The Razor's Edge (1984) User Reviews

This razor's edge isn't sharp enough

[jjnxn-1 · 7/10 · 1 April 2014]

Elegant but facile version of the Maugham novel, a passion project for Murray who is good in parts of the film but flat in others. On it's own an okay film hampered by over-length but compared to the Tyrone Power/Gene Tierney original, which has its own problems, it's a pale shadow. A good deal of the fault for that lies in both the direction and the performances. The general ennui of the performances may in fact be laid at the director's feet. All are capable actors as they've shown elsewhere but here be it a mismatch of actor/actress and part or lack of direction most founder.

Theresa Russell does the film's best work but even her Sophie is missing the bruised sorrow that made Anne Baxter's take on the part so compelling and won her the Oscar for best supporting actress. James Keach evaporates from the screen in a rather thankless role that John Payne managed to make an impression in with a show of quiet strength. Surprisingly the weakest of the star spots is Catherine Hicks, usually a very fine actress, adrift in her part. She exudes a warm presence on screen totally wrong for the heartless, mindlessly cruel Isabel that Gene Tierney playing with an icy edge made vivid.

A good try but only average.

Just watch the 1946 version.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 12 February 2020]

It is a bit surprising that Hollywood ever made a film out of Somerset Maugham's novel "The Razor's Edge". This is because the story has a lot of existential elements and is far from the typical fare coming from the studios. Despite this, they made a 1946 version with Tyrone Power and a 1984 version with Bill Murray. Of the two, I prefer the 1946 version--some of which because it generally sticks closer to the novel. However, being 1946, the sexual elements were sanitized a bit....though it still is superior for several reasons...most notably Bill Murray's odd performance.

The story begins just before the US entered WWI. Some friends are gathered for a party before several of them head to Europe as volunteer ambulance drivers. Not surprisingly, this experience transformed Larry (Murray) and instead of coming home after the war, he stays in France. At first, his girlfriend (Catherine Hicks) supports this bohemian lifestyle for him, but after it's clear he's never returning home to his old patrician life, she marries another man. During the rest of the film, Larry works many low-paying jobs...enough to survive and enough to travel. He's on a journey to explore himself and life and eventually it takes him to India and the East.

At the same time, the film focuses on the folks Larry left behind back in Illinois. While they are all rich, they aren't necessarily happy. Some are a bit screwed up, others are totally out of control. The parallel between these shallow, stagnant rich folks and the poor but happy Larry is the gist of the film.

Bill Murray can be a very funny man and has made some wonderful films. That being said, he's all wrong for the film for two main reasons. Sometimes (particularly earlier in the movie) he seems a lot like Bill Murray, not the character in the novel. He is a bit of a smart aleck and his reactions seem like Murray in "Meatballs" or "Ghostbusters". However, a bit later, he often is 100% deadpan...much like he later did in "Broken Flowers" and "Lost in Translation". But then, oddly, some of the earlier personality and sarcasm still occasionally pokes through...which is not consistent with the story or character. As a result, it definitely blunts the impact of the story...a very important story since it focuses on the meaning of life and is supposed to be a story with great depth.

Another problem, though much less important, is that sometimes the film didn't try very hard to capture the era in which it was supposed to be set. In particular, the lovely Catherine Hicks looks great...and much like a woman who is living during 1984. Her hairstyle is wrong for 1916-1920. Fortunately, when the film got to 1929, her hair was period appropriate.

Overall, an interesting experiment that ultimately fell a bit flat. I appreciate the risk Murray took but ultimately it's a story that just doesn't quite hit the mark. This apparently was the prevailing attitude back in 1984 and the movie lost a lot of money....earning back less than half of its costs.

By the way, I wouldn't mind seeing a third version of this story. The basic story idea by Maugham is laudable...man's search for meaning. But the first film was a bit too tame and the second was just a bit of a mess. I'd love to see one that would correct this as well as sticking very close to the source material.

Truly a line as hard to walk as a Razor's Edge

[KingProjector93 · 6/10 · 5 December 2014]

The second adaptation of the iconic novel, this Bill Murray centric- version follows him as Larry, an early 20th century socialite who ends serving as an ambulance driver in WW1. Marked by this experience, he distances himself from the high life in America and begins a global search for life's meaning, from the mines of Britannia to the mountains of Tibet.

