La fille sur la banquette arrière

I found this movie light and entertaining. I really don't understand why it was abused by the critics. The perfect Dudley Moore vehicle, consisting of comedy in an all too real and serious romantic life situation. NO... it's not an Oscar winner, but it certainly doesn't deserve the bad rating originally heap on it. If you are looking for a true Romantic Comedy... this is the movie you are looking for. It doesn't require that you think and worry about every twist and turn, but does bring true laughter and entertainment into your home.

The film consists of more than two hours of a couple of writers, somehow in love with each other but unable or unwilling to marry, fussing, fighting, and shouting. And in the end, even though their sexual escapade proved less than thrilling, they end in a clinch on a couch. Happing ending. The film is not very romantic and certainly isn't funny. The moral dimensions of the script are wholly secular and consistently depressing. Marriage and children are nothing when compared to sexual urges, booze, and fame.

But there are some good lines in places. And the acting is superb. Dudley Moore and Mary Steenburgen are something to behold. The music is above average, and Arthur Hiller displays his usual excellence as a director. But even the stars of the film were unable to put life into a lame script that is at least 30 minutes too long.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

I've never quite understood why this movie has so bad a reputation. It's not Tracy and Hepburn, to be sure, but I found Dudley Moore a lot more likable in this than I usually do and Mary Steenburgen is great, I think. It should appeal to those who like Neil Simon and movies set in the Manhattan theatre world. There's some funny stuff here and there and I thought the characters were agreeable. 'Romantic Comedy' is certainly no classic for the ages but I think that people who enjoy the genre in the title should like it.

I've always known intuitively that critics don't know beans about movies. Now I have empirical evidence. One hot, lazy evening, while perusing the listings on digital cable, I was presented the choice of this, Romantic Comedy, and There Goes My Baby (of which, see my review). There Goes My Baby got three out of fours stars, and is one of the most abysmally bad movies I have had the misfortune to watch. Romantic Comedy got only one star, and is one of the most delightful character comedies I have ever seen.

Director Arthur Hiller is known for solid comedy fare like Plaza Suite, and classic melodrama like Love Story. Writer Bernard Slade also gave us Same Time Next Year, as well as an impressive portfolio of small screen classics.

Dudley Moore, while not as impressive as in Arthur a couple of years earlier, is at his peak as Jason Carmichael, a playwright looking for a new writing partner whom he finds in Phoebe Craddock, played by Mary Steenburgen. Unlike Moore, Steenburgen's career was on the rise with Romantic Comedy, and deservedly so, coming on the heels of her Oscar for Melvin and Howard.

The problem with this movie is that it isn't a movie. It's a play. Sometimes that translates well, but here the feeling remains decidedly Broadway. That's not necessarily a problem, and in fact is one of the reasons I love the movie as well as the play. But the reliance upon dialogue and character inherent in plays, and at which Romantic Comedy excels brilliantly, is lost on the sensibilities of an American movie-going audience numbed by the sensory overload of lesser films.

The supporting cast is remarkable, with Frances Sternhagen as Blanche, Jason's agent and friend, and Ron Leibman as Steenbergen's other love interest. There are too many great one-liners to site, since, after all, this is a play, but two of my favorites are "Oh I just love New York. Every time I come here I just feel like going down on the whole city." and "We're you eavesdropping? Of course not, Blanche, who can hear anything over the clatter of your bracelets." And if these leave you a little cold, remember you're not getting them with the benefit of the timing and delivery of the consummate talent in this little gem, which returns me to my original point.

Play acting, as in "acting in plays" takes a far greater talent than the totally manufactured portrayals we see in most movies. These people can do it in spades, and that's why you should see this movie... I mean play. It is now available on DVD. Get it, and refresh your palette.

I saw this the same week that I saw Dudley Moore's other 1983 romantic comedy, "Love Sick". While I have to give the edge to Marshall Brickman's "Love Sick," this is also a sophisticated and easy-going comedy that delivers lots of smiles and a few good chuckles. Dudley Moore was only a leading man for 13 years (1979-1992) and starred in only 13 films. While I didn't care for his boozy millionaire in "Arthur" and "Arthur 2," I think his work in Blake Edwards "10" and "Micky and Maude" was excellent. He plays an average guy with a little bit of charm and intelligence very well. Here, he plays a playwright without a great deal of talent. He has to get by on the talent of his collaborators. Mary Steenburgen is the real standout in the movie. It may be her best performance. She works very well with Moore. Steenburgen is really more of a character actress and that is where she does her best work, see "Marilyn Hotchkiss' Ballroom Dancing and Charm School." She really can't carry a movie as a lead, but here she plays straight man to Moore and the chemistry works. The story is about a man and a woman who should fall in love and get married, but their careers and lives force them out-of-sync, so they become friends instead. The movie isn't a laugh riot and it won't knock your socks off, but it is a sad/sweet two hours of mature and sophisticated banter.