Amarti a New York

I enjoyed this movie even though the script was clumsily written. Kate (Clayburgh) is an attractive mathematician and instructor at a Chicago university and lives with her divorced boyfriend, Homer (Grodin), a developer. They seem to have a pleasant, but not particularly romantic or close relationship. Kate goes to NYC alone to attend both her widowed father's wedding and a job interview for a high-paying position in Manhattan. She meets Ben (Douglas), the son of her new stepmother and a retired baseball player who's unhappily married to a wife who is away (we never see her).

A whirlwind romance between Kate and Ben causes her to question what she really wants in her career and personal life. Douglas is very sexy in this role, and blends an earthy confidence and openness about his feelings with a touch of cynicism.

Clayburgh played this same basic role in the much better-written and directed "An Unmarried Woman" (by Paul Mazursky) a few years earlier, but I still related to Kate's feeling of being at a crossroads in her life, wanting to take "her turn," and contemplating imperfect or risky choices in order to "go for it." Career ambition and love are equally important to her. Both Clayburgh and Douglas are appealing and attractive on screen. They both seem like mature individuals who are nonetheless confused about which choices to make in life. A better script would have made this a much stronger film about a topic that resonates with a lot of people over 35.

Both the writer and director are women, so I think the focus is very much on women of that era exploring new opportunities that would not have been open to their mothers. Yet old-fashioned romance and commitment are shown as worthy ideals.

I changed my mind when I noticed there were very few other reviews. I found the movie to be okay. It was a bit slow, and lacking in real substance. The character development could have been so much better. It did have a reasonable ending, and I am glad of that. I admit, I thought the main actress was trying to be Diane Keaton. So I'm uncertain if she is any good in her own right at acting.

It seems that a lot of people consider the main character to be a feminist, and I'm not sure I agree. She seems like she tries to create her life to satisfy males that aren't really emotionally available to her, and comes off as desperate and naive in the process. I am glad that, unlike many typical romantic comedies, she doesn't end up giving up her life for a man. Unfortunately, it seems more situational from the men's lives, as opposed to her own character growth that keeps her from making the mistakes. Hence why I'm not sure I'd call her character a feminist. But I'm still glad it turned out alright in the end. She does end up showing the signs of growth at the very end as a result of the other events, and so that's something good.

The movie didn't make me angry at any point. It made me a bit bored, but not angry. A lot of movies have made me angry for various reasons lately. Since this movie, although a bit of a mediocre film, didn't elicit any strong negative emotions, I gave it a five instead of a four. The acting could have been better, although that was likely a poor script issue. It could have had way more depth, and been pretty good potentially. But, it was alright, and I don't feel it was a complete waste of time.

Mediocre and unmemorable comey, in which a Beautiful college professor suddenly finds herself torn between two men. Clayburgh's staple role, the independent woman, wears thin in this lackluster romance. One of Douglas' earlier leading man roles before his breakthrough in Fatal Attraction.

Jill Clayburgh plays yet another one of those wannabe liberated women in this feminist fantasy/comedy. She's a math professor at the University of Chicago and living with a guy (Charles Grodin) but she feels she wants more ... maybe. On a trip to New York for her widowed father's wedding, she meets a brash man (Michael Douglas) and something happens.

The trouble with this film is that the feminist view is scuttled in favor of formula storytelling. Clayburgh hit the mark in AN UNMARRIED WOMAN because the character fulfilled her promise. In this film, she falls for the same of song and dance and basically gives up any sort of fulfillment for the usual relationship with a man.

The ultimate fulfillment is still to be found in a man. The real irony here is that this film was written by a woman and directed by a woman and they still come up with "a man is the answer," whereas AN UNMARRIED WOMAN was written and directed by a man.

Feminist politics aside, Clayburgh, Douglas, and Grodin are easy to watch even though there are a few wayward scenes that go nowhere or seem to have come out of nowhere. Steven Hill plays the marrying father, and although he's in bad health and popping heart pills, nothing comes of that arc. Beverly Garland is quite good as the new bride. There's also Dianne Wiest, Charles Kimbrough,, and Daniel Stern as a brilliant student.

Clayburgh's teaching career and new job in New York tack a back seat as soon as Douglas enters the story. Director Claudia Weill, who showed such a sure hand in GIRLFRIENDS just goes by the numbers here. There's never a moment's doubt what the conclusion will be, despite the film's title.

Not a bad film, I'm a huge Michael Douglas fan, so he's the main reason I watched it. The scenes of NYC in 1980 were fun to see. Jill Clayburgh is a good actress (sad that she passed away so young.) However, the film doesn't really pack a punch. Kinda weak. It seems as if somebody really liked the Diana Ross song, so they decided to make a movie to go with it.