Beautifully mounted, the 80s 'Razor's Edge' assembles a lot of great components, yet never fully meets expectation. From a writing standpoint, this is down to the inciting incident that leads to Larry's soul search: it just isn't well developed enough. The WW1 segment isn't very long, and you don't really get the impression that Larry is scarred or shocked by it. What's more, they try to have him have this relationship with his officer, Piedmont (played by Brian Murray), but the screen time they do share sees them more at odds or Larry being bewildered by the brashness of Piedmont. Why does his death matter so much to Larry? As a byproduct of this one misfire, it weakens everything else in the story, and makes Larry's journey not feel as powerful or weighty as it so badly needs to be.

This is a genuine shame that they got this one key element wrong, as everything else is top notch. It's very well filmed, especially thanks to its international, on location backdrop. The stuff up in the Himalayas in particular is pretty spectacular. Performances are also of a similar calibre; for his first straight role, old Bill isn't half bad. Sometimes he can be a little rigid, but for the most part, his dryness and friendly demeanour compensate. He is joined by the likes of Catherine Hicks, Theresa Russell and James Keach, who all add solid work. And finally, Jack Nitzsche's score; very elegant, and though it mainly relies on a recurring motif of strings that sounds very similar to Morricone's 'Time of Destiny', it actually works rather well and is genuinely moving.

In the end, 'Razor's Edge' is an ambitious failure, but not a boring or indulgent one at least. For Murray fans, it's an intriguing little curio and an important step in his development.

Very enjoyable film - good pace/feel/look/ideas.

[moore104 · 14 May 2004]

"The Razor's Edge" is based on a novel of the same title.

"The Razor's Edge" takes place over at least a decade, moving from the midwestern U.S to WWI in Europe to Paris and what might be Tibet and back to Paris again. It's a nice film to look at, as the period and place production really sucks one into the story, and has what I thought of as a cozy pacing, but what some might think drags on a little (it was a great, alone-on-a-rainy-Sunday, laying-on-the-couch rental for me).

The film does a good job of playing ideas with scenes, and playing the ideas/scenes off of seemingly drastically different ones, from the barren emptiness of a battlefield to the uplifting emptiness of the Himalayas, to the warm loneliness of a Paris café, to the cold loneliness of a rich man's death bed.

This is obviously a true labor of love for Bill Murray. He nails his character and the ideas the script attempts to channel through his character's development. Hopefully, now that somehow people can "accept" Bill Murray as not "just" an overtly comedic actor (with the success of "Lost in Translation") people will be more open to enjoying this very good film.

Overlooked Gem

[superzaco · 7/10 · 15 July 2005]

This film has to be one of the most neglected gems in recent history. The big buzz of course comes from early Bill Murray long before his recent renaissance.

I found this to extremely enjoying, well paced, well acted and a marvelous adaptation of a much loved book. It possesses a timeless quality that will appeal to the mature viewer. A very human, very touching film it was made even more enjoyable by the contrast in nature and content of this film to Murray's other work of the era. His wide range and scope has finally been accepted and embraced but it has long been on display in this forgotten treasure.

Bravo.

Rent this out as soon as you can, it is most enjoyable.

One of my all-time faves

[rickbkis · 10/10 · 3 March 2004]

I was prepared to hate this movie, when I first rented it. It was a 'curiosity pick': I liked the title, I didn't have anything else in mind, and my thought was, of course, "Bill Murray!?"

It turned out to be one of my all-time favorite movies in the 'character-transformation' genre.

It's a compelling story of choices in life and how those choices affect or disaffect perceptions of that life. Murray is perfection in this role, because we seem him change from something we recognize to something quite different. It is a palpable and comprehensible transformation - the movie draws us in, it allows us to change with him.

The rest of the characters are well cast and provide definitive counterpoint to the protagonist - the bon-vivant aristocratic uncle Elliot who simply lives his life appreciatively, the unthinking and manipulative Isabel concerned only with her own comforts and social standing, the uncertain Sophie that allows her uncertainty to trap and destroy her, the practical yet contemplative Raaz who challenges Darrell's notion of things, constructively, and leads him to further his quest. Good character development, all around.

