, and been a more cheerful story. As it was, the scenery was stunning, the costumes wonderful, and Cybil Shepherd deserves a lot of credit for her portrayal of Annie ("Daisy") Miller, the flirtatious, free-spirited American girl who's innocently trying her wings in Europe, unwittingly getting a not-so-innocent reputation. Her acting was great (and if she managed to say all those rapid-fire lines in the beginning without resorting to cue cards, she deserved an Oscar just for that), she looked stunning in the 19thc dresses, and she had a very nice singing voice, too.

Bary brown did a good job as her bewildered suitor, Winterbourne, who can't quite figure out what sort of girl she really is, and gets more than enough advice about her, whether welcome or not.

Duilio Del Prete, who played Winterbourne's rival, Giovanelli, played his part well, and had quite an operatic voice, as well. There are some familiar faces here, like Chloris Leachman, who plays Daisy's nervous, rather airheaded mother, while the famous Mildred Natwick is Winterbourne's aunt, who tries to make him see Daisy's unsuitability as a potential wife, as does Eileen Brennan, who plays social leader Mrs. Walker, whose word can make or break anyone wishing to climb the social ladder.

Do you trust your instincts and listen to your heart, or do you take appearances at face value and think with your head, while listening to those who apparently know? Or do they???

Excellent adaptation of the Henry James story about a willful girl in Europe and the price she pays.

Peter Bogdanovich does an excellent job in recreating the long-ago world when Americans of means made "the grand tour" and saw everything there was to see in Europe. The leisurely world of the moneyed classes before World War I is beautifully realized here with breathtaking scenery, sets, and costumes. Just perfect.

This film has been unjustly maligned for more than 30 years and needs to be re-assessed. The cast is just about perfect.

Cybill Shepherd is the perfect Daisy. A naive girl from Schenectady who talks nonstop and flirts with all the men. The old women among the expatriate set think she's wicked, not very innocent, etc. But the callow American-born Winterbourne (Barry Brown) who has been educated in Geneva falls for her simple ways and beauty. Is she a mantrap? Or is she just what she seems to be.... a slightly silly girl who is a little too headstrong? Shepherd chatters and flirts to perfection, leaving Brown a flustered and confused suitor. Cloris Leachman is the ditzy mother. Mildred Natwick is the world-weary aunt. Eileen Brennan is the catty widow. Duilio del Prete is the "little Roman." Several scenes are standouts: Shepherd singing "Maggie" is a highlight. She sings nicely and is beautifully framed in a large window. The "spa" scene with Natwick and Brown is hilarious as the various "bathers" loll about in the hot-spring pool with various items floating about on inflated pillows. The aunt and nephew are taking tea while two old men play chess.... A vase with flowers drifts by... Oh so languid and leisurely an age. Og course being a Henry James story, poor Daisy does get her comeuppance.

The film is a total treat, filled with good acting and humor and those gorgeous views of Vevey, Switzerland.

For his first film un color Peter Bodanovich chose a most curious and arcane subject, 19th century novel by Henry James. Daisy Miller on screen is an Americaniized version of onr of those films that the Merchant-Ivory team do so well with for British subjects.

Our title role is played by Cybill Shepherd and Daisy is a rather ingenuous girl traveling with her mother Cloris Leachman and much younger brother James McMurtry. They're over from, Schenectady where the father made big money and employed a lot of the town.

The Millers are the subject of much gossip by other expatriate Americans like Mildred Natwick and Eileen Brennan. Mainly because they don't know the ropes and Daisy scandalizes them by going out unescorted and with European men who are after American virtue and money.

Barry Brown is Natwick's nephew and an expatriate student. He's the only one who finds Shepherd intriguing, but won't break convention.

Shot on location in Switzerland and Rome the film really captures the look and feel of 19th century Europe. Daisy Miller got an Oscar nomination for costume design. It's beaitifully crafted and sad that the film did not do so well at the box office.

I guess Henry James was out of season.

Based on Henry's James novella, Peter Bogdanovich brings us a period dramedy about American high society in Europe of the 19th century. Daisy (Cybill Shepherd) is a strong willed young heiress, a woman out of her time who isn't afraid to tease and flaunt authority figures as well as men, much to the chagrin of 'polite' society. Fresh faced yuppie Frederick Winterbourne (Barry Brown) tries to wrap his head around this unusual young woman as they tour around the beauty of Italy and France.

