User reviews

George Segal (on a roll at this period in his career) gives his usual solid, likable performance as a Beverly Hills divorce lawyer who soon finds himself divorced as well--from working-girl Susan Anspach; he quickly tries winning her back, despite the fact she has taken up with a hippie musician (Kris Kristofferson). Paul Mazursky wrote and directed this quirky comedy-drama about love and heartbreak, and he only strikes some sour notes in the last portion of the plot (which is saddled with an ending that just doesn't take off). Otherwise, a well-cast, well-written picture for grown-ups, a hidden gem. Bruce Surtees' cinematography is very expressive, supporting performances by Kristofferson and Marsha Mason are first-rate. Worth finding! *** from ****

Beverly Hills divorce lawyer Stephen Blume (George Segal) sabotages his marriage by bringing home his secretary and getting caught by his wife Nina (Susan Anspach). He reflects on his self-destructive womanizing love life. He begins a fling with Arlene (Marsha Mason) while Nina starts dating Elmo Cole (Kris Kristofferson).

The 70's had a bunch of these womanizing protagonist and the audience is supposed to be sympathetic. It's probably a response to the free love 60's. Non of these characters are appealing. At best, they are interesting and that's only in moments. I don't know if these characters actually love each other or that they are narcissists loving themselves and their partners only as an accessory to their selves. I certainly don't see this as a social comedy since non of this is actually funny to me. It's a little sad but mostly frustrating. These are not happy people.

Plot (or what there is of it)—Husband Blume is divorced by wife Nina after she catches him philandering. Trouble is he still loves her and spends the rest of the time trying to get her back. So how is true love distinguished from true obsession.

Critic Leonard Maltin calls the movie "self-indulgent" and he's right. It's like writer-director Mazurski has gone off on his own personal tangent and made a movie of it. Segal does manage a role in low-key style that could have easily gone over the top. Too bad there's no hint of his very real comedic skills, which I somehow kept expecting. Also, he may get more close-ups than my favorite puppy. As Nina, Anspach has a different look with her long thin face and cloud of platinum hair. Hers is the more interesting character as she struggles with middle-class conventions like marriage. But what's with Shelley Winters' tacked on role as a grieving divorcée. Perhaps Mazurski was reminding casting directors what an inimitable presence she is.

Arguably, the film's best parts are those reflecting political (the farm workers) and youth culture (the "swingers" meeting place) of the early 1970's. It seems Nina is groping for a life outside the conventional but is emotionally stuck halfway. Anyway, her character is the more interesting of the two. At the same time, Elmo (Kristofferson) appears more like a rootless hippie, while Nina connects with that unconventional side. Even Blume seems attracted when a kind of unconventional threesome forms.

Nonetheless, such deeper themes remain conjectural, while the movie itself over-stretches into a barely entertaining two hours that a graphic rape scene doesn't help. All in all, Mazurski's screenplay may be based on a personal experience that somehow got carried away.

i disagree with those who were so put off by the rape scene that they cannot give the movie a positive review. remember this movie was made over 30 years ago at the height of the sexual revolution (i'm not excusing it). mazursky is a very interesting and unique writer/director who is responsible for some really excellent films, to wit: moscow on the hudson, down and out in beverly hills, an unfinished woman and next stop greenwich village. to me this movie has it all, great music, excellent acting and one of the funniest scenes i have ever seen in a movie when george segal, as a divorce attorney tries to calm his client, shelly winters. you'll enjoy it, trust me. p.s. the key word in some of those other reviews is "self-indulgent."

Paul Mazursky gave us three fine films: Blume in Love, Harry & Tonto and Moscow On the Hudson, and a host of lesser works that we can still enjoy. I can't think of many American directors of the last half-century with a record like his. Blume In Love is obviously influenced by Truffaut's Jules and Jim, but is funnier, faster and not indebted to literary models as Truffaut's film was.

The triangle of Blume, Nina and Elmo works so well because of Kris Kristofferson's easy charm and rock star charisma. The story would have foundered on Blume's obsessiveness and Nina's Puritan desire to do good ("I haven't done much for the farmworkers, but I boycott the supermarkets") had Elmo not been around to keep things light. The story he tells of the bust in Franklin, Tenn. is wonderfully funny, although a little scary, and the trio's singing Chester the Goat is a delight.

I became a George Segal fan when I first saw this movie, and I can't help but lament the lack of intelligence and depth in today's actors when I see what he does with this difficult character. Marsha Mason is his equal in talent, playing Arlene, Blume's vulnerable lover who knows her days are numbered. The smaller roles are ably filled, particularly Shelley Winters as the woman whose husband left her.

I haven't been able to read anything about this movie that comments about the handsome young man played by Ian Linhart who is seen several times in the Venice scenes. He looks like the young actor, only a few years older, who played the boy Tadzio in 1971 in Visconti's "Death in Venice" who becomes the obsession of an older man. Ian Linhart 's only other role was in Visconti's "Ludwig " in 1973-- the same year as "Blume". He's obviously in this movie for a reason but I can't see the significance

I have always liked George Segal but put him together with director Paul Mazursky and what you get is not the beginning, but the continuation from the 1920's of male dominance in the film industry where women are still being treated like second class citizens. Mazursky takes liberties with the women showing a little bit of titty, and erroneously tries to portray the average looking George Segal as a Burt Reynolds stud type that all women would feign over. PUHHHLeeese!!

I am a plus 65 year old heterosexual male but even without considering the 2020's "ME TOO" movement how were filmgoers not offended by the way Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) was portrayed in this film, and what makes George Segal's performance as the divorced husband Stephen Blume even remotely acceptable?

What you have reflected in this film is a bunch of pretentious Warner Brothers producers continuing to show men as flesh mongers and women as objects of pleasure and the director and leading male actors accepting their TOO LONG accepted rightful roles as the male studs that use women, and then just throw them aside.

It is a slippery slope when sexual abuse such as is reflected in this film is accepted as the norm. I am going to assume that my review may be pulled by the IMDb censors and if so, I ask a simple question? Who censors films such as Blume In Love that depict women as nothing more than livestock no less for men to take full advantage of without consequence. No wonder producers that followed such as Harvey Weinstein, Andrew Kreisberg, and Brett Ratner thought they could follow in suit such as this 1970's film.

I give this film a 1 out of 10 rating and I recommend it be pulled from all film libraries and placed in the cell of Harvey Weinstein to be used as a training tool for all sexual offenders.

I have never forgotten the scene where Susan Anspach glides gracefully across the screen towards George Segal to the accompaniment of Wagner's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde. The glorious climax of the music was timed to coincide with the exact moment of their meeting and was, for me, the highlight of the film. Three thumbs up to whomever decided on it's use!

Here is pleasurable entertainment, a sort of neurotic farce, full of irony, but better yet. George Segal, the best thing here in a sort of a mess of a film. A jumbled comedy which never quite reaches it's peak, it's intentions not entirely clear, where the story kind of strays off path. There seems to be too much going on here. Segal is a womanizer, a swinger, and has another real dilemma of a problem. He's still in love with his ex wife, the delightful Anspach (Montenegro) who now shacked up with hippie, ex con (Kristofferson) adequate, The film too kind of drags a little towards the end. Shelly Winters as one of Divorce Lawyer (Segal's clients) and Marsha Mason as a swinger, lend fine support, and there's a real funny tracking shot of our three leads in a vee dub. I liked it how Kristofferen and Segal form a buddy friendship, inrrespectful of their love, Anspach, who's such a delight to watch. I love watching these 70's films of a by gone era, you just love to revisit, but BIL. Doesn't fully bloom, and just comes off as a bit bland a comedy/drama. Definitely worth a view, but more than that, a great, unmissable, engaging performance from Segal.

I have to admit right off the bat I have no fondness for Paul Mazursky's films. I remember reading, somewhere, that he was a West Coast Woody Allen. If that is true, then he is Woody Allen without humor, or more importantly, without soul. This film follows George Segal (whom I've always liked) through his marriage, divorce and re-attachment with Susan Anspach. There is nothing innately offensive in this film. In fact, it strikes me as though it should be stuck in a time capsule of 70's film-making. And kept there. This is one of those films where you can't exactly pinpoint what is wrong with it but simply leaves you unsatisfied, unless you are a 70's film historian, I suppose. There is no connection with Blume, unless you are of his milieu. While (being NJ bound) I have affection for LA and the 70s, this film struck me as ingrown, meant for cognoscenti. A smart "ha-ha" that shows no outreach. And little comedy.

This is not as smug as "An Unmarried Woman" But at the end of 1:55, you will have shrugged your shoulders and gone "huh?" Maybe it was potent in 1973. But today, that just means its dated.

George Segal is Blume, a couple years after his big role in Virginia Woolf. Blume is a divorce lawyer, and is getting divorced himself. he slept with his secretary, but still loves his wife. it's kind of a 1970 relationships, psychology thinker film. and there's the racial aspect... Blume is white, his secretary is black, and now fired (What?). so Blume takes his doc's advice and starts shagging everything in sight. while his ex wife bunks with Cole (Kris Kristofferson, a couple years before A Star is Born. Kris had started as a musician. and who knew he was married to Rita Coolidge?? ) co-stars Shelley Winters and Marsha Mason. i was never a big fan of Winters, but thankfully she has a pretty small role. LOVE Shelley Morrison (Rosie the maid!!) but she also has a smallish part. Blume hangs out with Cole.. and eventually his ex-wife allows Blume to hang with the two of them. swearing, nudity, sex, drug use. serious violence. the film is okay... moves pretty slowly. pretty heavy stuff right near the end. Written and directed by Paul Mazursky. he had just done Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... another relationships thinker film.

