Romance Moderno

Pains me to admit it but I could relate to Albert Brooks' character in parts of this. The swinging back and forth between optimism and despair right after a breakup hit kind of hard. Also: a part late in the film where thin and his sort-of girlfriend sort of argue, and Brooks' character is unable to end it in a way that will leave things fully at peace... that was relatable too.

All that said, the most entertaining parts were probably the sequences where Brooks worked as an editor on what looked like a gloriously stupid sci-fi film starring George Kennedy.

Overall: it's not perfect, and I think it does owe maybe a bit too much to the kind of movies Woody Allen was making around this time. But I did like a good deal of the humour, and a romantic-comedy that investigates the final stages of a relationship is refreshing, considering most standard romantic-comedies focus on the early days.

This film is not for everyone. If you do not already like Albert Brooks, or are only lukewarm on him, by all means stay away from it. I happen to love Brooks and, hence, this film. But I can understand people getting fed up with it because it's not structured or scripted like a normal movie. The biggest complaint I've heard about it is that all the other characters in it besides Brooks, especially the girlfriend, are mere props for him. That's absolutely true. It's as if Brooks would have preferred to do a long monologue (or a stand-up routine) but then decided at the last minute that he did need people to be present every now and again to bounce things off of. Just so you know what to expect: this is not an "interaction" movie - this is undiluted Albert Brooks coming straight at you for nearly two hours, with all his smarminess, vanity and doggedness firmly in place.

What I love about Brooks, at least in his early movies (i.e. everything before Defending Your Life) is that he is not afraid to totally take upon himself the traits which he means to ridicule. He's often been compared to Woody Allen but I think the differences are important. In all his films, Woody Allen takes himself to task, relentlessly analyzes and criticizes himself, shows us his weaknesses and flaws, etc. - but then undercuts it all by playing for our affection with his cutesy physicality and his meant-to-be-adorable one-liners. Brooks doesn't *want* you to love him, he delights in heaping one annoying trait after another upon himself and portraying it to its full, uncensored extent. He doesn't do one-liners or gags - instead, he embodies the personality of someone who would be the butt of such gags or one-liners, and the embodiment is what is meant to be funny.

For example, in this movie, there is an amazing 15 minute sequence near the beginning where Brooks, having just dumped his girlfriend, putters around his apartment pep talking himself into feeling good and succeeding only in becoming more and more miserable. The delusion and self-absorption on display is monumental, and it's given a kind of grandeur by the amount of time focused upon it - you could almost label the scene "The Narcissist's Aria." It's annoying as hell, and I couldn't blame anyone for being totally turned off by it. And yet, that annoyingness is exactly the point, and what makes the scene so hysterical. Brooks' performance here is nothing short of brilliant - the kind which would surely take home an Academy Award for Best Actor in a Comedy if such a category existed at the Oscars.

Think of Albert Brooks here as George Costanza on "Seinfeld" - only with his monomania squared simply from having no close friends to interact with and bring him down to size. If that seems like torture to you, keep right on moving when you see this one in the video store aisle. However, if you always secretly wondered what George would be like if he got his very own show - well, here's the closest approximation of a pilot episode that you're ever likely to find.

Though only his second directorial outing, "Modern Romance" is arguably Brooks' finest film and is the single most insightful and hilarious examination of the gut-wrenching and mind-twisting ordeal that is love. Some have commented that the movie is not as polished as his later work, and while that may be true from a cinematic standpoint, it is this raw quality that lends itself to an even greater statement about how a man can be turned upside down and inside out as he tries to comprehend life while under the influence of love. Brooks' doppelganger, Robert Cole, is the epitome of the obsessed and doomed lover, a man who knows his love for a woman (brilliantly portrayed by Kathryn Harrold, as the haughty and insecure Mary Harvard) is unhealthy, but is compelled nevertheless to have her. His struggle with reason and love is the central theme to the film, yet even though Cole is depicted as an irrational neurotic, never once does Brooks make him unsympathetic. While Coles' actions in his pursuit of Mary defy reason, anyone who has ever been in love will understand all too well why he does the things he does.

