IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,8/10
1632
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuNYC cartoonist Duffy meets the bad cappuccino maker, chef Meg, and falls in love. She moves in with him, marries him - but they have problems having a baby.NYC cartoonist Duffy meets the bad cappuccino maker, chef Meg, and falls in love. She moves in with him, marries him - but they have problems having a baby.NYC cartoonist Duffy meets the bad cappuccino maker, chef Meg, and falls in love. She moves in with him, marries him - but they have problems having a baby.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Robert Hy Gorman
- Roger
- (as Robert Groman)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Gene Wilder struggles manfully to keep this limp, occasionally lame comedy afloat, but he's quickly defeated by unsure Leonard Nimoy direction, shabby editing and writing. A professional cartoonist falls for an attractive female chef (she can't be much of a chef since his first impression of her food is disgust); after meeting cute, they decide to marry, but frustration soon arrives over their failure to conceive a child. Christine Lahti has a warm, ticklish presence, but her character here is so underwritten we're not sure how we're supposed to feel about her; Mary Stuart Masterson is much better as a fraternity sex-bunny, but she belongs in a different movie (with a different partner) altogether. Based on a magazine article by Bob Greene, the picture is full of comic ideas that don't play and dramatic interludes which wilt without the proper handling. *1/2 from ****
Several years after directing "Funny About Love", director Leonard Nimoy admitted that making this movie was a mistake, and put the blame on the script. To a degree, Nimoy was correct. The writing found in this movie is truly bizarre at times. Throughout, characters spout out deranged dialogue that no human being with a reasonable amount of intelligence would say. Also, big chunks of time seem to be missing. For example, when Wilder's character and his wife have their first argument, in the next scene she is packing her bags and planning divorce - huh? I don't know if that's how it was written, or if the editing removed some scenes, but the movie is missing important information.
While most of the blame is with the script (and possibly with the editing), Nimoy has to share some blame for the performances of his actors. More often than not, Nimoy has his cast acting in a very broad manner that makes the deranged dialogue they speak even worse-sounding.
As I indicated in the summary line, this movie is more strange than funny.
While most of the blame is with the script (and possibly with the editing), Nimoy has to share some blame for the performances of his actors. More often than not, Nimoy has his cast acting in a very broad manner that makes the deranged dialogue they speak even worse-sounding.
As I indicated in the summary line, this movie is more strange than funny.
I've noticed a lowest common denominator here in past reviews. People watched this with the automatic assumption that this was going to be a full-blown, slapstick 'Comedy.' Nothing could be further from the truth, as this isn't the story being told.
Had this been made today, it would be considered a 'Dramedy.' It's not story-driven enough to be a full-fledged drama, and it's not sophomoric enough to be a comedy. It lies somewhere in between, and that's not entirely a bad thing. The collapse of Duffy's marriage to Meg is realistic enough. They cannot conceive a child, which Duffy clearly feels he needs at this point in his life. He keeps pushing this with Meg, and what do you think happens? Of course she's going to feel pressure, especially when she's just been handed her dream job. We never really see 'all' of the events leading to their divorce, but this was clearly an event in the making.
What follows is what any person would do following the demise of a long-term marriage/relationship. You go out and try and find someone else in order to start again, if anything to prove that the original break-up wasn't entirely your fault. But regrettably, as Duffy finds out, this doesn't always work either. He tries for someone younger (Masterson), but it becomes frighteningly apparent that perhaps it wasn't Meg or Daphne with the conception issues, but Duffy himself.
On a side-note, Duffy's a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to relationships, as he lambastes his own father who decides not long after his wife's death, to get married again. Duffy has no problem moving on from Meg, but has distinct thoughts of how his father's life should progress. I do find a particular scene at his mother's funeral to be incredibly touching. A child runs past Duffy, crying. He picks up the child to reassure him/her that everything is going to be all right, and despite his earlier braggadocio with his father, he completely breaks down at his culminated losses. (Namely the loss of his mother and the acceptance of the fact that he and Meg will never have a child.) Is this one of the classics of all time? No. The ending, as referenced elsewhere, is extremely rushed and a little too clinically 'nice' for me. Should scenes have been deleted? Yes. Namely the ice diaper and Duffy donating sperm scene. This two different films squished together, by Leonard Nimoy. Neither of which would've probably been good on their own merits, but together, they try their best to tell a story about flawed individuals. It's about a four out of ten.
It's not as bad as other people have made it out to be.
Had this been made today, it would be considered a 'Dramedy.' It's not story-driven enough to be a full-fledged drama, and it's not sophomoric enough to be a comedy. It lies somewhere in between, and that's not entirely a bad thing. The collapse of Duffy's marriage to Meg is realistic enough. They cannot conceive a child, which Duffy clearly feels he needs at this point in his life. He keeps pushing this with Meg, and what do you think happens? Of course she's going to feel pressure, especially when she's just been handed her dream job. We never really see 'all' of the events leading to their divorce, but this was clearly an event in the making.
What follows is what any person would do following the demise of a long-term marriage/relationship. You go out and try and find someone else in order to start again, if anything to prove that the original break-up wasn't entirely your fault. But regrettably, as Duffy finds out, this doesn't always work either. He tries for someone younger (Masterson), but it becomes frighteningly apparent that perhaps it wasn't Meg or Daphne with the conception issues, but Duffy himself.