While it may be dramatically lacking, there's something breezy, cheeky and appealing about Bogdanovich's once maligned film, much like its title character. Off the bat, the production values are stellar: it's sumptuously photographed with excellent period detail as we go around the sun drenched country and old cities of South Europe. Also, Bogdanovich doesn't shy from long takes, allowing actors to build up a lot of chemistry and back and forth between them as they banter about society and the landscape, which of course, masks their real intent. James' writing, adapted by Frederic Raphael, is laced with subtext while being rather amusing, especially by the usually stuffy nature of period pieces.

Now, one thing made fun of back during the original release was Shepherd's performance, seen as too ditsy and airy, but I disagree. Shepherd's skills as a comic actress allow her to be somewhere between cunning and insolent, as befitting such a character, and she works well with the far more straight, traditionalist Brown as Winterbourne. Supporting them capably are the likes of Cloris Leachman as Daisy's dotty mother, Mildred Natwick as Daisy's stern aunt and especially Eileen Brennan as the prim, snobby socialite Mrs Walker who serves an ideological counterpoint to Daisy and does it superbly.

What ultimately does hold back 'Daisy Miller' is, ironically, the material itself: it isn't terribly cinematic, beautiful as the landscape is. James' story is very heavy on dialogue and situation as opposed to action, making it feel more like a stage play in style than a screenplay. 90% of the film is characters just waxing philosophical and discussing gossip and combined with the comic slant, does take down any real dramatic stakes as there's not much to lose for our lead other than 'respect'. Bogdanovich seems to have embraced the cheek of Daisy moreso than any sort of deeper satire of social structures and the pomp of Americans which the story clearly leans towards. That being said, it was still rather enjoyable. Long before the Merchant Ivory years made frills and carriages a must for cinema, a sense of humour and the strong cast make this pleasant, if not particularly demanding, viewing.

An adaptation of the novella by Henry James (by Frederic Raphael), this stars the lovely Cybill Shepherd as the title character. Annie P. Miller, a.k.a. Daisy Miller, is an American taking a tour of Europe with her dotty mother (Cloris Leachman) and her annoying, bratty kid brother Randolph (James McMurtry). Frederick Winterbourne (Barry Brown), a young man studying in Geneva, finds himself taken with her, but at the same time he's turned off by her outspoken, carefree attitude. In fact, Daisy does indeed set tongues wagging with her liberated ways in the high society of 19th century Italy. Frederick does try to talk some sense into her, but she won't be deterred from living life her way; she actually regards him as being something of a stiff.

Produced & directed by Peter Bogdanovich, this so-so film certainly *looks* great, with excellent set & costume design and use of locations. But it never really takes an emotional hold, at least not on this viewer. The cast, in general, is good: also appearing are the amiable Duilio Del Prete as the gregarious Mr. Giovanelli, Eileen Brennan as the disapproving Mrs. Walker, Mildred Natwick as Fredericks' similarly conservative aunt Mrs. Costello, and George Morfogen as the manservant Eugenio. Brown does a fine job in his co-starring role, but this adaptation can't overcome the miscasting of Shepherd. She's able to get out reams of dialogue in a breathless manner, shows some charm, and sings quite nicely, but she's simply not a good fit for this sort of setting or material.

The material does have potential as a portrait of irreverence and individuality in a time of strict manners and morals, but overall it doesn't quite hit the mark, despite the best efforts of the crew and supporting cast.

Six out of 10.

It's been said that Peter Bogdanovich's ruin as a director was when he ditched his wife and artistic collaborator Polly Platt for ingénue Cybill Shephard. Platt had worked with Bogdanovich on all his early successes; after they parted company, Bogdanovich's career promptly slipped from the heights of a wunderkind to a has-been pursuing epic folly. "Daisy Miller" is one of his follies.

I found the film unwatchable, primarily due to the poor acting. I then tried to watch the film for Bogdanovich's commentary, since I find his books such as "Who the Devil Made It" to be very informative. It didn't help.

In his comments on the DVD, Bogdanovich praises Shepherd's performance and that of the juvenile James McMurty as Daisy's brother Randolph: both are execrable. Shepherd, at least, is a looker, but McMurtry gives an amateurish performance. Bogdanovich tells us that he cast leading actor Barry Brown after he and Shepherd interviewed him and liked him. He praises Brown's performance in the film, another bellwether indicating that Bogdanovich is -- and was -- painfully out of touch with the reality of "Daisy Miller." Brown promptly returned to obscurity after "Daisy Miller." You can see why watching his performance: He has no weight, and no voice, no real PRESENCE.

