IMDb > The Goodbye Girl (2004) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Goodbye Girl
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Goodbye Girl (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 54 reviews in total 

17 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Another Pointless Remake

Author: boblipton from New York City
17 January 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

a good sweatpants/ice-cream movie

Author: megsmassage from Atlanta
31 July 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Mildly enjoyable fluff...but why make it?

Author: Barry Moore ( from United States
17 January 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

scene-for-scene re-shoot

Author: stephenhow from California, USA
26 June 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Save your time and rent the original

Author: Dave-in-Hayward from Hayward
19 January 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Why? WHY remake this again?

Author: GrammarMatters from Canada
26 January 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Hard to replace a classic

Author: tgfobiwan from United States
3 April 2005

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining? yes, even if unbelievable

Author: master122883 from Washington, DC
16 January 2004

What got me to watch this movie in the first place was seeing Patricia Heaton in something other than Everybody Loves Raymond and to see Jeff Daniels in something a little more serious than Dumb and Dumber.

I won't give away any of the plot, but I will say that the movie was entertaining. Although the speed at which emotions changed back and forth was a little too quick to be believable. Some people also might be turned off by the overly mature NYC 10 year old daughter who at times seems to be more of a sister then a daughter to Heaton's character.

It was a nice film to end the day with.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

This movie was dumb.

Author: Rich Abdill ( from New Jersey, United States
14 November 2005

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Why bother?

Author: jlacerra from Philadelhia, PA
18 January 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history