O Renascer de Uma Mulher

Noting that the folks who give out the Razzie Awards put Melanie Griffith up for Worst Actress I have to say in her defense that she certainly is no Judy Holliday. In fact the film is like a summer stock production of the play.

Which ran back in the post war years for four years on Broadway during the post World War 2 years and starred Judy Holliday, Paul Douglas, and Gary Merrill. The original film which came out in 1950 had Judy Holliday winning her Bes Actress Oscar. Broderick Crawford and William Holden played the two male leads.

This 90s remake is updated to suit the times and Harry Brock the self made millionaire could have been modeled on Donald Trump. John Goodman is the same kind of bully Crawford was and Trump is. The kind of man who as Oscar Wilde said knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

His companion/mistress is Griffith a former Las Vegas showgirl who acknowledges she is one ignorant bimbo. But Goodman decides she needs a bit of education to fit in Washington society. So he hires writer Don Johnson to tutor her. She proves a more than apt pupil.

Johnson and Griffith herself discover she has the means to bring Goodman down. Let's say one of the cleverest of Goodman's schemes bites him where the bite marks don't show.

Goodman and Johnson are good replacements for Paul Douglas/Crawford and Gary Merrill/Holden respectively. But Griffith while good seemed to be channeling too much of Judy Holliday in her performance. She missed the chance to make the role her own.

Still I'd see it. Especially since we endured four years of Harry Brock presidency.

I'm never against remakes. What is there to lose? If the remake is inferior it just reaffirms the rarity of and how difficult it is to produce a true classic. If the remake is superior, then we have a better movie! This movie stands on its own as fair and light entertainment. The performances are right in line with popcorn comedy and will produce a sufficient number of chuckles and laughs.

The problem, of course, is this movie cannot stand on its own. If you remake a classic, you have to make the comparison. This version just doesn't measure up to the 1950 original on any level.

Since many people have not seen the 1950 Born Yesterday, I think this movie will do them just fine. Sooner or later though, if they love movies, they're going to stumble across Judy Holliday's outstanding performance and then this remake may seem a bit weak.

As with most attempts at remaking classics, the 1993 version of Born Yesterday falls far short of the original. It does, however, maintain a charm of its own and it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. However, I certainly, without reservation and whole-heartedly recommend the original as a "must-see"!

This remake of the 1950 film which starred Judy Holliday was okay, but nothing super. The major problem was credibility with Melanie Griffith playing "Billie Dawn." I'm sorry, but with her voice and mannerisms in all the movies I've seen her in, it's not believable enough for me to see her as a woman who suddenly gets very smart. Anything is possible! However, she gets too smart, too fast and it's just too much. "Yeah, right," is what you wind up saying over and over. However, I'm not saying she didn't do a good job acting, it's just that I know her too well to have her be credible in this particular role.

I also was sorry to hear another example of a classic-era film re-done with profanity. Here, John Goodman (no surprise) blasphemes here and there as boyfriend "Harry Brock.".This story is nice enough with a bunch of good messages without having to mess it up with needless profanity and sexual innuendos. Can't Hollywood make ONE modern-day comedy without that? Speaking of credibility, I can picture a slob like Goodman being paired with Roseanne Barr, but a hot babe like Griffith? No way.

No wonder there was little chemistry in this film.

However, I have to say Don Johnson, of Miami Vice television fame, was a very likable character in a pleasant low-key role as the tutor-reporter. I was never a big fan of his but I liked him in this movie.

Still, the 1950 version was good enough to stand on its own, not needing a re-make in the first place.

The casting of crude millionaire Harry Brock is crucial to the success of this film simply because he dominates the story even when he isn't on screen. Choose the wrong actor and the whole thing will collapse because he is the origin of the story's conflict and therefore needs to be strong and bold. Luckily, the producers cast beefy John Goodman in the role and he managed to strike just the right combination of pent-up rage and apple-cheeked smiles. Although he's a Citizen Kane-type monster who slaps his girlfriend around and believes the offer of jewellery or money can soothe all ills, he also displays moments of genuine emotion that makes him quite likable at times. I guess the idea was to show how the nice guy he once was has been devoured by his hunger for money – hardly original, but nicely played by Goodman, anyway.

The story is essentially a wake-up call to the slumbering giant that is the American public masquerading as a romantic comedy. A book called Democracy in America – which was actually written in the 19th Century by a Frenchman named Tocqueville – plays a big part. By studying its concepts, Brock's moll Billy (Melanie Griffith) awakens to the fact that she is being duped by Harry, who represents the forces of rampant capitalism, and rises up against her oppressor. Whether the message is particularly relevant to its target audience is open to question, but perhaps its assumption that it won't really be taken too seriously allows the film to make its symbolism so literal that few will miss the parallels. For example when Ed Devery (Edward Hermann), Brock's right-hand man who clearly feels he has sold his soul ('I died twelve years ago,' he tells Brock after his employer shows concern for striking him in a rage) picks up a copy of the book it signals a reawakening of his conscience which is quickly quashed when Brock snatches it from his hand and throws it to the ground. Others, like the radio presenter, pay lip service to the concept without really understanding it. The way the message is couched in this straightforward simplicity raises the film higher than others of its type.

In a bland, thankless role that goes nowhere, Don Johnson wears horn-rimmed glasses and combs his hair forward to dispel memories of designer-clad cops. Even if he was anything more than a workmanlike actor he would struggle to do anything with the role. Griffith is likable enough, but her rapid transformation from bubble-headed blonde to hair-in-a-bun brain-box is so fast it fairly takes your breath away. One minute she's impatiently searching for something to watch during the dead time between the soaps and Entertainment Tonight and the next she's teaching a group of Senators the American constitution.

The film itself is entertaining enough; it certainly isn't as bad as you'd expect, and it's rating on this site is surprisingly low. But then, I suppose a lot of people watch this because they've seen (and liked) the original, which is a major hurdle for any film to overcome.

Born Yesterday (1950) is one of funniest films ever made. This

version has Melanie Griffith attempting the impossible,trying to

recreate the role that won Judy Holiday a best actress Oscar. Although Griffith tries hard, she is no match for Holiday, and Don

Johnson is certainly no substitute for William Holden. The only one

of the cast who comes close to the original, is John Goodman. For anybody that doesn't know the story outline, Harry Block,(John

Goodman ) a crooked junk tycoon hires a journalist Paul Verrall

(Don Johnson ) to teach his girlfriend Billie Dawn, some social

skills, as she is unused the high society life of the Washington

elite. In a choice between the two, watch the original.