The Man Who Loved Women

The title of 1983's "The Man Who Loved Women" tells you everything you need to know: Burt Reynolds plays David Fowler, a man who sees the beauty in practically every woman and therefore can never settle down with one. As such, he ends up isolated and on the couch of a therapist, Marianna (Julie Andrews). The entire movie consists of Marianna trying to figure David out and help him while the latter relays several of his amorous connections in flashback. When the therapy is over will THEY start a relationship? Fowler's many women include Kim Basinger, Marilu Henner and Denise Crosby.

I encourage you to read Nsouthern51's review from April 25, 2001, on IMDb because it expertly interprets and evaluates the movie. While the film could be considered a romantic comedy it's also a tragic study of a Romeo and therefore there's a pall of melancholy despite the light tone and amusing elements, including black comedy. Speaking of which, while I don't think adultery's something to take lightly and therefore don't find it very amusing, it ties into Fowler's folly and blindness due to his weakness, women.

The good thing is that Fowler's not all bad or unlikable (Burt is his typical amiable self in an atypical role). He's not the conventional lothario who uses and abuses; he genuinely loves women and is fascinated by them. He loves them so much he can't bear to be with just one because that would mean he'd never know hundreds or thousands of others, but then he aches because he doesn't want to hurt the women he leaves.

The best part is Fowler's salvation of a new-to-the-trade prostitute whom he ends up hiring for his sculpting business. He nobly resists acting on his carnal instincts and therefore sacrifices for her good. The girl is played by a pre-Star Trek (TNG) Denise Crosby and she looks great.

At the end of the day the movie features Reynolds in an unusual role, which might turn off fans, and the strange mix of melancholy and amusement may turn-off others. It's not great, but it's good enough for what it is and therefore worthwhile. It's similar to Altman's "Dr. T and the Women" (2000) so if you don't like that movie you probably won't like this one.

The film runs 110 minutes and was shot in Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, CA.

GRADE: B-

Has there ever been a film where Julie Andrews didn't do a good job? I thought she was great as David Fowler's analyst--so calm and poised, regardless of how ridiculous Fowler's problems got, or how agitated he became. Burt Reynolds was ... well, Burt Reynolds, but that's enough. Barry Corbin seemed a natural for the role of a Texas oilman/rancher in a cowboy hat. If he wasn't on 'Dallas' (and I don't think he was in the years I watched it), he should have been. I liked Marilu Henner as Agnes but wish we had seen more of her. I didn't recognize Kim Basinger or Sela Ward, but I like them both in most of what I've seen.

It wasn't a great film, but a good one. It was funny enough of the time, though it could be depressing.

There are two movies reported to have been what Burt Reynolds decided to star in instead of co-starring in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT for the role famously taken by Jack Nicholson... and along with being box office bombs, they embodied each sub-genre that rode Burt through six-years as box office king...

The second is the action-comedy STROKER ACE directed by collaborator/stuntman muse Hal Needham; and the first by a director Burt's said to have liked the best, Blake Edwards, in the romantic-comedy THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN...

Which is a far better vehicle for Reynolds, herein playing it safely and naturally as a doomed sculptor who, as we begin, has a myriad of women attending his funeral that, narrated by sophisticated shrink and ultimate love-interest (and the director's wife) Julie Andrews, keeps the viewer guessing on how he'll eventually buy the farm...

As that too is ultimately humorous while MAN rolls around dryly and coolly... without any big laughs... in that slow-burn fashion of Blake's game-changing 10: both depicting a wealthy mid-life-crisis-struck artist with everything who still complains about having too much... of everything...

But it's the WOMEN who are the most intriguing... not only to gander at but to anticipate... ranging from extremely sexual married-Texan Kim Basinger, lovely-legged Marilu Henner, down-home Cynthia Sikes, 11th hour groupie Sela Ward while the cutest is the most subtle in Edwards' daughter Jennifer as a hooker turned secretary...

Overall making this Americanized 1970's-French-remake seem from that very decade of good-old-fashion jazz-soaked womanizing through dry self deprecation that surely suits Burt -- despite being on cruise control throughout.

In the climactic moment of one of the great film scripts of all time, "The Verdict" by David Mamet, attorney Edward Concannon (James Mason) implores the judge, "We can't be expected to accept a (photo)copy when we have the original."

Many consider Truffaut's 1977 "L'homme qui aimait les femmes" a wonderful film. Anyone who has seen this original, need not venture to this 1983 remake, the land of Blake Edwards, his family and his friends.

This film likely falls under the category of 'the studio still needs another film from me (Edwards) and I have not a single inspired idea'.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid fan of Edwards, and consider many of his films (notably Days of Wine and Roses, Breakfast at Tiffanys, S.O.B., and Operation Petticoat to ALL be amongst my favorites. Of course the Pink Panther series is a masterpiece in and of itself.

But this film is weak, and uninspired, laden with narrative-I've never really figured who came up with the idea of opening a 'comedy' with the main character's funeral, and an accompanying heart-wrenching eulogy from one of his lovers.

Don't accept a copy when the original is available.

I just saw The Man Who Loved Women, and I found it to be a rather delightful movie. It's a plot you don't see to often; it's focused on one man and his love of women. The movie may seem pointless, but you'll get it once you see the ending. I won't ruin it here, but it was kind of depressing and unexpected, and looking back on the movie, I enjoyed it much more afterwards than during. It's not the most exciting movie. You won't see any amazing or dynamic cinematography or camera angles that are all to creative. In fact, it seems more like a movie from the '70's than 1983 in the way it was filmed, but if you like the kind of movies that you enjoy much more after having looked back on everything, I think you'll find this a rather enjoyable work.