This is perhaps that only movie for which it can be said that every single scene -- nay, every line -- is hilarious. Spectacular performances from Mr. Brooks, Kathryn Harold, Bruno Kirby, and terrific cameos from James L. Brooks (no relation), Bob "Super Dave Osborne" Einstein (who IS Brooks' brother....Yes, Albert Brooks real name is....Albert Einstein!), George Kennedy and, believe it or not, Harlem Globetrotter Meadowlark Lemon, whose scene with Brooks is a moment of surreal genius. If for no other reason, see this movie for "the movie within the movie" that Brooks' and Kirby's characters are editing.

I would say to those who, for whatever reason, do not like Albert Brooks -- either you find him irritating or just don't get his humor -- then do not bother, because Brooks is center stage for the entire movie and the humor is the very essence of "Brooks-ian". Yet even if the movie seems very personal, it speaks to all of the world's "fools in love", managing to embody and transcend the filmmaker. I happen to think he is one of the funniest and insightful observers ever of the human condition, but am aware his style is not universally loved.

Though made in 1981, it is as resonant now as it was then; and, considering that people, against all rational thought, will forever fall in love, this movie will always have something very insightful and extremely funny to say. For what it's worth, I have over the years rated almost a thousand movies and TV shows here at IMDb, and have given less than 15 "10 stars". "Modern Romance" is one of those few films, and deservedly so. I am not saying the movie is not without its flaws; but because of the nature and subject matter of the movie, and because it is painfully obvious that Albert Brooks' personal experience is very much on display, those flaws actually add to the genius of the work.

Albert Brooks starred and also co-wrote the script with Monica McGowan Johnson. He plays Robert, a Hollywood film editor, who is in a roller-coaster of a relationship with Mary, a bank executive. The film pretty much drops in on one go-round of what is clearly there standard cycle of breaking up and falling madly in love again.

It's quite a good film. Brooks is on the likable side of neurotic, and Kathryn Harrold as Mary is quite charming. James L. Brooks plays the director of the film that Robert is editing (He later cast Albert Brooks in Broadcast News.), and Bruno Kirby plays Robert's co-worker, Jay.

The film is full of memorable scenes, including a bit of an extended sequence with Robert at home after he takes Quaalude's that is pure gold and quite a bit more underplayed than the Quaalude scene in Scorcese's The Wolf of Wall Street.

It was interesting to watch this film in the context of the way films and television tackle relationships today - it feels a bit of a precursor to modern relationship comedies. The humor can be subtle and sometimes requires patience but it can really pay off. It's a well-paced film, too. I heard somewhere that - of all people - Stanley Kubrick was a big fan of the film!

I guess the one thing that really stood out for me is that these two people really had nothing in common. Why would Mary want a guy who seems sweet but is really just obsessing about her? Once he gets that white picket fence and her behind it, to what will his obsessions turn?

I do like Albert Brooks. As an actor. As a writer and director, his movies fall short of funny, happy to be amusing. Modern Romance is par for the course.

Only in the exchange with Medowlark Lemon does the movie come close to explaining Brooks' neurotic obsession with his girlfriend: she's out of his league. We don't know enough to understand why she's with him; the movie is more interested in his antics. Not only is Brooks' character narcissistic, his movie is too.

The foley scene, the shopping excursion, the Hollywood party are all deftly handled and expertly underplayed. I truly believe that Brooks can find the humor in anything. But he's satisfied with too little in his movies, and his disregard for structure (in his early films) is both curious and frustrating. It's as if he thinks he can get away with less if he doesn't seem to be trying as hard.

Essentially, Modern Romance is a 60-minute monologue with some situational humor mixed in. Is he in love with her, or with himself? That may be the point, but that makes me neither marvel nor laugh.