AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,8/10
1,6 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
A história fala de Duffy Berman (Wilder), um famoso cartunista cujo relógio biológico disparou, causando uma crise de meia idade. Duffy quer um filho. Não obtendo nenhum em seu casamento, el... Ler tudoA história fala de Duffy Berman (Wilder), um famoso cartunista cujo relógio biológico disparou, causando uma crise de meia idade. Duffy quer um filho. Não obtendo nenhum em seu casamento, ele inicia uma busca cômica por realização.A história fala de Duffy Berman (Wilder), um famoso cartunista cujo relógio biológico disparou, causando uma crise de meia idade. Duffy quer um filho. Não obtendo nenhum em seu casamento, ele inicia uma busca cômica por realização.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Robert Hy Gorman
- Roger
- (as Robert Groman)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
I've noticed a lowest common denominator here in past reviews. People watched this with the automatic assumption that this was going to be a full-blown, slapstick 'Comedy.' Nothing could be further from the truth, as this isn't the story being told.
Had this been made today, it would be considered a 'Dramedy.' It's not story-driven enough to be a full-fledged drama, and it's not sophomoric enough to be a comedy. It lies somewhere in between, and that's not entirely a bad thing. The collapse of Duffy's marriage to Meg is realistic enough. They cannot conceive a child, which Duffy clearly feels he needs at this point in his life. He keeps pushing this with Meg, and what do you think happens? Of course she's going to feel pressure, especially when she's just been handed her dream job. We never really see 'all' of the events leading to their divorce, but this was clearly an event in the making.
What follows is what any person would do following the demise of a long-term marriage/relationship. You go out and try and find someone else in order to start again, if anything to prove that the original break-up wasn't entirely your fault. But regrettably, as Duffy finds out, this doesn't always work either. He tries for someone younger (Masterson), but it becomes frighteningly apparent that perhaps it wasn't Meg or Daphne with the conception issues, but Duffy himself.
On a side-note, Duffy's a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to relationships, as he lambastes his own father who decides not long after his wife's death, to get married again. Duffy has no problem moving on from Meg, but has distinct thoughts of how his father's life should progress. I do find a particular scene at his mother's funeral to be incredibly touching. A child runs past Duffy, crying. He picks up the child to reassure him/her that everything is going to be all right, and despite his earlier braggadocio with his father, he completely breaks down at his culminated losses. (Namely the loss of his mother and the acceptance of the fact that he and Meg will never have a child.) Is this one of the classics of all time? No. The ending, as referenced elsewhere, is extremely rushed and a little too clinically 'nice' for me. Should scenes have been deleted? Yes. Namely the ice diaper and Duffy donating sperm scene. This two different films squished together, by Leonard Nimoy. Neither of which would've probably been good on their own merits, but together, they try their best to tell a story about flawed individuals. It's about a four out of ten.
It's not as bad as other people have made it out to be.
Had this been made today, it would be considered a 'Dramedy.' It's not story-driven enough to be a full-fledged drama, and it's not sophomoric enough to be a comedy. It lies somewhere in between, and that's not entirely a bad thing. The collapse of Duffy's marriage to Meg is realistic enough. They cannot conceive a child, which Duffy clearly feels he needs at this point in his life. He keeps pushing this with Meg, and what do you think happens? Of course she's going to feel pressure, especially when she's just been handed her dream job. We never really see 'all' of the events leading to their divorce, but this was clearly an event in the making.
What follows is what any person would do following the demise of a long-term marriage/relationship. You go out and try and find someone else in order to start again, if anything to prove that the original break-up wasn't entirely your fault. But regrettably, as Duffy finds out, this doesn't always work either. He tries for someone younger (Masterson), but it becomes frighteningly apparent that perhaps it wasn't Meg or Daphne with the conception issues, but Duffy himself.