Obviously, Brown was cast so as not to overwhelm the relatively talentless Shepherd in her "breakthrough" role. (Bogdanovich, always the name-dropper, recalls that Orson Welles said that Shepherd was "born to play the role." Does he understand the irony of Welles' comment? That Daisy Miller is a flighty light-weight?) The name-dropping Bogdanovich points out that Cloris Leachman, who plays Daisy's mother, won an Academy Award. If you consider Leachman's career, you realize that that role was her sole outstanding work in motion pictures. While she won multiple Emmies in TV as a comedienne, TV acting in comedy is not equivalent to the rigors of dramatic cinema work: just check out the career of Shepherd, generally considered a talentless washout in motion pictures but honored as an "actress" in the TV comedy genre with four Emmy nominations. Leachman is not up to playing Mrs. Ezra Miller; she lacks the gravitas. Why isn't Joanne Woodward playing the role? Woodward or Lee Remick, so notable in the Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvala adaptation of Henry James' "The Europeans" (1979), could have brought some needed weight and class to the film.

There is nothing of weight in this film, aside from the lush costumes and beautiful scenery. This film needs to be anchored by fine acting to get across the psychology and internalized conflicts that are critical to James, but it does not get it from the principals. Shepherd was, and is, a fashion model in this film. There is nothing in the acting, aside from Mildred Dunnock, to attract and hold your attention.

Bogdanovich whines in his commentary that audiences just didn't "get" this film, aside from Harvard students (Bogdanovich is forever the snob) who saw a screening and who had read the James' short-story. He continues whining that it wasn't until much later, with the Merchant-Ivory films, that Henry James came into vogue (as if this was all a matter of fashion!). NOTE: There were 26 films and TV plays based on James' work before "Daisy Miller" appeared, and 39 more after-wards. Boggdanovich's film was one of four James works in 1974. So much for the audience not "getting" Henry James!)

Bogdanovich is as clueless as a commentator on "Daisy Miller" as he was as the film's director. The film is AWFUL and AWFUL precisely because of the director. He doesn't know how to bring out the film's theme.

Bogdanovich tells us that the main conflict is that the character of Winterbourne is guilty over the seductions he has made in the past, and that he assumes that the innocent Daisy is as corrupt as he is. (Bogdanovich also says that Winterbourne remains clueless throughout the story, a clear case of projection of the director's own state of mind about his own film, about his own "Daisy Miller.") In the scene, with Dunnock, in which this thematic point is "made," we watch Brown twirl his mustache to indicate his great experience with women, as if he were some 1920s silent-film Lothario. Dunnock has to do the heavy-lifting via dialog in the scene. Yet, nothing comes across as Brown doesn't have the chops to indicate the existential state of his character.

Brown is supposed to be WORLDLY! according to Bogdanovich. (In an early scene, Daisy's brother Randolph doesn't believe Winterbourne is American, mistaking him for an Englishman or a German. Was it Barry Brown's California accent that fooled him? For a person supposedly raised in Europe and schooled in Geneva, he sounds like he strayed remarkably little from Brown's hometown of San Jose.) Well, Brown's Winterbourne doesn't come across as worldly, or a guilty seducer; he comes across as a spoiled little boy, not much older emotionally than Randolph. Far from being a corrupter, he comes across as a brittle, timid soul who would be startled and severely off-put by the sound of a servant passing gas!)

Rather than being the cornucopia of riches that is a Henry James novella, Peter Bogdanovich's "Daisy Miller" is a sad sack film made by a sad sack of a director whose strings were unraveling without his collaborator Polly Platt to draw them tight.

This film should be viewed in film schools along with the Bogdanovich-Platt "The Last Picture Show" (1971) to debunk the "auteur" theory. Bogdanovich's career gives truth to the contention that film is an industrial process with many "authors," not just one (the director). If the auteur theory were true, Bogdanovich would have returned to form eventually and produced more good films, if not another masterpiece.

He didn't -- he didn't even come close. Bogdanovich will remain a footnote in cinema history, more valuable for his contributions to the literature of film than the medium itself.

