C'est ma chance

The final chapter in Jill Clayburgh's unplanned "independent woman" trilogy (the first two were "An Unmarried Woman" and "Starting Over"). This one is from the same writer as "Dirty Dancing," which probably explains why the main character in each is a Jewish woman who is very much "daddy's little girl."

Here, the protagonist is perhaps the most glamorous mathematics professor ever (she wears stilettos to class, but earthy gal that she is, removes them while solving equations at the blackboard). She's got relationship issues with her widowed dad who's remarrying, and with her divorced live-in boyfriend, plus she's conflicted about whether to take a new job in a new city that pays much more, but won't allow her to continue her research. She breezily describes her various complications as "modern problems," which tells you that the creators here felt they were at the very cutting edge of portraying the quintessential "liberated" woman. Laura Linney's character in "You Can Count On Me" had a similarly complicated life, but that film didn't feel the need for its characters to be so self-aware.

Michael Douglas enters the picture to help her figure out where/how to get the healthy, giving relationship that everyone around her seems to have, and that therefore is "her turn" to get (get it?)

This is a decent movie that actually doesn't feel particularly dated, (save for Clayburgh's Oscar-bait "big scene" towards the end) despite its obvious 70's era feminist overtones. But perhaps because of its agenda, the romance doesn't exactly sweep you off your feet.

As with most movies from the 80s, part of the fun is seeing what stars/faces of the future show up. Here, we get a young Daniel Stern, almost unrecognizable as Clayburgh's star pupil, and future "Law and Order" District Attorneys Steven Hill and Dianne Wiest.

I changed my mind when I noticed there were very few other reviews. I found the movie to be okay. It was a bit slow, and lacking in real substance. The character development could have been so much better. It did have a reasonable ending, and I am glad of that. I admit, I thought the main actress was trying to be Diane Keaton. So I'm uncertain if she is any good in her own right at acting.

It seems that a lot of people consider the main character to be a feminist, and I'm not sure I agree. She seems like she tries to create her life to satisfy males that aren't really emotionally available to her, and comes off as desperate and naive in the process. I am glad that, unlike many typical romantic comedies, she doesn't end up giving up her life for a man. Unfortunately, it seems more situational from the men's lives, as opposed to her own character growth that keeps her from making the mistakes. Hence why I'm not sure I'd call her character a feminist. But I'm still glad it turned out alright in the end. She does end up showing the signs of growth at the very end as a result of the other events, and so that's something good.

The movie didn't make me angry at any point. It made me a bit bored, but not angry. A lot of movies have made me angry for various reasons lately. Since this movie, although a bit of a mediocre film, didn't elicit any strong negative emotions, I gave it a five instead of a four. The acting could have been better, although that was likely a poor script issue. It could have had way more depth, and been pretty good potentially. But, it was alright, and I don't feel it was a complete waste of time.

I enjoyed this movie even though the script was clumsily written. Kate (Clayburgh) is an attractive mathematician and instructor at a Chicago university and lives with her divorced boyfriend, Homer (Grodin), a developer. They seem to have a pleasant, but not particularly romantic or close relationship. Kate goes to NYC alone to attend both her widowed father's wedding and a job interview for a high-paying position in Manhattan. She meets Ben (Douglas), the son of her new stepmother and a retired baseball player who's unhappily married to a wife who is away (we never see her).

A whirlwind romance between Kate and Ben causes her to question what she really wants in her career and personal life. Douglas is very sexy in this role, and blends an earthy confidence and openness about his feelings with a touch of cynicism.

Clayburgh played this same basic role in the much better-written and directed "An Unmarried Woman" (by Paul Mazursky) a few years earlier, but I still related to Kate's feeling of being at a crossroads in her life, wanting to take "her turn," and contemplating imperfect or risky choices in order to "go for it." Career ambition and love are equally important to her. Both Clayburgh and Douglas are appealing and attractive on screen. They both seem like mature individuals who are nonetheless confused about which choices to make in life. A better script would have made this a much stronger film about a topic that resonates with a lot of people over 35.

Both the writer and director are women, so I think the focus is very much on women of that era exploring new opportunities that would not have been open to their mothers. Yet old-fashioned romance and commitment are shown as worthy ideals.

bad product. Can anyone today direct a real film about women in NYC? I love Jill Clayburgh and Steven Hill. And this film did not do either of them justice. Granted, 1980 was a strange year. But did women still have to wear stiletto heels while teaching college mathematics? At this point in time, audiences shifted to a new generation. Yes, Fatal Attraction came out with Michael Douglas- there was a new edge. But there was still a theme, a story.

My primary complaint with this film is the trite stereotypes (Douglas as a baseball star), Hill as a Jewish businessman. We still see these portrayals today. It is tiresome.

While Clayburgh is an excellent actress, we do not get see her act, while she acts the "neurotic white woman in an upscale hotel in NYC" It really is over done; in the most basic sense of the word. If you want to see a good NY film about mid-life crisis, watch Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"...light years ahead of this film in the sense of direction and projection. 2/10

Kate Gunzinger (Jill Clayburgh) is a math professor but her know-it-all student may be surpassing her. She moved in with boyfriend Homer (Charles Grodin) but she is still troubled by her spinsterhood. It doesn't help that her father (Steven Hill) is getting remarried. She is meeting her future family for the first time. Her new step-brother Ben Lewin (Michael Douglas) is a washed up baseball player. He saves her from an embarrassing situation and the two of them connect despite her boyfriend and his wife.

Like they say, there are too many people in their relationship. That may be the point of the movie but it makes it difficult to root for them to make it. It would help if Homer is a stiff. He needs to have no personality and no chemistry with Kate. There are two ways to take this relationship movie. It's either modern and edgy or it's convoluted modern gobbledygook. Homer is a perfectly good guy and that's a problem. For the climatic talk between them to work, it needs to be setup much better in the earlier interaction. The script got a Razzie nomination although I don't think it deserves it. There are some issues but they are not fatal. There is also a common complaint about the movie's feminism. Let's just say that some boys have very thin skin. Maybe she didn't show enough T&A.