The Goodbye Girl

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.

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.

Here is another example of a movie/show that was perfect or near perfect in its original incarnation, and low and behold, some unoriginal "genius" has to come up with the brilliant idea to ruin it. It's funny, my wife and I just watched the video of the original 2 weeks ago, before we knew this was coming out. It was my wife's first time seeing the movie, and she loved it. 10 minutes into this lifeless remake, and we knew it was a mistake.

First of all, you can NOT build upon or act against Richard Dreyfuss' original performance. Dreyfuss' Garfield was as near perfect a characterization as one could find. he was perfect and masterful. Daniels, while a fine actor, does not hold a candle in this role. The rest of the cast too appears to be sleep-walking through the lines. I'm sorry but, it just doesn't work. Patricia Heaton is obviously talented, and I love her on "Raymond" but she is out of her element here and it does not work. Hailey Eisenberg was cute to a point in the Pepsi commercials, but judging by her performance here, she shoulda hung 'em up afterwards. Blame can probably be placed justly on the directing, which is equally lifeless, and appears to not be capable of capturing the magic of the original.

The only saving grace is, it's on TV, so it's free. Watch if nothing else is on, but otherwise, forget it.

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.

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.