Por que o Amor Enlouquece

The filmmakers know you've heard this tale before - true life chronicle of a young singing star's rise and tragic fall - and so they wisely downplay the standard bio trappings and instead focus on a raucously entertaining ride through Frankie Lymon's woman troubles. The smart screenplay revolves around the court battle of Lymon's three wives (yes, three!) over song royalties, leading to vivid (and often humorously contradictory) flashbacks of their lives with the singer. Larenz Tate is magnetic playing the many different sides of the ever-changing lead character, but the film ultimately belongs to Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon as the wives. Each is allowed to shine as the trio portrays 30 years of changes in the women's lives, with Fox drop-dead hilarious as the most outrageous of the three. There's beautifully detailed '60s-era cinematography, sets, costuming and musical numbers, plus a side-splitting turn by Miguel Nunez as a young Little Richard. Major issues (such as '60s race relations) are barely glanced at, but what this film lacks in depth, it makes up for ten-fold in entertainment value. A winner!

An interesting (but flawed account) of the battle over pop star Frankie Lymon's estate by three women claiming to be his widow...

The story portrayed here is actually semi-fictitious, but the background story of Frankie's life is entirely true.

From his starts as a fresh-faced Harlem kid to a haunted drug addict, Larenz Tate (one of the most underrated talents in Hollywood) shines as dreamer Frankie, and does well to give perspective to Frankie's conflicting attitudes towards his relationships with the women, which the script muddles- Frankie appears shallow yet introspective at the same time.

Halle Berry tries to make more of her understated and thin role as Zola Taylor, wifey no. 2, but provides an adequate performance.

The most developed of the three female characters, is Elizabeth Waters (Viveca A. Fox). Loyal yet dishonest, gritty Elizabeth is the only character aside from Frankie that seems to be real. This is a combined effort by the characterisation and the performance by Fox.

And Lela Rochon does very well cast against type, as a school marm dragged into this battle. Rochon clearly understands the character well, and manages to make her mark on the story despite being developed late into the film.

The period detail of this piece is well captured over the 20-odd years that this story is set (particularly the performances of Frankie with the Teenagers), and even the small scenes which provide insight into Frankie's younger days.

The main flaws of this film lie essentially in the struggle to develop some of the themes. As mentioned earlier, Frankie's reasons for bigamy are not established at all or how he copes this with this, or whether one of the wives in particular is lying about the legitimacy of her marriage.

Some of the characterisation is a bit thin, caused by some of the later events of the film and because this deep story of fame, loss, betrayal and torment has such a muddled structure the whole film comes across as sketchy by the end which clearly was not intended.

But never the less this is an adequate tribute, to the world of fame and its inevitable clingers-on, and those just caught up in the action. This will never be top of its genre however...

Frankie Lymon died of a drug overdose in 1968.As a big one hit wonder with his song "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" Lymon might have received some royalties from the record, but didn't. When three former wives hear a version of the song done by Diana Ross,they want to sue for royalties but first each of the three women must win a court case to prove who was the real and legal wife of Frankie Lymon. The movie "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" is a shoddy and disrespectful look into the life of Frankie Lymon. The movie is truly about these three women trying to win the royalties of the song, not to prove they really loved Frankie Lymon. It is bad enough that Hollywood makes a movie about a black male celebrity that Hollywood always brings up the details of Lymon's drug use and points to him for the audience that he is a loser after his singing days are over. We never get a true look at Frankie Lymon and his life.Where did the movie fail in one big detail? Lymon was not as short as the actor who portrayed him ,the talented Larenz Tate,he grew up to over six feet tall.His singing voice changed of course,he couldn't sing those sweet songs of his youth,but he had a decent voice in his adult years. But no one wanted the grown up Frankie Lymon.They wanted this little kid with the falsetto voice,not the adult Frankie Lymon and he couldn't get noticed in the new R&B market that came to pass in the sixties. His story ,and the story of his former group the Teenagers,was done quite well in a PBS documentary about the group called "I Promise To Remember".This was shown several years ago and it is worth while to look at about what happen to the group ,where they are now(where they were at the time of the broadcast),and and what happened to Frankie in truth.It is a well done program. The movie is not,however.Filled with profanity,the women come off as bitter uneducated jerks only going for the money.The film and the film makers in essence then to degrade the subject as a three timing drug taking failure.The film lowers itself then as the wives complain about Frankie and start the feminist cant about men in general and Frankie in particular.It doesn't bother the filmakers that Lymon's real life family has to watch him being dragged thru the mud and embarrassed and that they have to have him and themselves disgraced in this fashion. The three women got thankfully very little after in the end and the viewers of this film receive the same,very little.Frankie Lymon was not perfect,he was no saint.But this film disgraces him ,just like Bird did to Charlie Parker.In the end of the film we see the real Lymon singing "Goody-Goody" on a TV show.It is the only glimpse of the real Lymon in the movie.But after this film Frankie Lymon shall be looked at in one way and one way only,as a tragic disgrace.

I don't believe this movie didn't do better in the ratings. I thought it was clever and entertaining. Halle Berry is beautiful and Larenz Tate was engaging as Frankie Lymon. Again, Gregory Nava is a director to watch for. I didn't realize he also did Selena and that was a movie I also enjoyed. Nothing heavy or slick, no action, fires, explosions, just good story telling about characters and their relationships with one another.

"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is somewhat flawed and takes quite a lot of artistic liberties, but it's always fun to watch. Larenz Tate isn't entirely convincing as Frankie Lymon--I guess they just cast him because he's real short. The concert scenes and TV appearances where he sings are noticeably lip-synched and look pretty cheesy. But acting-wise Tate did a fine job. Obviously, they didn't really delve into his drug addiction, to keep with its light-hearted feel. So we don't get to experience the heavy drama of Lymon's short life. The actresses were good--Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon. Their performances were equally effective and amusing. The great Little Richard has some spirited cameos. He definitely brought the mood of the film to an all-time high. I just wish he could've been in it for longer than 10 minutes. The whole movie basically concentrates on the romantic-comedy portions of Lymon's life--some true, some fabricated. There were some dramatic moments, but they occur mostly towards the end. But I got a lot of laughs and the film just has a fitfully satisfying upbeat tone. Of course, I LOVED the music. I have to admit that was one of the main reasons I enjoyed it so much.

"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is a moderately loose portrayal of Lymon's life, but it makes great entertainment.