Finally, I was impressed with the faithfulness to the book. It's difficult for a movie to be that, and still be an watchable movie.

a moving portrayal of one man's journey of self discovery

[disdressed12 · 7/10 · 27 January 2007]

The Razor's Edge is the story of a man who could have had a life of wealth,but decided he wanted more.he goes on a journey of self discovery and enlightenment.the movie based on the novel by W.Somerset Maugham(The Painted Veil)and the screenplay is co-written by John Byrum and Bill Murray.Murray is also the main character in the film.The story begins during the time of the 1st world war.Larry Darrel(Murray)goes off to fight in the war.the war has taken its toll on him emotionally and when he returns home he is a different man.and so he leaves for Paris and his journey of discovery begins.This movie is very dramatic,sedate at times,and hard to get through.it is at times very poignant and sombre.but it does have a message.sometimes we think we have everything,when in fact we have nothing.the most wealthy person may have little or no money,but can be rich,nonetheless.normally i don't go for the kinds of movies that have a moral to them.and that is because they usually hit you over the head repeatedly with the message.The Razor's Edge isn't that kind of film.everything about the film is subtle,so you really just come to you own conclusions.this is not a comedy,in fact if it were a play,it would be a tragedy.Bill Murray puts in a fine dramatic performance.Theresa Russel(Wild things,Kafka)Catherine Hicks(7th Heaven)Denholm Elliot(Raiders of the Lost Ark)among others put in very good supporting performances.i would not recommend this movie to everyone.if you like your viewing experience to be filled with action,this is not your movie.if your tastes run more to the sublime,you will like this movie.i give this movie a strong 7/10

This is not "The Razor's Edge"

[whitdixon · 3/10 · 29 September 2005]

By no means should this movie be called "The Razor's Edge." That this movie uses that title demeans the excellent novel so well crafted by the novelist W. Somerset Maugham. Part of what makes the book wonderful is the frame narration by an outside source--so that Larry is always just a construction by another, a person we never really know, who remains as mysterious as his quest and his sense of enlightenment. With Murray's movie, we don't even have the character who is supposed to tell the story--it is like trying to film The Great Gatsby, except without Nick Carraway.

The movie transmogrifies the wonderful qualities that Maugham invests in Larry--an indescribable smile that shows the warmth and generosity of his heart; a spirit that never rises to anger, that gives in a Christ-like manor which suggests the purest version of altruism known, untainted by self-interest; an elusive sort that we never can encapsulate--and changes them into Murray's own strong suits: witty retorts directed at dull people, low emotion alcoholism coupled with outbursts, clowning for the camera. Murray's Larry is not the pure soul who captivated a famous writer--he is the man from "Ghostbusters," trying every now and then to be serious. Many of these qualities are anathema to the character he is to be portraying—and I was hoping to see some completely different side of Bill.

The plot changes are ridiculous: Larry drives an ambulance instead of flying a plane; he goes with Gray rather than by himself; Sophie and her husband are married at the beginning rather than later; Larry and Isabel sleep with each other; Sophie's a prostitute instead of a whore— and she falls truly in love with Larry rather than dutifully, as she does in the novel—the only way that her leaving him makes sense. Isabel's indiscrete shouting in a dignified restaurant wrecks the grace of her character; the confrontation between Sophie and Isabel is maddeningly trite and destructive to any subtlety that the movie might wish to preserve. Gray, rather than being the commonplace everyman, is instead some spidery sort supposedly war-mates with Larry—a foolish depth to a relationship better left at its tenuous state, as the book does. In order for Larry's character to make sense, he needs to be left alone during the war, rather than have some mate from Chicago there to observe his transition.

The end result is a palate of flat, rather dull characters who belong to a soap opera rather than the host created by Maugham, individuals who make poor decisions at times, but who, nonetheless, we can never wholly condemn. In the book, our ethereal vision of Larry is tempered by the compassionate portraits of Suzanne and Elliot and Gray and Isabel and Sophie. In the movie, we must subsist wholly on an unbelievable Murray playacting for the camera but never even approximating the earnestness and rigor of Maugham's Larry.

Hey, I loved it!