George Segal is solid, as usual, but Susan Anspach and Kris Kristofferson seem like high school play actors. They are both incredibly poor performers in this movie, made worse by the terrible script. Mazursky was definitely a legend in his own mind and it shows here. The VO narration is horrible, as is the plot. Marsha Mason is the best in the film, as is the location scenery in Venice.

Don't waste your time on this! Watch Harry & Tonto instead!

Blume in Love is honestly one of Paul Mazursky's best films. George Segal is fantastic as the charismatic, yet deeply pathetic protagonist Stephen Blume and Kris Kristofferson bounces off of him enjoyably in one of his early film roles. The script creates an engrossing, believable portrait of romantic relationships in the 1970s, while also having several laugh-out-loud moments. Additionally, Mazursky makes great use out of both Los Angeles and Venice, Italy as locations. Dramatically effective and boasting several memorable characters, Blume in Love is in the same league as An Unmarried Woman and is a a must-see for Mazursky fans.

I really liked this movie but then I enjoy many of the romantic comedies from the late 1960's and early 1970's that sort of explore relationships and challenge sexual and social mores. This is one of those but very easy to watch and enjoy, until a particular scene that is. And I'm not sure I'd watch it again.

I especially enjoyed watch Kris Kristofferson play Elmo Cole, Nina's adorable love interest following her divorce from Blume. Blume attempts to triangulate himself with Elmo to gain access to his ex wife, a super gross move that is very real life and kind of scary, too.

For the viewer it's satisfying to see the triangulation because Kristofferson is just gorgeous and adorable as Cole, but it's also a bit ominous the way Cole is being used; I'm not sure viewers who haven't been through that personally would recognize it- I don't think Blume is so smitten by Cole in an innocent way; he's using him for access to Nina.

Maybe it's good that this wasn't just a "light-hearted" look at a couple post divorce; it transcends much other similar fare in that way. . .

Throughout the movie we may see Blume as lovelorn, remorseful, etc. we may see Elmo as just a cute guy who doesn't take anything too seriously, and see Nina as a woman whose independence is budding, until one scene which picks up on the ickyness of Blume's forced triangulation and reveals to the viewer, yeah; it's just not that Elmo Cole is so likable; Blume really is that controlling and predatory.

Following that scene we can see Elmo is more than just a pretty face and that he really loved and cared for Nina.

Don't want to give too much away, but I'd have preferred a different ending. I think this film successfully relays that: women's movement or not, women still don't really have power over our own lives in the way men do.

If you're a woman who has been abused or stalked by an ex lover, which really isn't "funny" at all, you may not find this to your liking- not that it focuses so much on that, but it's just a lot of the film is Blume trying to regain access to Nina through Cole and there is a point where it goes from light-hearted to something more dark.

"Blume In Love" (1973) begins in Venice, Italy as Blume (George Segal) talks about how this most romantic place changes the way couples think of sex and love while they are visiting. As the movie pushes along Blume talks about his divorce from his ex-wife Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) and his regret from having an extra-marital affair. We also see images of Nina and Blume's honeymoon to Venice. But now Blume is back in Venice on his own after Nina had asked him to leave for a couple of weeks so she could work things out. The rest of the movie contains flashbacks of before and after the divorce.

I have seen one other film by Paul Mazursky [Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)], which was a film that dealt with two couples experimenting in sexual freedom. "Blume In Love" is about a divorce-lawyer named Blume (Segal) who suffers from impotence and despair after he is divorced from his beloved Nina (Anspach). He "can not live without her" he exclaims, and "would rather die if he can't have her back." And dying is something Blume doesn't want, so he has to win her back. He eventually wins her back in an ending that is either ambivalent to the viewer, joyous or they are repulsed by it as was the reviewer before me. It was a very romantic and happy ending, but it was far from realistic

"Blume In Love" is a well-directed film by writer and director Paul Mazursky. The performances by Susan Anspach, George Segal and Kris Kristofferson as Elmo are all wonderful. Kris Kristofferson's Elmo is a very likeable character. His easy-going, laid back "Nothin' To It" look on life is a sharp contrast to the emotional conflict between Nina and Blume. Elmo is a traveling musician who moves in with Nina after she divorces Blume. He enjoys playing his music and having a good time. Blume ends up liking him too, and uses him as a reason to come and visit Nina to win her back.

In the end this was a story about a man desperately trying to win his ex-wife back. He will do everything possible to do so. Along the way we follow him through his despair and sometimes we laugh at it and sometimes we cry.

Directed and written by Paul Mazursky. (Mazursky himself plays Segal's law partner.)

Many years ago this poignant film found its way onto several Top 100 films of all time...how times have changed! BTW Gunga Din has fallen off these lists as well...sad but true.

Paul M. Is considered to be one of America's finest filmmakers so be careful criticizing him...(try writing a romantic comedy and you'll see what I mean).