User Reviews

Martin Sheen (who looks so young!) returns home after three years in the Army, and he finds that nothing has changed between his father, (Jack Albertson) and mother (Patricia Neal), that they are just as at odds and unhappy as before he left. The rest of the film is a portrait of how they try and find common ground, with the prospects of doing so looking mighty bleak.

Spending time with a family in emotional bankruptcy isn't easy. Like A Long Day's Journey Into Night, seeing anguish, infighting, and turmoil bubbling from the surface into an open honesty that just encourages further distance between members of a family can be quite wearying and exhausting. But really great performances come from such naked and raw truth.

Albertson won the Oscar, but Neal had the misfortune of being nominated opposite the powerhouse performance of Hepburn's for The Lion in Winter so such a luxury for what is a magnificent piece of acting (and the knowledge of what she went through not long before this with the strokes, coma, and surgery just adds gravitas to the performance). Sheen has plenty of moments to bare his own soul, but doing so in a manner using clever wit, and "performance" (he uses characterization and music from pop culture existing around (and after) World War II), trying to keep the peace and harmony that just doesn't exist.

Trip to the summer house (much a topic of conversation in how it is viewed as a bone of contention), a night on the town, the purchase of roses; there are chapters that feed to the overall conclusion. Sheen's "illnesses" as a child (anxiety the cost of his parents' inability to communicate without anger and strife), his going away to war (Albertson didn't, as a result of "having a family he needed to support", and his regrets or realization that perhaps as a returning war hero he'd receive some possible respect or accolades), and returning "without a scratch". Then there is "who will Sheen spend time with" towards the beginning, as he must endure the decision to trip with pop to the summer house or go with mom to grandmas. Then mother always going to grandmas to see the "crippled cousin" conversation results in the silent treatment and Sheen feeling guilty.

This is the kind of film where bitterness is like an open gushing wound and the tide of all that built up animosity that hasn't already flooded ashore comes rushing in. There are some rather intense scenes of Albertson getting awfully hostile with Sheen although the son tries to keep his father satisfied, willing to even go to church despite the fact that he isn't Catholic just so his father can show him off in the uniform. The arguments about "taking sides" and the blunt force of how they all truly feel. It culminates in Neal taking a day to herself, the happiest she's ever been, returning home to learn that Sheen is finally deciding to leave home. A long scene has Sheen trying to tell his father of a past trauma involving Neal, while Albertson is concerned with where she's at. Albertson's character is so consumed, it seems, with his own affairs that others' cares mean less, and are less significant. That is why Neal is so vacant of joy. Sheen trying to maintain any semblance of calm in this household is a job.

Yep, The Subject Was Roses isn't a visit to Happyland. It is well-acted and very theatrical in its presentation. You can tell this was meant for the stage. But Neal's work here is a phenomenal triumph considering what she rebounded from.

I knew nothing about this film before watching it, other than that the general topic was a dysfunctional family. Fine with me. Give me a Lillian Hellman story, for example, and I love it. But, this film gave me the creeps.

The first thing that surprised me was Martin Sheen. If I hadn't known he was in the film, I wouldn't have known it was him. I thought Patricia Neal didn't look well, and wondered how long after this film she had her aneurysms; to my surprise, this film was made 3 years after her health crisis; if you look closely, you will notice that when she walks fast there is a bit of a stiffness. The other odd thing that occurred to me during this film had to do with my own father, who was also in World War II (as is Martin Sheen's character in this film). The father in this film (Jack Albertson) talks about missing World War I, and it just struck me that when my father went into WWII, people were still talking about WWI.

There are a few problems here. Somehow the film still seems a bit too play-ish for my liking. Then there's the matter of the lake cottage. Let's see, the family lives in a rather basic walk-up flat, but they own a cottage at the lake. And a car. Seems odd (in fact, it's even mentioned in the script).

The one thing I really like about this film is that it gave Jack Albertson his best film role. And, unfortunately, before that, all too many of his roles were minor almost bit parts, and too many people remember him only from "Chico And The Man".

So beyond being about a dysfunctional family, what is the story about? Well, you have 3 mostly decent (but imperfect) people who do care for each other, but who can't be nice to each other. There are places where you feel great sympathy for Frank Albertson's character, and other places where you dislike him immensely. Same for Patricia Neal. And to a lesser extent, somewhat the same for Martin Sheen (although at least in his case he is coming back from perhaps a horrific war enlistment, and is young enough to be trying to find his own way). But, that's about it. Most of the action takes place in the flat (giving it that play-ish feeling), and there are really no supporting parts, so the entire focus is on the 3 main characters.

While the acting is good, I feel that the direction/script make you want to slap each of the main characters and tell them to, "Snap out of it!" Perhkaps worth watching...once.

I must warn you....if you want a film that is fun or uplifting, do NOT watch "The Subject Was Roses". And, if you are feeling depressed, the same goes! Now I am not saying the film is bad....but it's certainly well made but a real downer as well.

The story is set in the Bronx in 1946. Timmy (Martin Sheen) has just returned home from the war and it's the first time he's seen his parents in three years. However, although the homecoming is initially sweet, soon tension fills the air. Again and again, the parents seem to pick fights with Timmy. It seems like he can't catch a break no matter what he says or does. As the film progresses, it seems that they are actually taking their own marital disappointments out on their son. You wonder how long all this is going to go on like this until Timmy ultimately leaves...possibly for good.

