text: Although it may not be Cassavetes' best work, Minnie and Moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. The plot is whimsical and charming, and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion -- much more drama than comedy, contrary to IMDb's profile. Yes, the story is whimsical, but not arbitrary; it succeeds as believable, albeit a tad forced -- which I will come back to. All of the artistic aspects are of true Cassavetes form: the cinematography and camera-work are delights, and the soundtrack -- albeit barely there -- is complimentary. Plus I believe I noticed some nods to Godard and such in the editing -- as I have in a few of Cassavetes' other films -- (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene), which are interesting.<br /><br />I feel the plot is built up nicely, with the first half being particularly enjoyable. Seymour's conversation with Morgan Morgan (Timothy Carey) in the diner, for example, is wonderfully funny and fascinating, and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. This philosophising -- a tradition in Cassavetes' films -- is what made the film for me. Seymour's amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp -- though his character is curiously similar to that of his in Faces (1968). This tipped me, however, (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against Cassavetes' best work. I gained an affection for this film that I lacked on first viewing.<br /><br />There are, sadly, several aspects that make this film imperfect. I find the plot to be unbalanced. As I said before, it builds up nicely, but it wanes a bit here and there, particularly towards the end. Because of the spontaneous style in which Cassavetes worked, and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise, the quality of his product can easily go either way. In this case it's inconsistent. I assess that most of this film was improvised, and most of it beautifully. But one or two scenes, unfortunately, just don't work. In particular, the scene after Seymour fights with Minnie's work associate outside her house. During what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film, Cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue -- presuming some was planned beforehand. This, I believe, was a mistake. One gets the impression Cassel doesn't quite know what to do, as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech, often not making sense, and overacts; all of this damaging the scene and the character development. I understand Seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool, but Cassel's attempts here are misapplied. Why does he cut his moustache off? These flaws are resulting from: a lack of direction on Cassavetes part; a lack of understanding and forethought on Cassel's part; a lack of rehearsal and preparation; etc. Evidently, Cassavetes didn't learn from his mistakes, as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) -- the committing scene, and ending.<br /><br />The flaws I mention are not minor, but they do not ruin the film. They simply make some scenes cringe-worthy and unrealistic, spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. However, I am very, very fond of Cassavetes and all of his actors, particularly Cassel, in spite of the faults I mentioned. This is a very enjoyable film, although it proves the precariousness of Cassavetes' style.