Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
The Goodbye Girl (TV) More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 6: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 52 reviews in total |
14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Another Pointless Remake, 17 January 2004
Author:
boblipton from New York City
This perfectly serviceable remake of the 1977 picture raises the question as do so many remakes, of why this was remade. The scene is changed from the Upper West Side to West Greenwich village, but other than that, it looks like the leads worked on their characterizations by looking at the earlier film -- and the originals do it ever so slightly better.
8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
a good sweatpants/ice-cream movie, 31 July 2004
Author:
megsmassage from Atlanta
It was a made for TV movie, for goodness sake. If I were home alone on a Saturday night, I would really enjoy this movie--what is wrong with a movie simply being entertaining? I haven't seen the original, so maybe that is why you all hate it so much, but as for simple acting jobs, I thought that the little girl has actually really improved her acting skills and was nice and natural, with good comic timing. And Daniels was quite charming. I wasn't as crazy about P.Heaton as I normally am, but I think that that was a product of the way her character was written. And I was glad to see Alan Cumming do something light, too. Anyway, in general, it was enjoyable, and I would recommend it for a no fuss night.
8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Mildly enjoyable fluff...but why make it?, 17 January 2004
Author:
Barry Moore (connmoore@aol.com) from United States
It is almost impossible to watch this movie, without comparing it to the
1970's movie. Jeff Daniels does a servicable job in this role, but to my
eyes he seems miscast. He is just not desperate or manic enough in this
part. Patricia Heaton is actually an upgrade over Marcia Mason in the
female lead.
This is just an odd film to remake. The original was not exactly out of
date. They did not make any big changes in this version, except very
minor
mentions of more current events. If you are bored, the source material
this comes from is still pretty good. However if you really enjoy this
movie, take the time to rent the 1977 version. I promise you will
appreciate it being better.
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
scene-for-scene re-shoot, 26 June 2004
Author:
stephenhow from California, USA
I have both the 2004 and 1977 versions on my TiVo, and the former is a
scene-for-scene remake of the latter. It's interesting to see the small
changes in the scenes from the two movies. Like in the "morning after"
breakfast scene where the 1977 Lucy's Bicentennial lunchbox (remember
1976? remember lunch boxes), is replaced in 2004 with today's over-sized
book backpack. Also, the 1977 Lucy had a Habitrail (TM) for her
hampster -- still available today, but alas, not in the 2004 set. Of
course, political correctness is evident in the 2004 version -- the 3
black purse-snatchers in 1977 are replaced by 3 white purse snatchers
in 2004. In more evidence of progress, the 2004 rooftop dinner has much
more Christmas lights than the 1977 version. Similarly, the Subaru in
the 1977 auto show scene gets 39 mpg, while the Toyota in the 2004 auto
show gets 60 mpg.
The best thing I can say about the 2004 version is that Patricia Heaton
looks better in the role though 10 years older than Marsha Mason at the
time of shooting.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Why? WHY remake this again?, 26 January 2004
Author:
GrammarMatters from Canada
This remake just does not live up the the original. No chemistry between
the leads, and I can't remember the last time I've seen cleavage
(obviously
silicone) that was too high on the female leads chest. And she wasn't
even
a pleasure to look at. The male lead, what's his name, seemed invisible
to
me in the role.
Do yourself a great favor and rent the original instead.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Save your time and rent the original, 19 January 2004
Author:
Dave-in-Hayward from Hayward
I loved the original. This remake was just painful. Try though he might
Jeff Daniels could not carry off the roll of Elliot with any degree of
charm, humor or frenetic energy that Richard Dreyfuss made work so well in
the original. Matthew Perry MIGHT have been a better casting choice for
Elliot, but it's hard to follow a classic.
And though Patricia Heaton is much easier on the eye than Marsha Mason ever
was, she seemed to be phoning in her part as well. Marsha sold the part of
a hopeless romantic who'd been dumped one too many times. Patricia seemed
to be acting like it was one of her Albertson's commercials.
I really tried to cheer for this remake, but it just didn't hold a candle
to the original.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Hard to replace a classic, 3 April 2005
Author:
tgfobiwan from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Patricia Heaton is the only reason to watch this movie. The kid in the movie was a bit too old to be so cute, and Jeff Daniels performance was less than his best. The acting seemed a little forced and unnatural especially Daniels and the kid. The movie needed more attention paid to Daniels' and Heaton's sexual tension to make the romantic connection that ultimately occurs more believable. It seems the romantic connection occurs more out of desperation that love. I admire Heaton for attempting this role, but it was only her sexy outfits that made this movie endurable. The often-conservative housewife from Everybody Loves Raymond expanded her role capabilities by showing how beautiful and sexy a middle-aged women can be, too bad it was wasted on this remake.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
This movie was dumb., 14 November 2005
Author:
Rich Abdill (rabdill3@yahoo.com) from New Jersey, United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I wish I had a better word than "dumb" for this movie, but it's the one
that fits. The modern adaptation of The Goodbye Girl was an absolute
joke. Besides being a remake in the most literal (and lazy) sense
(practically every camera angle was identical to the 1977 original), it
had badly casted characters and, due to the use of a practically
untouched script, many highly unlikely situations in the modern world.
To start, Patricia Heaton is horribly miscast. Her inability to "find a
good man" is unbelievable- with her boob job, she should be beating men
off with a stick. In addition, she didn't do anything we weren't used
to seeing; frankly, I'm tired of seeing Patricia Heaton play the
embattled housewife. Very boring.
Jeff Daniels was a slightly better fit (less creepy than Richard
Dreyfus), but his slooooooow delivery and lackluster performance left
much to be desired.
Poorly acted and poorly translated to modern times. Stick with the
original.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Why bother?, 18 January 2004
Author:
jlacerra from Philadelhia, PA
Why did they remake this picture? It was a pleasant enough TV movie if
there was not a really excellent original to which it pales in
comparison.
Jeff Daniels, usually a favorite of mine, is not cut out for this type of
comedy. He is neither funny or sympathetic as Elliot. Patricia Heaton is
OK, but there is virtually no chemistry between her and Daniels. The
daughter is too cute and wise.
Oddly, a high point in this picture is a cameo by director Richard
Benjamin.
This production makes one want to go back into the archives and retrieve
the Dreyfuss/Mason version to REALLY see the show.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
the movie was horrible, 14 November 2005
Author:
jimmyw21 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I did not like the goodbye girl at all. I thought it was a boring unrealistic movie. The acting by Patrica Heaton was horrible she did not play her part well and i think that she needs to find herself a different character in every movie/TV show she plays a housewife. I don't think that that is working for her anymore. The acting of Jeff Daniels was much better than Patrica Heaton.I thought Hallie Kate Eisenberg played her part very well as Lucy McFadden. I thought she was the funniest character in the movie. I also couldn't understand why Paula McFadden would let some stranger move into her house well actually his house but who does that. I thought this movie wasn't going to be that good because i knew that it was a TV movie and most TV movies aren't very good.
| Page 1 of 6: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Ratings | Awards |
| External reviews | Official site | Plot keywords |
| Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2013
IMDb.com, Inc.
Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy | Interest-Based Ads
An 
company.