[artzau · 9/10 · 10 May 2001]

The remarks of the detractor in this array of reviews is confusing and confused. Look. I read Maugham's book in the late 40s and saw the Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, Clifton Webb film. So what? This film was neither one but that's beauty of art, dudes. It doesn't have to. The Razor's Edge is an odyssey of a man in search of himself. The transit nature of life and the brutality of war turn him into a "superfluous" man, who goes off on a quest to find himself. We can inundate this issue with metaphors until the cows come home, but that's Maugham's story. Old Somerset, a closet homosexual who was a volunteer in the horrorific WW1 went through a similar transformation and in a way, this novel, which he began back in the 20s, reflects that journey. Murray takes the character of Larry Darrell into a new domain. Why shouldn't he? He's not Tyrone Power. He's a comedian who plays a tragic role straight. There is much in this film that makes it superior to the 40s version. A stronger statement of the tragedy of the entanglement of the two women and a more intense presentation of the character of Larry. I saw this film when it first aired and recalled a young high school kid remarking to a friend upon exiting, "Man, this is a totally awesome movie." I agree. Alas, the critics and comedy-addicted Murray fa ns didn't and it flopped. Pity. It is a totally awesome movie.

Curiosity for this version only

[kindredparadox · 6/10 · 25 February 2021]

It follows Larry (Murray) engaged to be married to Isabel (Hicks). But after the war, Larry postponed the wedding to find the meaning of life

As I have watched the previous version of the film and also read the book, I kind of immune to the story surprise. Without it, there's nothing besides the enjoyment of visual scenes and soundtrack

One of the worst I've ever seen

[lmharnisch · 1/10 · 23 January 2010]

I saw this movie when it came out and 26 years have not dulled the memory of how terrible it is.

How bad? Well "Razor's Edge" is like Bill Murray's lounge singer trying to do a serious grand opera -- and occasionally reverting to his lounge persona.

What makes this movie particularly awful is its grand pretensions. Murray, at least at that point in his career, didn't have the acting chops for serious drama and was allowed to get away just about anything. It's the ultimate vanity project. Awful. Awful. Awful.

It was nice to see Brian Doyle Murray, Bill Murray's brother, in a small role, since they used to work together on the National Lampoon Radio Hour.

I have to disagree

[rshendri · 10/10 · 23 March 2005]

I have to say that the first time I saw the movie, I was about five years old and saw it in a movie theatre. But as young as I was, it had a deep impression on me. I could not forget it, and by chance, received a copy of it as a gift my first year of college. It was so much better than I remembered...Although it is a bit different from Maugham's original book, I would (and have) highly recommended it to anyone. I realize I'm probably the only person in the world who thinks this movie is so absolutely incredible, but there is so much about it that stands out to me. Besides the bit of eastern philosophy that is thrown in, I am truly in love with the portrayal of the time period and the love triangle(square, rectangle) between Larry, Isabelle, Sophie, and Gray. I think I have seen this movie about 1000 times, and look forward to watching it 1000 more.

good but should be better

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 29 December 2014]

America has not entered WWI yet. Larry Darrell (Bill Murray) with his girlfriend Isabel Bradley (Catherine Hicks), his best friend Gray Maturin (James Keach) and Sophie MacDonald (Theresa Russell) live a comfortable upper class life. Larry and Gray go to Europe to drive an ambulance. After the war, Larry goes in search for himself. In Paris, he and Isabel end up not getting married as he pushes on as a coal miner and eventually cooking at a Tibetan monastery. Isabel ends up married to Gray who goes to work for his father. The Great Depression hits the family brokerage hard and Gray's father commits suicide. Sophie suffers after her husband and child are killed in a car crash. Larry runs into Isabel and Gray with their two daughters now broke in Paris. They also find Sophie who became a drug addicted prostitute.

Bill Murray does a good but not a great job. He is always great at the zen jester character. He just can't reach the darker depths necessary during and right after the war. It also occurs to me that this is the story of two people. Isabel is the other person and the movie needs to zero in on that. Theresa Russell would have been a great Isabel although she's a perfectly fine Sophie in the movie. Sophie could have done by somebody more fragile. It's a good attempt by Murray but not all successful.

Does not compare to the original

[ru-reel · 1/10 · 2 April 2009]

Sorry folks, call me old fashioned, but having seen the original "Razor's Edge" several times, I was VERY disappointed with the Bill Murray version. The original version with Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, Herbert Marshal, etc., had class, style, gorgeous black and white photography, and a brilliant screenplay and acting with truly talented superstars. The VAST MAJORITY of actors, directors, and "writers" in Hollywood today can't begin to compete with this calibre of talent, and they had NO BUSINESS remaking this film. As for Bill Murray, I don't consider him to be a talented actor for either comedy roles or dramatic ones. His "understated", deadpan "acting" style is simply evidence that he's incapable of projecting any meaningful emotions on the screen, and I am NOT TAKEN IN BY HIM as some reviewers on this site seem to be. In short, I thought the Bill Murray version of "Razor's Edge" was EXTREMELY ho-hum, and I gave it a "one-star" rating because this movie is a very big insult to those of us who appreciate fine romantic drama, and I mean "romantic" not just in the interpersonal "falling in love" sense, I mean it with a big, capital "R". The original "Razor's Edge" conveys a romantic view of life, a search for meaning, and a questioning of how we live our lives. The recent version of this movie is a confused, poorly acted, poorly directed film.

A Dreamer's Story

[kbean66 · 27 April 2004]

I saw this movie when it was released in 1984. Being a big Bill Murray fan drew me to it and the story did the rest. It was my first year in college and I dreamed of running away with nothing but some books and a canvas bag. I dreamed vicariously through this movie for awhile. Who hasn't wanted to travel the world anonymously? It is the essence of life, the secret to life, that is held in the dream that Mr. Murray must have had at some point in his lifetime that drove him to make this movie.

For all you naysayers out there: Movies don't have to be perfect. Some can be appreciated for the trash quality (Wild Things), some for crassness (Something About Mary), and others for a single scene (Saving Private Ryan). This movie is for dreamers who don't give a fck what everyone else is doing.

curtain razor

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 18 October 2006]

Taking a break from his goof-ball roles, Bill Murray starred in this serious movie about a man's search for meaning. "The Razor's Edge" is an interesting movie alright, but I guess that it's one of those situations where they throw so much philosophical stuff at you that it's hard to digest. Is Bill Murray the right choice for the role, or is he totally miscast? Well, in recent years, he's taken a number of serious roles, so there's nothing wrong with him taking one here; still, considering that this was the same year as "Ghost Busters", you almost expect him to blurt out something silly. No matter, he does a very good job in the role. Worth seeing, if only once. Also starring Theresa Russell, Catherine Hicks and Denholm Elliott.

How did this fail..

[party · 9/10 · 16 February 1999]

The supposed 'straight' role that Bill Murray performed in this adaptation of the novel by the same name is why it failed. On the back of Stripes and then Ghostbusters, people found it hard to accept the deadpan face of Murray fronting a movie examining belief systems and the meaning of life.

The screenplay charts the spiritual and philosophical growth of Larry Darrell (Murray) as he begins to question the materialist world building up around him. Darrell's search within takes him across the globe through many different scenarios, and Murray adds a welcome dose of humanity and - to be quite frank humour, as he treads the path to salvation.

The novel by Somerset Maugham is an excellent read, and its not that the performance of Murray detracts from, or belittles the plight of Darrell, rather it enhances it.

Powerful Movie

[dallasryan · 7/10 · 30 June 2013]

Larry Darrell is one of those enigmatic characters that every actor dreams of playing. Larry Darrell embodies something that the human spirit always longs for, meaning. Therefore the Character of Larry Darrell is the incarnate for that 'Search' of whatever void there is in a persons soul. And the longing to fill that void.

I like Bill Murray even better than I did before when I found out more about the history behind him doing this role. Mr. Murray really wanted to do this film and play this character as he identified with the character in a lot of ways. Also, Bill Murray wrote a monologue in the movie about a character who dies which he wrote in actuality for John Belushi(it makes the scene a lot more endearing seeing it now after knowing that fact).

The Razor's Edge is one of my favorite books by W. Somerset Maugham and it was turned into a movie years before this one with Tyrone Power. Power played Darrell very well, he embodied Larry Darrell's unattainable quality to a tee. However, so did Bill Murray, in just a very different way Murray did. Bill Murray plays Larry with such an indifference, where you will see Murray in many scenes with a Blank Look or Murray's usual Dead Pan face. Murray makes a valiant effort at playing one of the most complicated characters of our time in Larry Darrell. The performance Bill Murray gives is hit and miss. However, whether Murray meant to or not, the character of Larry Darrell is very hit and miss as well. Darrell is unattainable, enigmatic, confusing, and perhaps wild at heart, and also perhaps there's nothing going on in Darrell's head or there is so much going on in Darrell's head, you never know from reading the book nor from the movies. So with that said, Murray playing the character the way he did might have been spot on.