On a side-note, Duffy's a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to relationships, as he lambastes his own father who decides not long after his wife's death, to get married again. Duffy has no problem moving on from Meg, but has distinct thoughts of how his father's life should progress. I do find a particular scene at his mother's funeral to be incredibly touching. A child runs past Duffy, crying. He picks up the child to reassure him/her that everything is going to be all right, and despite his earlier braggadocio with his father, he completely breaks down at his culminated losses. (Namely the loss of his mother and the acceptance of the fact that he and Meg will never have a child.) Is this one of the classics of all time? No. The ending, as referenced elsewhere, is extremely rushed and a little too clinically 'nice' for me. Should scenes have been deleted? Yes. Namely the ice diaper and Duffy donating sperm scene. This two different films squished together, by Leonard Nimoy. Neither of which would've probably been good on their own merits, but together, they try their best to tell a story about flawed individuals. It's about a four out of ten.
It's not as bad as other people have made it out to be.
Gene Wilder struggles manfully to keep this limp, occasionally lame comedy afloat, but he's quickly defeated by unsure Leonard Nimoy direction, shabby editing and writing. A professional cartoonist falls for an attractive female chef (she can't be much of a chef since his first impression of her food is disgust); after meeting cute, they decide to marry, but frustration soon arrives over their failure to conceive a child. Christine Lahti has a warm, ticklish presence, but her character here is so underwritten we're not sure how we're supposed to feel about her; Mary Stuart Masterson is much better as a fraternity sex-bunny, but she belongs in a different movie (with a different partner) altogether. Based on a magazine article by Bob Greene, the picture is full of comic ideas that don't play and dramatic interludes which wilt without the proper handling. *1/2 from ****
Such a sweet, funny guy.
Just picked this DVD up the other day . . . Never heard of this movie before . . .
I thought it had just a few good, howbeit short moments - sadly, overall it was impotent & barren -
And rather ironically, this illogical movie was directed by an actor-guy whose beloved character's whole role was to be known for his extreme logic . . .?
Shows ya what a good actor he was . . .
I'm trying to console myself logically that I only paid 2 bux for this at Dollar General . . .even tho I know, very often those discs in cardboard sleeves are duds - I suppose it was worth that $2 to see Wilder . . . But sad that one of his movies was destined for a DG cardboard sleeve . . .
Note: this movie MIGHT be worth seein' one time only - hard to say who will pay $2 AND willingly sit thru - betting, assuming, hoping it will get better . . .
But the low reviews I read are not wrong. So it's def not a keeper.
Just picked this DVD up the other day . . . Never heard of this movie before . . .
I thought it had just a few good, howbeit short moments - sadly, overall it was impotent & barren -
And rather ironically, this illogical movie was directed by an actor-guy whose beloved character's whole role was to be known for his extreme logic . . .?
Shows ya what a good actor he was . . .
I'm trying to console myself logically that I only paid 2 bux for this at Dollar General . . .even tho I know, very often those discs in cardboard sleeves are duds - I suppose it was worth that $2 to see Wilder . . . But sad that one of his movies was destined for a DG cardboard sleeve . . .
Note: this movie MIGHT be worth seein' one time only - hard to say who will pay $2 AND willingly sit thru - betting, assuming, hoping it will get better . . .
But the low reviews I read are not wrong. So it's def not a keeper.
I have never before seen a worse movie. It is absolutely horrible. There was nothing redeeming about it - poor acting, poor directing, poor editing, crummy dialogue... need I go on? This is at the TOP of my list of "worst movies of all time." I'm surprised that MST3K didn't find a way to improve it!
This is the film Wilder made right after the death of his beloved soulmate, Gilda Radner. I suppose he felt that getting back to work might ease the pain. A big mistake, but forgivable under the circumstances. He IS very talented, so be sure to see some of his other work, such as "Young Frankenstein," "Frisco Kid," "Blazing Saddles," and "Silver Streak."
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe movie was filmed with Farrah Fawcett in it as a former Delta Gamma, but after poor audience testing, the film was re-edited just prior to its release to remove all of her scenes. According to the Fulvue Drive-in website, "Originally, Farrah Fawcett was prominently featured in the film, in what was more or less a major love interest for Wilder's character. She was cut out at the last minute, explaining why this film is so choppy."
- Citações
Waiter: He hates the coffee!
Duffy Bergman: No, the coughing! I hate all the coughing!
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Funny About Love?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 8.141.292
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 3.036.352
- 23 de set. de 1990
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 8.141.292
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 41 min(101 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente