Getting into the world of acting is always going to be cutthroat. For three women, it's a common thing. There's one who is a natural talent (Patty Duke), a blonde(Sharon Tate) who can sing, but has limited talent, and a secretary(Barbara Parkins). Once these three got together, it was no stopping them. Neely(Duke), meets a Broadway star(Susan Hayward) who is flat out arrogant, get fired from the show. After a successful telethon, she heads out to Hollywood. However, she falls victim to egotistical behavior, and her marriage is in ruins due to pressure and drug use. Jennifer(Tate) follow the same path as Neely with a different result. Her husband gets sick, she became pregnant, and ends up doing skin flicks to support her family. Like Neely, she turned to drugs as well. Anne(Parkins) also fall into the same trap like the other two. Only she ended up being the strong one. The "Dolls" are considered to be part of the actresses' downfall. And only one that really redeemed herself. The acting is well made. The star quality waa there. I really enjoyed this film very much. 5 stars.

The rating of 1 out of 10 refers to the film from an analytical perspective - I would probably give it a solid 10 on the "guilty pleasure" scale. Yes, the movie is really awful if you objectively analyze it - bad writing (from an equally trashy, compulsively readable novel), bad directing (from veteran Mark Robson, who has done very good work over the years) and bad acting (ranges from wooden to outrageous overacting - Sharon Tate looks beautiful but does very little else, Patty Duke really chews the scenery in her first "adult" role, and Susan Hayward - for shame!) In fairness, the New England scenery is beautiful and the music is OK, (but really didn't care for the theme song) But for all its badness I guarantee you will stick with it to the end. A great time-waster for a rainy or snowy day - just sit back, turn off your better judgment and sense of intellect, and enjoy!

Have been reading through the reviews here and am amazed that no one has pointed out the thing that is most weird about this film. Which is: that this film is set in 1967 and yet there is absolutely NO pop music in it. Not even in the background on the radio! And remember this is the year of the Monterey Festival, the Summer of Love, Swinging London, Pepper, Forever Changes, Hendrix (the list could go on and on).Some of the other reviewers say this film is 'pure sixties' but no, no, NO! There's a tiny nod at fashion with Parkins' up-market outfits but that's about it. There's no fab gear, no op art, no e-type jags, no mini cars or mini skirts, this is just NOT 1967!This film hasn't even tried to be 'with-it', hasn't even put any 'token' pop or rock music in. You know the kind: 'groovy' party music with Hammond organs and bongos and electric guitars and go-go girls!There IS 'music' in this film, however, a LOT of it. You can't stop it. It keeps popping up to torture you like the monster in a horror movie. Now, I dislike show music, even when it's competent, but this is BAD show music! Others have gone into detail about it so I won't repeat their comments.You can't believe that in this same year you had The Graduate with wonderful songs by Simon and Garfunkel! It's like the makers of this film were on a totally different planet - the planet of Fuddie-duddie!I did watch it all the way though (albeit noodling on the guitar the whole time) and I have to agree with nearly everyone about one thing: Sharon Tate is very sweet.Thanks for reading! Bye!

The book Valley of the Dolls remains one my favourite novels: it is bitterly glamorous, savage in its dissection of fame. It hits hard – even after almost 50 years of publication.I love the movie of Jacqueline Susann's bestseller, made a year after the book was released, for a different reason: it is a classic example of perfect camp cinema, its kitschy design, clumsy story telling. It's so bad, it's good.From Patty Duke lurching around in doll-addled state, to Barbara Parkins gliding icily through every scene with perfect eye make-up and no emotion, to Sharon Tate sprouting the most ridiculous dialogue imaginable – it's a doozy.However, watching it again the other night, I realised two things. Firstly, if this film was made today, Jackie Susann would've had so much more control over the film, in the way Stephenie Meyer or JK Rowling do—it would have to be made faithfully even if it took two instalments.The second thing I realised was that the movie, in the final analysis, does a grave disservice to the central message of the novel. The novel points out that fame is bitter pill to swallow – there is a price to pay, and it's steep.The movie highlights every lurid tragedy and salacious detail of the book but seems to say, "OK, you can go through all of this girls, but you can return to your snowy bucolic hometown and everything will be fine. No harm, no foul."