It's kind of to the eye of the beholder, and in some ways I do think Murray's Blank Stare and Dead Pan features were perfect for how Larry Darrell is. So in some ways, I think Murray made some very good choices on purpose or not on purpose in playing Darrell, but also in my subjective opinion, there were other scenes that I wish he would have made different choices on.

But again, knowing that Murray wanted to play this role so bad and that he even wrote the movie along with other screenwriters, makes me like Murray all the more. Bill Murray is a great actor, very underrated in his greatness.

This version of The Razor's Edge has a Terrific Music Score, you would think this is a great movie by how great the music score is, and the movie is almost great, but like Murray's performance, it's hit and miss. Some scenes in the movie are very powerful and great(Some scenes are some of the best you will ever see in my opinion). And some scenes aren't so great, they're kind of off, etc.(again, my subjective opinion).

Theresa Russell gives an absolutely terrific performance as Sophie. I believe Russell would have been nominated for an academy award for her performance of Sophie, but the fact remains that in the Tyrone Power version made years ago, Anne Baxter was just as exceptional in the role of Sophie, and Anne Baxter was nominated and she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in that role. Both Baxter and Russell were equally terrific in that role and it's tough to say who I like better, very tough to say in fact. Which I really can't, they're equally great.

Finally, there's a scene in the movie that hits it right on the money. The book had this particular scenario go a different way as the Tyrone Power version stayed true to the book in this particular scene(basically this particular scene in the Murray version didn't exist in the book or Tyrone Power version).

However, I don't know if Murray wrote this scene or not, but the book should have written this part into it, the way it's written and executed in the Murray version. It's an extremely powerful scene and true to the characters. It's a scene where Darrell tries to rescue Sophie from some bad men(I'll just say that without spoiling the scene). Bill Murray plays this very difficult scene terrifically as does Russell, and again, the book doesn't have this, but I wish it would have, it's much more effective in this Murray version.

Larry Darrell is a tough character to play. Other actors who have played a similar type of character are Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall(which Brad Pitt played that type of part perfectly I thought, in more of a romantic kind of way)as well as Peter Gallagher in Underneath and also Richard Tyson in Two Moon Junction(where he plays the mysteriousness of that type of character well, even though he's more of a cad and playboy Lothario, but still deep in his enigmatic qualities).

A truly trite pretentious silly overblown little movie

[inframan · 1/10 · 3 November 2000]

I loved the book when I was 14. It was my first taste of eastern mysticism and the power of the mind over the body. I particularly fell for the coin trick & practiced it endlessly. At 16 I saw the first movie version & fell under the spell of Tyrone Powers dark dreamy eyes. Well into adulthood I saw this silly thing & was deeply embarrassed. For myself, for its audience, especially for anyone associated with its production. Bill Murray is Bill Murray. He stands there & does his deadpan thing. No Larry Darrell he. What this movie is is a pastiche. What it makes me realize is what a fraud all movies about western individuals seeking spiritual wisdom from alien cultures are. Hey, let's face it. There is no there there.

A Truly Exceptional Movie and All Time Favorite

[michael_russell · 10/10 · 17 June 2001]

If you are an intelligent viewer who is looking for a significant and possibly mind expanding movie event then `The Razor's Edge' is for you. It has remained one of my favorite films for fifteen years, and I have owned it and replayed it many times. If you look at the viewer feedback for this film you will find that the vast majority of people rate is as `Excellent' movie (29% of IMDB viewers give it a perfect `10/10' rating). Those who fail to see it's qualities can be divided fairly equally into the `don't get it' camp (Unlike the typical Hollywood lowest denominator flicks, the minimum IQ for viewing is Razor's Edge is probably at least 100, and that leaves ½ the population out), and the `disappointed' crowd, who have so typecast the star (Bill Murray) that they wanted `Caddyshack' and just can't allow him to be a serious actor. You must set aside your prejudices and give the man a chance-Bill Murray is a Harvard grad who co-wrote the screenplay-this was a labor of love for him. Just because he has a sense of humor does NOT make him a lightweight, as this film demonstrates for anyone with the eyes to see it.

Based upon the 1942 W. Somerset Maugham novel, it follows the evolution of a spoiled upper class boy from Illinois (Larry, Bill Murray), who volunteers to be an ambulance driver in WW I for a little `fun and adventure' and instead gets a dose of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). His world was forever changed by the events he experienced. He literally could not go home again after the war. He tried, and found the lives of those around him to be shallow and meaningless, and their pursuits and interests just trivial. There had to be a reason why he was here, and this sets the stage for the real point of the movie, which is an exploration of the meaning of life. (I told you it wasn't Caddyshack!)

Obsessed with these existential issues, and finding that alcohol did not make the need go away, Larry travels to Paris, and starts to read, serious books on philosophy and religion, supporting himself as a laborer. He does not care much for his surroundings-his lack of materialism is in marked contrast to his peers and friends from before, whose dreams are to grow wealthy in the stock market. As such Larry was an early Bohemian. I found this particularly poignant, realizing as I watched this movie that it foreshadowed yet another stock market boom and bust: a whole new generation of crass materialists have had their world was just as rocked by a stock market crash in 1999 as in 1929. History does repeat, and these themes are timeless. His fiancee could not deal with his `common' friends and lack of modern plumbing, and left him to marry someone she did not love but who had money. Another contrast to the shallow and materialistic, which is a recurring theme throughout the film-what brings happiness to a man?

Larry's journey took him to India, and Hindu religion, and then on to Tibet to discover Buddha-the scenes filmed there are absolutely breathtaking, so I hope you can find a letterbox laserdisc or they finally bring this out on DVD-it is worth it to see the whole screen. There is romance, and love, and loss. I won't reveal the ending, which is truly bittersweet, and a bit nihilistic. This is truly the best thing this fine actor ever accomplished, and I rate it a strong `10'. This should have won many awards, and should also be considered a true classic; I am disappointed in my fellow man that they so typecast the star that they could not see what a great contribution he made with this effort here. Not light fare, and a long film, but one worth seeing.

Bill's first move towards the serious.

[theowinthrop · 6/10 · 11 March 2006]

Bill Murray had been one of the bright stars of the original Saturday NIGHT LIVE. He had a good transition into films in films like STRIPES. But in 1984 he felt he had to show his growth as a performer. He left comedies and moved into straight drama. For some reason he chose to remake Somerset Maugham's novel-into-movie THE RAZOR'S EDGE. The results were not bad, but they were not as good as later dramatic films that Murray made in the 1990s and 2000s.

The best thing I found about this version of THE RAZOR'S EDGE (which I saw in a movie house in Flushing in 1984) was the opening. Somehow in the 1946 film version, the horrors of the western front were not as well developed in the final movie (a distinct weakness, by the way). Larry Darell (Murray in this version and Tyrone Power in the 1946 version) is, like Ernest Hemingway, an ambulance driver. In Murray's film he is taken under the wing of a cynical ambulance driver who explains how to view things when the pressure of enemy bombing or shelling gets to you. After all, you have to drive to the front lines, pick up the wounded and dying, and bring them back to the hospitals behind the lines. You can get killed in a barrage.

The cynical driver, when he witnesses the death of some other ambulance trainees, starts giving a speech of how much he disliked them, and how he won't miss them. His eyes and face show he is lying, and is saying this for his mental health. Subsequently the cynical driver and his assistant are killed. Murray, who has grasped this lesson, repeats the same speech regarding the cynical driver that the latter had given earlier.

This was a key scene in the story - it explains how Larry is shattered by the horrors of the war. And it sets the stage (better, actually) for his search for answers in the Far East than Tyrone Power had demonstrated in the earlier version.

That was the best difference between the two films. Otherwise, the Murray film lacked the cast strengths of the Power film. Besides Power, Clifton Webb, Gene Tierney, Anne Baxter ("Oscar" winner here), John Payne, Herbert Marshall and Elsa Lanchester added cast strength there. But here the best performer was Murray, and only Denholm Elliott as Elliott Templeton really was good, and he was pale compared to the great Webb in the same role (although he was able to give an unbowdlerized version of Elliott's final line of dialog). This is a fair film version, but the original is better.

Terrible!