I strongly disagree with the limited, parochial, and dismissive comments of other reviewers' comments. Daisy Miller is a superb and literal adaptation of the Henry James novella. It is still a joy to watch and enjoy this period piece which is perfectly cast. I completely agree with Orson Welles that Cybill Shepherd was born to play Daisy Miller. Her performance is effortless and she aptly embodies Daisy in both looks and spirit. Bogdanovich was right on the mark with the casting of Ms. Shepherd. While it is true she was his girl friend at the time, it is also true that she was perfect for the role. Her interpretation involves rushing through the dialogue as if she couldn't wait for a response so she in turn could reply and in this case it is exactly what Daisy would have done. Cybill Shepherd was at the apex of her beauty and talent in Daisy Miller. She had just starred in three great American films-Last Picture Show, Heartbreak Kid, and Taxi Driver. Daisy Miller could easily be considered along with the three aforementioned film. When I am bored with high tech films, loud action adventure films, and post modern films, I often return with great pleasure to the sumptuous and beautifully realized Daisy Miller.

I agree with the reviewer who finds Ms. Shepherd utterly wrong for the part, and quite destroying the film. Henry James is a much more subtle portraitist of Americans abroad during that period than either actress or director could represent. For a start, someone so obnoxiously shallow as Shepherd's Daisy, and whose attempts at vivaciousness and flirtation so blatantly stagy, that the young hero must have been an absolute dill to have been so smitten. Nor is the actress so beautiful (or really young) as to make his sexual infatuation credible. Still it could have been worse, it could have been the worst "simperer" of all time, Mia Farrow cast in the role. That would have been a pill. However, possibly her special brand of naive vulnerability may have made Daisy more sympathetic. Thank good EVERYONE ELSE in the cast (apart from an uncharismatic and therefore unconvincing, Duilio del Prete as Gionavelli) is not only believable, but put in amazing performances, especially Barry Brown, Cloris Leachman, Mildred Natwick and Eileen Bannen, all perfect in their roles.

The theme of innocence destroyed by the social environment, not to mention evil schemers (as in Portrait of a Lady) or in this case, symbolically, the natural environment ("Roman Fever"), or even supernatural environment (as in Turn of the Screw) is a really central issue in many of James's novels and stories. To feel sympathy for the protagonist, she (as the protagonist often is) has to have not only innocence (which is misconstrued, exploited and/ or finally shattered), but also a kind of unshakable moral core. This could be as simple as a confident and self-possessed disregard of convention, or a genuine moral belief of the rightness of one's own actions. It is often represented as a subtle character trait.

Although these themes are indeed present in the film, Bogdanovich' simply fails to capture the quiet intensity of James's work.

Don't let the first 10 minutes fool you, this movie is tremendous. Shepherd might seem off putting at the start, but she fully takes hold of the character and Brown's sad eyes do more to sell the story than anything. Sure it's set in a bygone age, but the feelings are totally universal and the ending is just devastating. This is totally unfairly passed over and deserves more attention. It's every bit as good as Barry Lyndon, just in a different way.

A faithful adaptation of the Henry James Novella. The stand-out performance is Cybill Shepherd as Daisy Miller, who was superb, The supporting cast is very good, but the movie lacks something, as do several very good productions of the 70's.

I stayed away from "Daisy Miller" as long as I could, as I've kept hearing that it was a significant failure that "buried" director Peter Bogadnovich's career and he never recovered (sort of, he made fine things afterwards). But curiosity went louder, I saw it and it was a painful ordeal from the get-go. It's amazing when it comes to its impressive production values, art-direction and locations; storywise it's a mess due to its format that didn't fit with the somewhat relevant ideas it has to share, and it's simply an unfunny comedy about a reckless young girl (Cybill Shepherd) who doesn't know how to navigate on European's society of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, teasing men who love her or just wants to sleep with her.

Haven't read Henry James classic novel so I can't make comparisons of such. But the only possible link between both medias is the story and the period depicted, which could result in a good drama if made as such. The approach given to the story is of a goofball comedy where characters speak faster than a ball crossing a tennis court during a masterplayers' tournament, and it's exhausting to see Daisy (Cybill) and charming dude played by Barry Brown trying to get her attention as he's totally in love with her, failing to listen to his aunt's advice and a friend of his (Eileen Brennan) telling him to stay away from the girl because she's bad news, uncultured and problematic. A great portion of the film is all about seduce and destroy, both sides teasing each other, making the other jealous with idiotic flirtations that goes on and on.

One could say this is a comedic version of "The Age of Innocence" (written by Henry James' wife Edith Warton). Both revolve on high class morality, society conventions and how young love is doomed if lovers don't fall into specific conventions of wealth, class, education and taste.