On a side-note, Duffy's a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to relationships, as he lambastes his own father who decides not long after his wife's death, to get married again. Duffy has no problem moving on from Meg, but has distinct thoughts of how his father's life should progress. I do find a particular scene at his mother's funeral to be incredibly touching. A child runs past Duffy, crying. He picks up the child to reassure him/her that everything is going to be all right, and despite his earlier braggadocio with his father, he completely breaks down at his culminated losses. (Namely the loss of his mother and the acceptance of the fact that he and Meg will never have a child.) Is this one of the classics of all time? No. The ending, as referenced elsewhere, is extremely rushed and a little too clinically 'nice' for me. Should scenes have been deleted? Yes. Namely the ice diaper and Duffy donating sperm scene. This two different films squished together, by Leonard Nimoy. Neither of which would've probably been good on their own merits, but together, they try their best to tell a story about flawed individuals. It's about a four out of ten.
It's not as bad as other people have made it out to be.
This movie should not have been made. It is the only thing that I have seen Christine Lahti in that failed to entertain me. All I kept thinking of while viewing it was that it would eventually get to the good part. Mary Stuart Masterson was cute and Lahti was her usual beautiful self but nothing could save this disaster. I will give it 2/10 for effort.
Friend Leonard Nimoy directed Gene Wilder in his 1990 film, Funny About Love. Also starring Christine Lahti and Mary Stuart Masterson, this romantic comedy showed the struggle of the human need to reproduce and the struggles that come with infertility. Funny About Love is nothing spectacular but goes the distance in describing a difficulty felt by 1 in every 8 couples with some humor. Human life is full of decisions, just as it is changing our minds about those decisions, Funny About Love shows this inextricable part of human life through one New York City couple.
Duffy Bergman (Gene Wilder) is on top of the world in his field as a renowned political cartoonist. One night at a book signing he is hosting, he tastes some horrible cappuccino and since "coffee is very important to him" he decides he must meet the person responsible for the dreadful cup. When he is taken to her, he is instantly smitten with her beauty and attempts to get Meg (Christine Lahti) to agree to a date with him. Although initially reluctant, Meg is eventually won over by Duffy's lighthearted comedic disposition and agrees. The two eventually marry and decide, in spite of Duffy's reservations to have a child together. After three years of infertility treatment, Meg is dejected and sick of failure and wishes to stop trying to conceive. Never really getting over his uncertainties, Duffy was thrilled with Meg's decision. As Meg's culinary career kicks into overdrive during the respite from attempting to have a child, Duffy begins to actually want to have a baby. This time, it is Meg that is unsure and wants to wait to have a baby. The constant battle of when and if to have a baby proves to be too much for their marriage and the two separate. In their time apart, they both realize what they really want; but can they get what it is they want with each other?
Gene Wilder plays the quirky jokester of a cartoonist well, and Christine Lahti plays his lighthearted wife well. The two share a beautiful on-screen chemistry making the otherwise forgettable film more fun to watch. There's nothing really to take away from this story unless you are a fan of one of the principles. The writing struggles through the entire film, being very abrupt in all the right places. I can't understand how Gene Wilder was in this film. The incredibly personal story line of the intense struggle of infertility and in- vitro fertilization after losing his wife the year prior to cancer after experiencing years of infertility. That is the aspect I take most from this film. I gain more respect for Wilder as an actor for being able to endure such a plot that so closely resembles his own life.
Duffy Bergman (Gene Wilder) is on top of the world in his field as a renowned political cartoonist. One night at a book signing he is hosting, he tastes some horrible cappuccino and since "coffee is very important to him" he decides he must meet the person responsible for the dreadful cup. When he is taken to her, he is instantly smitten with her beauty and attempts to get Meg (Christine Lahti) to agree to a date with him. Although initially reluctant, Meg is eventually won over by Duffy's lighthearted comedic disposition and agrees. The two eventually marry and decide, in spite of Duffy's reservations to have a child together. After three years of infertility treatment, Meg is dejected and sick of failure and wishes to stop trying to conceive. Never really getting over his uncertainties, Duffy was thrilled with Meg's decision. As Meg's culinary career kicks into overdrive during the respite from attempting to have a child, Duffy begins to actually want to have a baby. This time, it is Meg that is unsure and wants to wait to have a baby. The constant battle of when and if to have a baby proves to be too much for their marriage and the two separate. In their time apart, they both realize what they really want; but can they get what it is they want with each other?
Gene Wilder plays the quirky jokester of a cartoonist well, and Christine Lahti plays his lighthearted wife well. The two share a beautiful on-screen chemistry making the otherwise forgettable film more fun to watch. There's nothing really to take away from this story unless you are a fan of one of the principles. The writing struggles through the entire film, being very abrupt in all the right places. I can't understand how Gene Wilder was in this film. The incredibly personal story line of the intense struggle of infertility and in- vitro fertilization after losing his wife the year prior to cancer after experiencing years of infertility. That is the aspect I take most from this film. I gain more respect for Wilder as an actor for being able to endure such a plot that so closely resembles his own life.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe movie was filmed with Farrah Fawcett in it as a former Delta Gamma, but after poor audience testing, the film was re-edited just prior to its release to remove all of her scenes. According to the Fulvue Drive-in website, "Originally, Farrah Fawcett was prominently featured in the film, in what was more or less a major love interest for Wilder's character. She was cut out at the last minute, explaining why this film is so choppy."
- Zitate
Waiter: He hates the coffee!
Duffy Bergman: No, the coughing! I hate all the coughing!
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Funny About Love?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 8.141.292 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 3.036.352 $
- 23. Sept. 1990
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 8.141.292 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 41 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Kein Baby an Bord (1990) officially released in India in English?
Antwort