View: 173|Reply: 0

A river running in a deadly desert !

[Copy link]

11610K

Threads

12810K

Posts

37310K

Credits

Administrators

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

Credits
3732793
19-4-2021 05:00:04 Mobile | Show all posts |Read mode
Unlike many, I believe that remaking isn't a bad thing. It's only in the way of making it. (Neil Simon) wrote a screenplay entitled (The Goodbye Girl) which became a (Herbert Ross) movie in (1977). It was a great comedy with great performances. Now there is a new one. A TV one. So, based on the above, why not. However, after watching it, it's "why" only?!

First of all, they remade it with THE SAME screenplay. Regardless of saving the fee of new scriptwriter, that could be quite a challenge for the director to experience a different form in terms of making a creative remake a la (Richard III - 1995), or (Romeo   Juliet - 1996). Or it's just the same, yet with higher or - at least - as good performance. But you know what? Forget it utterly. Because this one ended up as uncreative and spooky instead!

The glaring touch of wit is so out. It's more like the original movie after emptying it of fun. For instance, look at (Jeff Daniels). He does the role with silly flavor of seriousness, missing the extra vitality of the struggling cuckoo actor that (Elliot Garfield) is. (Patricia Heaton) is a major casting problem. Who selected her for God's sake?! She looks old (older than her co-star), annoying, with no magic. I don't know who's to blame for depriving her character of its ardor, loveliness and desperate romanticism; to be another soppy, totally undistinguished, divorced woman.

You heard that dialogue before, and here, you are hearing it again, entirely, as the same as it was. I don't get bored of (Simon)'s work, but this time, the soulless deliverance from all the parties forces to. When I see the lead jumps over the fire escape to reproach his love in the street, exactly like (Richard Dreyfuss) did in the 1977's movie, I must yawn, moving my head in pity, grieving not understanding: "Why bothering yourselves making a déjà vu? This is an insult to you guys before being the same to us!".

There is nothing new except being dull. Well, to be fair, it had 3 new things already; a poster for (Brad Pitt) hanging on the wall, a delicate song before the end, and slightly (Hallie Kate Eisenberg) as (Lucy); she seemed more childish and less sophisticated unlike (Quinn Cummings) in the first movie, not reasons to re-watch this again though!

Generally, the forever fresh text runs on screen like a river in a deadly desert, with zero echoes. It's barely (Neil Simon) meets (The Bold and The Beautiful). There is no beneficiary of anything, except some people get paid, for repeating poorly a rich thing, and some network gets something to fill out its empty hours! I believe by now that you caught on the reason why this movie is spooky; it's how it indicates insolvency all the way. The same money, which they produced this TV ghost with it, should have been spent over ANY OTHER PROJECT better. But, obviously, there wasn't ANY OTHER PROJECT in the first place!

And when you watch, among flood of remakes, (The Omen - 1976) being remade into another one in (2006), under the same title, by the same script of its original writer (David Seltzer)--then you must notice how making movies in America lives in the 2000s a state of resorting to the 1970s, or any other creative decade, through many remakes, spooky ones, with nothing new to be specific.

The Conclusions: (Simon)'s work fits to be watched many times, and this movie doesn't. Watch (The Goodbye Girl - 1977), and avoid this TV version, sorry copy. Being a copy is enough pathetic, so how about that there is none to win from it, but appreciating the first movie more, along with detracting the 2000s more as well. It is not the goodbye girl inasmuch as the goodbye movie!

score 2/10

elshikh4 13 October 2010

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2323593/
Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | register

Points Rules

返回顶部