Overall, an amazingly well acted but unpleasant film. Realistic, yes, but tough to watch...even tougher due to the music.

I've never seen a stage production of Frank Gilroy's play "The Subject Was Roses", but Ulu Grosbard's movie version is a shocker. Martin Sheen plays a young soldier returning home and causing a rift in his family. Patricia Neal gets top billing as the beleaguered matriarch, while Jack Albertson won an Oscar for his role as the rough, crotchety father.

The title refers to a bouquet that the dad buys the mom. What she does with it is a perfect metaphor for what's become of the family. True, there have been lots of stories about old wounds getting opened up in families. I'd say that this one has one of the most realistic feelings (probably because it was a play). Both of the parents make you feel as if you're walking on eggshells.

Basically, this is a movie that grabs you and doesn't let go. It's exactly what cinema should be. The differences between the parents and the son reflect the growing generation gap of the late '60s (even though the movie takes place in the '40s). In my opinion, you can't honestly call yourself a film buff unless you've seen "The Subject Was Roses" at least once. Definitely watch it.

The principal actors in this film - Albertson, Neal and Sheen - do a wonderful job at playing their roles. I liked some of the period touches of the film, which weren't such ancient history at the time it was made. So why did I give it just 5 stars?

I was disappointed in the film because the story just didn't make any sense at the end. Nothing was resolved. For example, near the end of the film, Albertson (the father) cajoles his son (Sheen) to stay on for at least a few more days because his mom (Neal) has been so looking forward to his return. At breakfast a few minutes later, the son tells the mom that he's going to stay on for another few days - and immediately his father (Albertson) says 'No, I have already called painters to do your room, it will be months before they can fit us in again if you stay' and pretty much insists that the son leave right away. That was his original plan which his father talked him out of! And then the father starts in on the mother's coffee again (as he did the day before) being too weak, if it's not weak then it's cold, etc.

All you know by the end of the story is that the parents are a pair of basket cases and there is no explanation of their behavior nor resolution of their situation. It's like taking a tour of a famous city and they make you get off the bus halfway through before you understand what the place is really about. I suppose you get the impression that the problems are caused by the father and not the mother, but even so she's got her share of issues also.

There's too much time spent on one, two or three of them having had too much to drink, and they do a fair job of acting like drunks but to be honest I get a little uncomfortable watching that go on for too long - as it does in this movie. One more thing, the musical background with songs sung by Judy Collins are so dated and corny they are embarrassing to listen to. Really tied to the time of the filming and they are cringeworthy.

In all, this film held my attention to THE END but only because I was hoping to find out what was wrong with these people and if they might find a way to come to terms with it. But no, that didn't happen. Disappointing. I like a movie where at least at the end you have some sense of the characters having gotten past something and how they will go on from there. I didn't get that here, at all.

I usually don't like stage plays that have been adapted to the screen in virtually the very same form, but this gem is an exception, thanks to the superb acting of all three leads, a very intelligent script by Frank Gilroy, adept direction by Ulu Grosbard ("Straight Time"), and two perfect, melancholy songs sung by Judy Collins.

The bleak Bronx apartment of the Cleary family reminded me of pictures of my own family's dismal apartment in Newark, New Jersey during the 1940's prior to my arrival at the end of that decade. The dreary décor, including the drab colors of the walls, the dark, heavy curtains, the cheerless venetian blinds, and the uninspiring wall hangings must have unavoidably created a depressing and debilitating psychological impact on the inhabitants. Thankfully, Director Grosbard grants the viewers essential relief from the claustrophobic, psychologically stifling Cleary abode by periodically releasing us onto the streets of the surrounding neighborhood, the bright lights of Broadway, the wintry woods of the lake house, and finally the elegant, seaside ambience of Spring Lake, New Jersey and its once grand Monmouth Hotel (even though a note at the end of the film somehow states that the movie was filmed entirely in New York City).

Although Jack Albertson and Martin Sheen perfectly revive their roles from the Broadway stage play, the one who stands out for me is Patricia Neal as an embittered, deeply repressed Nettie Cleary in a brilliant performance that followed three massive strokes which nearly took her life. The woman is truly a phenomenal inspiration who possesses an exceptional ability to bring depth and credibility to every role that she has ever undertaken. Thanks to the outstanding performances and dramatic interaction of all three leads, the constant tension, conflict, and discomfort among the Clearys becomes all too real for us. Even Mom and Dad have painfully realized that it's finally time for Timmy to go. Their final, unselfish act is to let him loose, and we are happy but also apprehensive for him as he ventures forth in the uncertain world beyond.

While this film adaptation of the play is a bit more dialog than real life, that is the point as we learn the characters and what they have lived through.

Patricia Neal, always noteworthy, comes through as the caring but somewhat lost and unloved (by a faithless Jack Albertson). Martin Sheen as returning son from the war, and how this affects each of them in subtle forms.

A lackluster apartment in the city, a few nights out to celebrate Sheen's return home. Where we see Jack Albertson's tawdry affairs, alternate life, while he has made a success at business, his personal life is one of chasing thrills.

Neal is not the duly accepting housewife, however. She takes a bus trip to the beach, there are several reflective scenes where she is alone, contemplating perhaps what her life may have been had she not married, had she taken that job at a law firm...etc. The what-ifs in life.

Sad and disturbing with excellent performances all-around. Rarely do we see films that touch personal emotion like this today, sadly. 101/10.