Palácio do Vício

Whether the son was gay was settled by the middle of the film. His sexuality was of no importance to the movie. As to the statement that he did not consummate any relationship. I can only say he must have been watching a different movie.

One of the most fascinating things about the movie was that the shot of Caesar's Palace pool area showed a vast empty space space behind the hotel. Another is that all the main characters in the movie smoked quite a bit - it is a bit jarring to current sensibilities. Brenda Vacarro was great and was the best thing about the movie. David Jansen also did a good job. He played the part much as I would have thought Clark Gable would have played it. My main problem with the movie was that i thought the son was miscast. He was supposed to be an idealist but he seemed a bit slimy to me right from the start.

A hard-nosed casino owner wants to bring in his estranged son to learn the family business. He gets him - albeit reluctantly - to try it out, but soon gets more than he bargained for.

Strange late sixties film. It's listed as a comedy but it's not really funny. Maybe on some satiric level but even that is stretching it. It comes across more as a family drama with some unconventional elements thrown in. The main crux of the story involves the strained father-son relationship but the script throws in all kinds of subtexts pertinent to that time (e.g. love generation sensibilities versus the Dean Martin set) which only serve to convolute the whole thing.

David Janssen and Robert Drivas as the two male leads don't offer much depth to their roles and their characters are so different from each other its hard to believe they are father and son. Rosemary Forsyth and Brenda Vaccaro come off much better in support with the latter a standout as a flaky secretary. Don Rickles also has a nice cameo as a cheating card dealer.

Overall, "Where It's At" is more interesting as a historical curio which gives the viewer a rare glimpse of Vegas during that era. Especially well presented is Caesars Palace where most of the action takes place.

One other note about the film is that it frequently employs impressionistic style editing which may not be everyone's cup of tea. Viewed today it seems a little heavy handed and dated.

Just re-saw this movie after thirty seven years. I was eleven years old and caught this flick on South Beach at the long gone Cinema Theater on Washington Avenue. In 1969, I thought Where it's At! was a very good movie. Now, however, after almost forty years, it's not as good as it was. Times have changed, and this movie is now a tired old re-hash of the war between the generations. It did however, catch a place in time which is just a memory. It's really interesting to see the mod fashions, the old Vegas, a slim Don Rickles, chain smoking, and a hip opening song. The acting was decent, the script somewhat out-dated, but the memories were still fresh. Where it's At, may not be where it's at for you, but for me, it was still a nice and entertaining trip down memory lane.

I saw this movie in 1969 when it was first released at the Cameo Theater on South Beach, now the famous Crowbar Night-club. It was the last year of the wild 60s and this movie really hit home. It's got everything; the generation gap, the sexual revolution, the quest for success, and the conflict between following one's family "traditions" to those of seeking ones own way through life.

It was a fast paced, highly enjoyable movie. Vegas was at it's hippiest peak, Sin City in all it's glory. Beautiful women, famous cameos, laughs, conflict, romance, and even a happy ending. A very enjoyable time over all.

The poster from this film rests on my bedroom wall. I look at it and I go back in time; a time of my youth and my times with my dad, a great time in my life.

I stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion.