Ele Disse, Ela Disse

This is a delightful romantic comedy. It offers a really rare glimpse of Sharon Stone being funny, and a nice match up with Bacon and Perkins. I've watched it several times, and it always makes me laugh.

The wolf journalist Dan Hanson (Kevin Bacon) is disputing a column in the newspaper Baltimore Sun with his colleague Lorie Bryer (Elizabeth Perkins). The editors decide to divide the column between them increasing their rivalry. They are invited by the television producer Wally Thurman (Nathan Lane) to have their own show called "He Said, She Said", where they present opposing opinions in different subjects. Meanwhile they fall in love for each other and decide to live together. Three years later, Lorie wishes to marry Dan that refuses and they have a discussion and Lorie throws her mug on his forehead. When they tell their story to their friends, each one tells it in a different perspective.

"He Said, She Said" is a wonderful romantic comedy underrated in IMDb with a delightful battle of the sexes. The same story is disclosed twice, the first time in accordance with Dan Hanson's perspective and directed by Ken Kwapis and the second time the view of Lorie Bryer directed by Marisa Silver. The funny thing is that Ken Kwapis and Marisa Silver were engaged and got married to each other after the film was released. In 1991 I loved this movie and presently it is lovely to see Elizabeth Perkins, Sharon Stone, Kevin Bacon, Anthony LaPaglia, Nathan Lane and others very young. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Ele Disse, Ela Disse" ("He Said, She Said")

Akin to the great battle of the sexes films of the 30s and 40s staring Spencer Tracy and Kathrine Hepburn but in the settings of the feminist 80s and 90s.

The premise is almost prescient of the James Carville and Mary Matalin lash-up, as this film was released in '91 before those two diametrically opposed political advisers/pundits of reality became widely known.

Like the Tracy & Hepburn films of old this one is into feminine activism. Elizabeth Perkins' character, Lorie Bryer, is successfully fighting her way to the top of her profession in a major city newspaper. There's strong competition from Kevin Bacon's character, Dan Hanson, for a much prized promotion.

Like Tracy & Hepburn, both are highly intelligent, albeit in their respective ways. She's a liberal. He's more 'conservative', think of Billy Joel's hit,"Modern Woman" for the two of them and you'll get the general idea.

Unlike the Tracy & Hepburn films, there's deeper observation into the human psyche. And VERY well done. Their widely disparate perceptions of mutual experiences are hilarious as well as insightful.

Also, unlike the Tracy & Hepburn films, the supporting cast here have more depth and better expression. But with people like Sharon Stone playing the sultry other love interest and Nathan 'Mousehunt' Lane as the antsy television station manager, this should be expected. And it adds depth to the overall cinematic experience.

All in all, it's a good movie. I'll probably watch it as often as I watch the classic Tracy & Hepburn films in my library.

I didn't realise this film could generate such diverse opinions - ironic, given the tag line. This was a sweet movie, nicely performed by the nearly always underrated, but never disappointing stars, both of whom have enjoyed unspectacular but satisfying (from my point of view) careers. The story was smart and lightly handled - okay, it wasn't quite When Harry met Sally, but neither, thank God, was it You've got mail. Strange that Brian Hohfeld doesn't seem to have many other major writing credits, considering the standard he achieved here, or are my sources out of date? Nice work all round, and Elizabeth Perkins can still effortlessly pluck my heartstrings, even after all these years!

I just saw this movie last night & was looking it up, when I found so many negative comments on the film at this website. One user says that he agrees with Maltin that this film is 'piffle': which makes me question Leonard Maltin himself. This movie is far from deserving to be termed 'piffle'. It is a clean, honest movie about typical men & women & the film itself goes into all sorts of very interesting (& light-hearted, thank God) psychological aspects of the two main characters. Another user says it's bad enough to see the story once, but then the torture is doubled when the story starts over from the woman's point of view! I am quite disappointed with this because the obvious point of repeating the whole story from a different point of view are the differences between the two. And these differences are subtle & very significant to the matter of the film. I suspect people do not want to admit that this film touched them -- well, actually, I think people are so conditioned so as to dismiss such a film as 'cheesy' or 'piffle' because of acquired motions of being & seeming brave. In fact, the people who do not respond positively to this film are very much like the male character in this film, who is incapable of allowing himself true feelings, for if he does, he loses his bravery construct. This film is a very compelling, very sweetly made film that will really change you if you allow it to. And that's the point really, we have to ask ourselves how much we do or don't allow ourselves to be changed by the things around us. In my opinion, everyone should watch this film and judge for themselves. Forget Maltin & the other cynics, we're just ordinary people trying to lead better lives, you know. And this film is very much about that, and in my opinion is something like a minor classic, the 'Casablanca' if you may, of modern-day cubicle romance.