|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||54 reviews in total|
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.
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.
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
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 The original was not exactly out of date.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.
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.
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.
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
silicone) that was too high on the female leads chest. And she wasn't
a pleasure to look at. The male lead, what's his name, seemed invisible
me in the role.
Do yourself a great favor and rent the original instead.
*** 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.
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
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.
*** 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.
I thought Patricia Heaton did a fantastic job as Paula but No1 was as good as Richard Dreyfuss. They could have done a better job with the casting of Elliot too. Jeff Daniels was mediocre @ best. I also liked the daughter in this one better. The script was almost verbatim & it was still funny but I wasn't rolling & laughing so hard my sides hurt like I did when I first saw the 1977 version. As my title says: it was good but not great. They could have done a LOT worse. Look how horribly musicals like Best Little Whorehouse in Texas ; for one; the movie totally sucked. The musical was much better. All in all I give this remake of a classic a 6. I like how they modernized it too although it didn;t fit in the original plot. IE: Elliot first tries to use his cell phone . Then he drops it & breaks it. They didn't have cell phones in 1977. They were also talking a lot about revivals & improvs which are much more common now.
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|