[MycroftHolmes · 1/10 · 20 August 2018]

What if we remade The Razor's Edge with people speaking and acting as they would in the 80's? Wouldn't that be fun? We should get a smart aleck shlub to be the main character. Then we could have him miss the whole point of the book! We'll just leave out the narrator, that will change the whole tone of the story.

Sorry, but this film is pretty much unwatchable unless you like 80's comedies. Murray is terribly miscast and never acts as a person from that period would. Just watch the Tyrone Power version and have an actual spiritual experience.

Very well done

[DaCritic-2 · 10/10 · 29 November 1999]

This adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel is wonderful in so many ways. The dialogue is well written, the actors and actresses involved are excellent and believable in their roles, and the screenplay is spiritually faithful to the novel.

Theresa Russel is a gem in this movie, as the troubled Sophie, but it is Bill Murray's portrayal of Larry that truly stands out here ... mainly because, as far as I know, this is his only non-comedic role.

One of the best movies I've seen!

Bill Murray's The Meaning of Life

[richardchatten · 6/10 · 13 January 2023]

Friday the thirteenth is macabrely appropriate for this presentation by Talking Pictures. The accountants at Columbia took a huge bath humouring Bill Murray in his long cherished ambition to make this adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's novel which he insisted on making as a condition of agreeing to make 'Ghostbusters'.

The results aren't as grotesque as you might have feared but but Murray throughout always looks and sounds like a comedian (laconically asking a fallen comrade "You all right?" in the war scenes) trudging the world and pausing to pray in a Tibetan monastery in a succession of silly hats in what plays like a very expensive episode of 'The Kentucky Fried Movie'.

A couple of moments that draw a wry smile include the heroine's question "Did you read all those books?" and Murray's preposterous claim that he financed his search for truth with money he made working as a miner.

a waste of Maugham's precious testimony

[fe_scolfaro · 3/10 · 12 April 2009]

to begin with, the story is so skipped between particular points that it just gets meaningless about 1/3 into it...

i have read and enjoyed the book as one of the treasures of western literature, as it creates bridges, and, for the time of its writing, is probably one of the first threads between mass communication and the concept of enlightenment...

it is a spiritual book in its entirety, and the movie has nothing to do with that...

the most important moment in the book passes unnoticed in the movie, and not only that, it can be considered to not have happened in the plot...

and i cannot understand why, actually... its all in the book, the scenery, a description of the feeling to the likes of any spiritual writings you can find anywhere, and NOTHING was translated into the movie...

nothing is accurate, not even the historic period the story is situated in... Gray loses everything in the stock market, yet there is no mention of it in this movie simply because it would call the bluff on the vague epoch setting decision...

Oddly enough, the coin scene is played 100% the same as in the book, depicting the same miracle seeking vision of spirituality that turns something elevated into mundane, like what happened to the book here...

India becomes Tibet, the holy Sri Ramana Maharshi in Tiruvannamalai (a vehement opponent of religion) becomes an unknown Buddhist monk in a monastery (!?), spirituality becomes as pointless as religion...

A disappointment... It would have taken a director with a broader and deeper view on spirituality to grasp the treasure the book is... If you have watched this, please do yourself a favor and read the book... Besides everything else, i have the feeling that there was absolutely no research and no depth also in the director's reading of the book, which is disrespectful to say the least...

The book is a testament on life, this movie is just a story with iconic characters in a 100% mundane setting... Too bad this pearl fell in the hands of a pig who apparently refused to read the book, or had the deliberate intention to break the bridge Maugham created between holy India and the west...

Read the book and you will be thankful for the description (because it is told to not really be fiction) and the broad sense of life you can get from it... Watch the movie and you can only have more of the same confusion you can find in any sitcom...

Shallow, superficial, and a waste of time. Besides, it is just insulting to realize something as a story about a baseball match becoming a movie description of a stadium...

Actually, if i had something to do with Maugham or was from India, i would sew this ignorant director... This movie shouldn't be called The Razor's Edge, it is a destructive non-tribute to it, in the hands of a director that probably thought he was better at telling a story than Maugham himself, or whose constricted religious beliefs came clashing in with Maugham's religion free spirituality...

Or to put it bluntly, i get the feeling that a story about enlightenment was told by somebody that believes in heaven and hell... A contradiction in itself...