Un incurabile romantico

I cannot believe that only two people have reviewed this movie. I would think that all Woody Allen fans would want to see a film written and directed by the co-writer of Sleeper, Annie Hall, and Manhattan. Also, I would think that there must be more Dudley Moore fans around. Moore made this when he was king of romantic comedies in the 1980's, with hits like "10" and "Arthur". He took the crown from George Segal, and was followed by Andrew McCarthy in the late 80's and John Cusack in the 1990's.

I movie is a bit slow, or seems that way today, but that's because everybody has been hooked on television series like "Friends" and "30 Rock" where there has to be a laugh every 15 seconds. The laughs come, but they arrive at a leisurely pace of about one a minute.

The movie makes fun of Freudian psychiatry, which has pretty much become a relic of the 20th century like walkmen and pong video games. Still, scenes like the one where Moore tries to tell Elizabeth McGovern that she has penis envy seem to work better today, when we all can agree that the theory is absurd.

Incidentally, McGovern has possibly never looked so seduction and beautiful as she does in this movie.

Many of the supporting cast members are good, including Larry Rivers, John Huston, Selma Diamond, Christine Baranski, and Alan King. Unfortunately, they all have small parts of just two or three short scenes.

My favorite Dudley Moore rom-com is Mickey and Maude, but this one runs a close second. Go out and buy it or download it online and give it a try.

Marshall Brickman attempts something comedic, fanciful and yet high-brow with "Lovesick"...and the different genres prove to be an uneasy mix. Dudley Moore, who at this point was churning out more bombs than WWII, plays the most unconvincing psychiatrist I have ever seen; his rapport with Alec Guinness (a fantasy Freud) has a tidy bounce, and John Huston works minor magic as the head of the medical board, but Moore is continually unsure of himself. Elizabeth McGovern tries hard as the object of Moore's lovesickness, but she isn't really suited to this kind of material--nor is she suitable for Dudley Moore, just as Mary Tyler Moore was wrong for him in "Six Weeks" and Mary Steenburgen looked out of place in the later "Romantic Comedy". The picture has a poor, cheap look, with blurry beiges and whites typical of the staid early-'80s, and I couldn't wait until it was over. *1/2 from ****

If you are looking for fantasy with a happy ending, this is it.

The Beautiful Elizabeth Mcgovern and Dudley Moore make a interesting couple.She's ( 5'10')tall, he is short, She has a Mid-West accent and he has a English accent, He's calm and she has anxiety neurosis.They say opposites attract.

There are some interesting " Freudian Slips " in the movie. Moore's fantasy about being in the late 19th Century, rowing her down the river, and both being attired appropriately ( she is stunning to say the least )is based on the painting in his office.During a Analytic session she puts him into her recollection of a book,because his first name ( Saul ) and the author's first name are the same.Finally, in the beginning of the flick, his friend,Otto goes to cut his cake and puts the knife through his name as the camera records.Otto has a heart attack and dies. It was nice seeing Manhattan of the early 80's.Especially Chloe and Saul walking arm in arm in Central Park Also the soundtrack ( especially the flute )is and very excellent and soothing.

If you want the kind of mood that this movie fails to achieve, go and watch Play It Again, Sam (1972), a movie brilliantly written but luckily, not directed by Woody Allen and more straight than Annie Hall. Annie Hall's success may be the biggest hint on why this loose borefest was made.

Dudley Moore and Elizabeth Mcgovern pairing have no chemistry and energy. Their straight performances clash with the comedic nature of the playful supporting cast. It's like characters of a different movie interacting with a funnier (but not much) one. Both performances are subpar especially Dudley's doozed minimal reactions to everything.

On a more technical note, the movie looks bad. VHS-level bad. Dull colors, insufficient lighting and blooming light sources everywhere, especially on the restaurant scene a distracting sunlight glare that even bleeds through Mcgovern head.

The soundtrack is the most carefully handled aspect of this movie, but still felt misplaced at some points.

Lovesick 1983. Dudley Moore, Eliz. McGovern. Movie makes mincemeat of Freud & his limited & negative theory of human motivation & potential. "Go Saul", I hear myself thinking throughout the film, feeling here is a therapist who dares stand up to the stiff board of censors who don't deserve to have access to mentally unstable people, for they appear more rigid & dogmatic than the deacons at a Southern Baptist convention. And they have the nerve to be talking about & threatening sanctions pertaining to professional ethics. Would you want to be governed by such repressed stiffs who purport to be a board of censors who can pull someone's license to practice a profession, yet see their distant grandfather Freud as still relevant, while most progressive thinkers in psychotherapy have all but laughed Freud off the shelf as ludicrous? The genius of the writer who says it through Cloe's words put Freud's ideas into perspective when she laughs him & Saul off the stage with her witty explanation of Freud's penis envy theory.

A gem of a movie that should be part of every psychotherapist training program & anyone dealing with profession ethics. Indeed, the whole idea of licensure boards being composed solely of those within a given profession just reveals the fear of innovation & insecurity of those within those professions. It is abhorrent to the whole concept of the evolution of human thinking & knowledge to censure someone who challenges the wisdom of old, unproven, & in many cases disproven, methods of therapy, education, medicine, "justice", & many other so-called professions. Just look at the travesty of the medical profession that, hand-in-hand with the drug pushing pharmaceutical industry, prescribes aspirin for headaches rather than treating the ailment (tumor?) hiding within, or the repressive incarceration of youth, which some still dare call education, that is flooding the earth with non-thinking violent robots seeking revenge & targets for the decade plus of physical, & even more disturbingly, emotional abuse perpetrated by their unfeeling bullying teachers & peers.

See the movie & think about the rights of innovative creative thinkers & why so few are free to think for themselves.