Why Do Fools Fall in Love

WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE? is a supremely entertaining biopic of the young singer Frankie Lyman, which unfolds in a clever variation on the traditional flashback form of storytelling. The film opens with three women arriving at Frankie's former manager's office after his death, trying to claim his estate, all claiming to be the legal widow of Lyman and it is during the trial to determine which of these ladies is Lyman's legal widow where Frankie's story unfolds. As with all movie biographies, you never know how much you're watching is based on fact and what has been enhanced or diluted for dramatic effect. In this screenplay, Frankie is a charismatic young singer, who apparently had no problem charming women out of their clothes and their money, the latter of which apparently went to support his drug habit. Frankie's drug use is somewhat glossed over and the screenplay tends to concentrate more on Frankie's manipulative ways with these three women and how he, at one time or another, managed to convince all three of them that there were the only women in the world. Baby-faced Larenz Tate plays Frankie with a sincerity and sexiness that possibly oversells Frankie's real womanizing, but he manages to keep Frankie likable despite some of the slimy things he does. The three women in Frankie's life are well played by Halle Berry, Viveca A. Fox, and Lela Rochon, with Fox a standout in probably the best performance of her career. The musical sequences are troublesome...Tate works hard at lip-syncing authentically, but I never bought the lip-syncing in the film...all of the musical sequences in the film come off sounding "canned." Still, Tate and the ladies commit to their roles and do make the movie worth watching. I don't know how accurate the film is as a biography of Frankie Lyman, but it is a very entertaining film that will effortlessly hold interest.

Other commentators seem to feel this is, or should have been, a movie about the life of Frankie Lyman. However, as the title indicates, it is really about three women who fell in love ... with a guy named Frankie Lyman. As the movie brings home fairly early, there is not much about Frankie to love. He is portrayed as a shallow, self-centered fool, with as little understanding of the music business as of the women he scams into being his wives.

Did Frankie have raw talent? Of course he did. Did Frankie do anything to develop this raw talent into an enduring musical career? No evidence of that. So much for Frankie. Larenz Tate plays him fairly well on stage, and rather flat off stage. We are not given a clue as to what the attraction may have been.

And, since two of the women were relatively unaware of his celebrity status when they were first taken with him, and the third had a celebrity status of her own, we expect the movie to answer the title question. The women do not entirely succeed in this, but they are terrifically watchable while they try.

Halle Berry is great as Zola Taylor, singer with the Platters. Viveca Fox is almost as good as the home girl who turns hooker to support Frankie, and Lela Rachon is perfect as the goodie-two-shoes last wife, a God-fearing and educated working woman.

The music scenes are good, and the courtroom scenes are outrageously unrealistic.

This would have been a better movie if they had not specifically based the story on Lyman, but only alluded to him. In this manner, the Hollywoodization of the story would have been less noticeable. Unfortunately, realizing that such a course would inevitably preclude using the Lyman hits, they chose to make this a triography of the wives, and allow them to play off Tate's weak Lyman persona.

All in all, a good couple of hours of enjoyment that is not too compelling. When it was over, we found ourselves asking, "Why DID these three fools fall in love?"

An interesting (but flawed account) of the battle over pop star Frankie Lymon's estate by three women claiming to be his widow...

The story portrayed here is actually semi-fictitious, but the background story of Frankie's life is entirely true.

From his starts as a fresh-faced Harlem kid to a haunted drug addict, Larenz Tate (one of the most underrated talents in Hollywood) shines as dreamer Frankie, and does well to give perspective to Frankie's conflicting attitudes towards his relationships with the women, which the script muddles- Frankie appears shallow yet introspective at the same time.

Halle Berry tries to make more of her understated and thin role as Zola Taylor, wifey no. 2, but provides an adequate performance.

The most developed of the three female characters, is Elizabeth Waters (Viveca A. Fox). Loyal yet dishonest, gritty Elizabeth is the only character aside from Frankie that seems to be real. This is a combined effort by the characterisation and the performance by Fox.

And Lela Rochon does very well cast against type, as a school marm dragged into this battle. Rochon clearly understands the character well, and manages to make her mark on the story despite being developed late into the film.

The period detail of this piece is well captured over the 20-odd years that this story is set (particularly the performances of Frankie with the Teenagers), and even the small scenes which provide insight into Frankie's younger days.

The main flaws of this film lie essentially in the struggle to develop some of the themes. As mentioned earlier, Frankie's reasons for bigamy are not established at all or how he copes this with this, or whether one of the wives in particular is lying about the legitimacy of her marriage.

Some of the characterisation is a bit thin, caused by some of the later events of the film and because this deep story of fame, loss, betrayal and torment has such a muddled structure the whole film comes across as sketchy by the end which clearly was not intended.

But never the less this is an adequate tribute, to the world of fame and its inevitable clingers-on, and those just caught up in the action. This will never be top of its genre however...

The filmmakers know you've heard this tale before - true life chronicle of a young singing star's rise and tragic fall - and so they wisely downplay the standard bio trappings and instead focus on a raucously entertaining ride through Frankie Lymon's woman troubles. The smart screenplay revolves around the court battle of Lymon's three wives (yes, three!) over song royalties, leading to vivid (and often humorously contradictory) flashbacks of their lives with the singer. Larenz Tate is magnetic playing the many different sides of the ever-changing lead character, but the film ultimately belongs to Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon as the wives. Each is allowed to shine as the trio portrays 30 years of changes in the women's lives, with Fox drop-dead hilarious as the most outrageous of the three. There's beautifully detailed '60s-era cinematography, sets, costuming and musical numbers, plus a side-splitting turn by Miguel Nunez as a young Little Richard. Major issues (such as '60s race relations) are barely glanced at, but what this film lacks in depth, it makes up for ten-fold in entertainment value. A winner!

"Why Do Fools Fall In Love" is really just another average rock star biography. Larenz Tate is great as Frankie Lymon, as are Halle Berry, Vivica Fox and Lela Rochon as the three "wives" locked in a battle over his estate, but the film is way overlong. The title is certainly appropriate. For most of his career, Lymon was a habitual drug user and was at times abusive to many of the women who loved him. It seemed nobody who stood in his way was safe, especially that poor little dog he accidentally dropped out of an apartment window. When he died in 1968, many of his fans and friends were shocked at first, but then later they probably realized that he had paid the expected price for his lifestyle.

I bought this one in a previously-viewed movie bin at my local video store, but now I think I will return it. I don't think it's worth watching more than once.

Rating: **