Fonda and this film both look good, she as a haggard, fas been alcoholic, and sunny Los Angeles nicely photographed. Bridges also gives a solid performance in this story that starts off on good fitting but gradually grows thinner as it progresses. The final disappointment is the films weak ending. If you love Fonda and/or Bridges you might still enjoy this film, but for others I wouldn't go out of my way and seek it out.

This has to be one of the worst films ever made. As I sat through it I kept asking myself why am I watching it? Maybe I wanted to know for sure that it was actually as bad as I thought it was. And it was. I was a big fan of Jeff Bridges but not really for any of his films and certainly not this one - I just always liked him probably because I liked his dad so much. But I actually thought that Jane Fonda's role was absolutely laughable. She was completely unbelievable as was Raul Julia. Casting against type never works and it definitely does not work here. And the fact that Sidney Lumet directed this mish-mash is the biggest shock of all. One wonders how so much talent could be utterly wasted in so much tripe. Actually, the most interesting performance, I thought, was by Diane Salinger who I remember most vividly from the film whereas everyone else sort of washes out. I looked up Salinger and learned that she has an acting academy in Los Angeles which makes perfect sense since she really shines in this catastrophe.

Overripe concoction in a shiny, sterile package. Jane Fonda plays a glamorously burnt-out alcoholic in Los Angeles who wakes up one morning after a bender and discovers a bloody corpse next to her in bed. Jeff Bridges (talking slowly with narrowed eyes) is an ex-cop who helps Fonda piece together the previous night's events. Soaper-cum-mystery-thriller, directed by an uninspired Sidney Lumet, defies logic and credibility at nearly every turn. Fonda works hard to elevate the proceedings, and received a surprising Oscar nod for her efforts, but she can't overcome the clumsiness of the plot's conception (nor the lousy screenplay). A huge disappointment for noir buffs. *1/2 from ****

THE MORNING AFTER is one of those films that begins with an intriguing opening--JANE FONDA wakes up in bed next to a murdered man and, because she was in an alcoholic daze, can't remember even entering the man's apartment. So far, so good. Nice hook to draw the viewer in.But as the story unwinds, it becomes clear that the writers ran out of material for a substantial story about midway through. The weaknesses are offset somewhat by the good performance of JEFF BRIDGES as a helpful policeman who agrees to help Fonda solve the who-dun-it aspect of her plight.It's all beautifully staged and photographed in a sunlit Los Angeles and worth watching for the performances alone. Fonda is at her best as the worried alcoholic who refuses to believe she could have committed the crime and Bridges provides some good chemistry as a co-star.But the ending (with its revelation) is a bit disappointing after all the build-up to a conclusion. RAOUL JULIA and KATHY BATES have minor roles but the weak ending is hard to dismiss.Fonda won an Oscar nomination and deserved it for creating a dimensional character in a story thin on believable characters.