Here, Daisy and Frederick are too young to understand the world around them, it's all about enjoying the colorful pleasures of youth, trying not to care about their families and try to be happy together. But that movie worked beautifully as this one dies in front of you with a series of obnoxious characters (like Daisy's young brother and his dumb pranks and remarks), and for once in a lifetime I sided with the eldest ones who complain about everything since the young couple don't deserve to be together. It's a comedy without laughs, without charm and when it slowly becomes serious, reaching a tragic path it's too late.

If there's praise to be given about "Daisy Miller" is goes for the presences of Eileen Brennan and Mildred Natwick, who make their best while trying to educate the young man. The art-drection and the Oscar nominated costume design are first rate, elegance at its greatest and it easily pleases the eye, a huge contrast with the ugliness of miserable characters and their petty lives.

The late Barry Brown was very sympathetic despite the juvenile idealism and naivety of his character. He was a somewhat interesting, but he's talent is better evidence in Benton's "Bad Company". Cybill has the desired looks to convince she's all that interesting on the surface that every man will fall for her and do what she wants, but the character is so clueless and reckless while trying to look smart with her quick remarks that it's hard to care, and it's one of those reasons this film is one of the most annoying I ever seen.

This was the final production of a small production film company run by New Hollywood filmmakers Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin and Bogdanovich himself. They were all up high in their careers, but there was never a consensus between the trio into making this film, and after its failure they shut it down.

I'd like to think had it not been made that company would keep on going for a longer time and all of them would produce amazing things, unlike reaching the 1980's with films that didn't help them in almost any way. 4/10.

I agree with the above comments. Miss Shepherd's simpering performance sabotaged what was otherwise a very good film. Subtle, amusing in all the right places and well-directed by Peter Bogdanovich. Unfortunately Bogdanovich was so taken with Cybill Shepherd he failed to see that she was wrong for the part. She is outshone by a brilliant supporting cast including Cloris Leachman as the weak-willed mother and Eileen Brennan as a spiteful society woman. Henry James has never transferred well to the screen; one thinks of the disastrous "Portrait Of A Lady" where Nicole Kidman was colourless as Isabel Archer. This is about the best of the movies adapted from James (perhaps with the exception of "The Heiress" which was an adaptation of "Washington Square") and it benefits from its' sumptuous location photography - it was filmed in Switzerland and Rome.

Aloof, mechanical adaptation of an 1878 novella by Henry James, a short story which curiously attracted the attention of hot-property Peter Bogdanovich, a film director then riding high with a string of successful films to his credit. While showcasing Cybill Shepherd in the title role, Bogdanovich does give hint early on why this tale tempted him so: the breathlessly bemused bantering of the characters could be straight out of a Howard Hawks comedy from the 1930s (complete with exhausted patches), while the staging reminds one of a Noël Coward play. Shepherd's Daisy, American girl from Schenectady on vacation in Europe with her mother and little brother, captivates a handsome, worldly admirer (Barry Brown, who resembles Bogdanovich); his pursuit of Daisy becomes a game of catching-up, which brings words of disapproval from the surrounding members of high society, who attempt to warn the young man that Daisy's flirtatiousness spells trouble. As written, Daisy is supposed to be a blooming flower of a girl, but Shepherd seems too coached, too self-consciously frivolous to be convincing here. It would take a leap of faith for any audience to believe a sophisticated, if ultimately ambivalent, man of the world would take a passing interest in this innocuous creature. However, Shepherd does improve by the film's second-half, especially as the mood of the picture turns a bit more somber and Shepherd becomes a tad more thoughtful in her characterization. Several of the supporting performances are certainly superior (especially Eileen Brennan as the contemptuous Mrs. Walker and Duilio Del Prete as the dutiful Gionavelli). The finest work in the film comes from Brown as Frederick Winterbourne; clearly this is the character whom Bogdanovich identifies with, and Brown's grasp of this perplexed-yet-intrigued traveler makes an immediate connection with the audience (his performance is a life-raft we can hold onto). Despite flaws in the screenplay and the handling (and portions of the casting, including an annoying youngster I could have done without), the movie carefully makes its way to a touching conclusion. It isn't an involving picture, and it doesn't have a fluidity to it--nor a grand sweep--which might have made it an art-house success. Bogdanovich is occasionally static with his direction, as if his actors were on the stage, rapidly bantering in goosey spirits. Still, the filmmaker gets moments on film that dig a little deeper into loss and loneliness than I think he was given credit for at the time. The film's general design and style are rather disappointing, as is Alberto Spagnoli's cinematography, but "Daisy Miller" is not a failure. There is a heart underneath these smoke and mirrors. ** from ****

Granted, the lead character is supposed to be a shallow, useless wench, but something might have been done with the other characters, or with some depth to Daisy, that might have rescued this from the morass it became. Sadly, it was not to be, and I suffered through far too much of this filmish turd than I should have endured.

Don't waste the rental on this one. Better to be stuck watching reruns of The Love Boat or Green Acres, which are far superior in character development.

How Bogdanovich got involved in this disaster I cannot imagine, and it looks like he just sat in the nearest bar getting drunk and let the Assistant Directors torture one another with churning out this load of swill.

Daisy Miller became a sabotage job by the very inclusion and insistence of Cybil Shepard as Daisy. As maybe the choice of Cloris Leachman as her mother proves to be eccentric if not slightly erroneous, there is nothing more damning to what could have been a wonderful literary adaptation. Peter Bogdonavich often does not know how to do his job, that is direct. I offer the example of Cher's repeated refusal and head butting against his, to turn her tour-de-force as Rocky Denis' mother in "Mask", to a simpering, gutless wonder. Man was he wrong then as he was wrong with this picture in particular. The religious adherence to accuracy hampers the actors and the film's own creativity and prevents any beefing up where it would have greatly paid to do so. I ,in instance, refer to the brilliantly talented actor Barry Brown as Winterbourne. He's the romantic male lead but is practically made a eunuch in this film, no doubt because Pete was serenading the starlet with his camera all for himself, that no amount of screen ability could have facilitated Barry to have cut into what was obviously a three's a crowd. His scenes with REAL ACTRESSES, Eileen Brennan and Mildred Natwick, display different sides to his character's character and he does this beautifully; the sharp fine line of snobbery, dutiful nephew, and feckless Continental anti-hero. He is all the while completely believable and damned likable, practically the only heart in the whole cadre of performances. Eileen Brennan is wonderful as cold but not without caring as she fusses over Daisy's refusals at propriety and of course, Mildred Natwick is a feast to watch, as one flicker of her face is meant to speak volumes. I watch it for Barry who deserved a thousand times better than this and Ms. Brennan and Ms. Natwick and ignore Cybil as best I can. I recommend for anyone to do the same.

Daisy Miller is an adaptation of the novella of the same name written by Henry James. Daisy Miller was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, the same person who directed Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show. Both the film and the novella tell the story of Frederick Winterbourne, a young American man studying in Geneva, where he by chance encounters Daisy Miller, a young American woman traveling Europe with her family. Winterbourne and Daisy develop a deep connection with their short time together in Geneva, but eventually Daisy has to leave Geneva and head to Rome. Daisy wants Winterbourne to come with her, but Winterbourne says he most stay in Geneva for now, but will be in Rome eventually. Daisy is angry with Winterbourne for this decision and after a brief fight Daisy leaves. Eventually Winterbourne does go to Rome where he finds out that Daisy has been running around and flirting with several different men, and has been rejected by the high-class society there.

Adapting Daisy Miller into a film was a strange choice for Frederic Raphael (the screenwriter) to make. Because, well let's face it, it isn't a good story like at all. If you've read the novella you know what I'm talking about, and the reason that it sucks so much is because Daisy is such an unlikable character. She is annoying, arrogant, rude, and manipulative, but even with her many, many flaws Henry James was still trying to hold her up as a symbol for innocence and how American ideals are different from the rigid European customs. Which doesn't really work if the character you using to try and convey this point is a cruel deceitful arrogant bitch, like Daisy Miller. The whole book falls apart, in fact the reaction to Daisy Miller at the time was bad at the time it was first published that Henry James had to come out and say what the novella was supposed to be about, because everyone was getting it wrong. I know I'm dwelling on this but it deserves to be dwelled on. Daisy Miller is probably one of my most hated characters of all time.

But to be fair the filmmakers do to try to make Daisy a more likable character, however she still isn't even close to likable, but they do add some scenes that try to show that she isn't as bad as we think she is, and they also desperately shove the fact that she's "innocent " down your throat. The filmmakers also try to make the message of the book much more obvious. Which is good, but they do go a little to far, at some parts and even flat out saying what the message is several times during the film. Another positive I can say about the film is that all members of the cast and crew do really good jobs, all of the performances are at least good and some are actually pretty great. The set's, cinematography, and costumes are also all pretty good. Throughout the whole film I actually felt like I was in Geneva/Rome, not to mention that there is some fantastic lighting in this film.

Even with all of its good parts Daisy Miller is still a weak film, but I would say that it's far superior to Henry James novella. The filmmakers do a good job of trying to lessen the weaker aspects of the source material, and add some pretty good scenes. In fact I would like to see the same cast and crew adapt a different story, because if they do this well with a bad book, I'm curious to see what they'd do with a good one. But I don't think I can recommend Daisy Miller, it isn't terrible, but it isn't good either.

4.7

Ms. Shepherd's fluttery, busy, yet essentially one-note performance undermines an effortful, well-pedigreed adaptation of a seemingly unfilmable work. The screenplay is nimble and witty, the photography lush, the locations dazzling, the supporting cast well-chosen -- how can anyone not respond to Mildred Natwick in anything? But it's all up to the star, and here, she's not up to it. Admittedly, Daisy is a shallow character, but a more thoughtful actress would give her more dimension (today, maybe, Gwyneth Paltrow could do it).

It's irresistible to consider the parallels between real life and reel life: The young Bogdonavich dotes on his leading lady as blindly as Barry Brown's character dotes on Daisy. But the poignancy is tempered somewhat when you consider that this nattering, uninteresting young lady would be absolute hell to live with.

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.

Henry James, like Edith Wharton, is not easy to bring to the movie screen. They are better suited to the television miniseries. I did enjoy the recent movie versions of James's "The Golden Bowl" w/Uma Thurman & Kate Beckinsale and Wharton's "The House of Mirth" w/Gillian Anderson & Laura Linney. Bogdanovich's adaptation would've made a much better PBS miniseries with the storyline stretched out & elaborated, just like the multitude of classics that were being produced for the small screen by the British in the 1970s. Bogdanovich's movie "Daisy Miller" is an excellent adaptation of a James novel. Not perfect, but somewhere on the right track. Bogdanovich gets the visuals down pat and you get the feel of 1870s Italy, certainly a lengthy trip by an American in the 1870s. For those decrying Cybil Shepherd and blaming her, please give me a break! She's 23, she has nothing more to do than to look beautiful & vulnerable and utter a few lines. A lot of her scenes she doesn't say nothing. She even dies at the end. If Shepherd had died in 1974 after this movie was released y'all would be saying she was a 'great' actress taken before her time. Instead many of you are remembering Shepherd for her off stage shenanigans, personal life, her instances in the trash tabloids, her affair with Bogdanovich etc. Who cares, she's beautiful & effective in this, which surprised even ME when I first saw the DM. I much prefer Shepherd in DM than in the Last Picture Show. The movie is sumptuously photographed. The photography is really the star here. The costumes are well done giving the aura of nothing but 1870s. As I said, this would've been much nicer in a mini-series(it still could be) where the time & pace could be spread out. Instead Bogdanovich had to whittle his movie down to a 2 hour or less running time as audiences don't like to sit through a long period piece. Bogdanovich took a chance tackling a Henry James story in the early 1970s knowing how fickle American audiences can be but he may have been influenced by the British TV imports then first arriving on US televisions. Lastly I would recommend DM, especially for lovers of costume dramas, Masterpiece Theater and the like. Give this picture at least one viewing as you may come off surprised and liking it , as I did.

Peter Bogdanovich made 3 hits right in a row: LAST PICTURE SHOW, WHAT'S UP DOC? And PAPER MOON. Then he made this piece of crap. He had one other hit: MASK, but for all intents and purposes, he was a washed up director - really. This picture?: has a horribly uninteresting screenplay. The cast isn't even that interested in it which is why they are uniformly poor in their performances. Cybill Shepard hadn't learned to act as yet and since she's the central character, it kinda depends on her to bring it all together, but without a decent story, that's difficult to do as well. Her little brother is a twit among twits. Mother Cloris Leachman does her best with the colorful character that she's given. The rest of the cast is just "there". There is no passion in this romance which means the loves interests could be eunuchs for all that mattered (and to keep the "G" rating). The only things that actually work are the inanimate ones: the art direction and the costume design - it is nice to look at that and just forget what your ears are hearing.

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.