Chéri, dessine-moi un bébé

While certainly not one of anyone's favorite comedies, there is an amount of sweetness to this film. Gene Wilder is an "edgy" cartoon strip writer - though as the viewer you're rolling your eyes as a conservative or a liberal - that becomes very desirous of having a baby with his new wife, Christine Lahti. When things don't biologically work out, they break up and Wilder finds himself in a relationship with Mary Stuart Masterson. Eventually, that doesn't work out either and Wilder realizes that Lahti means more to him as a wife than what a baby can bring to their relationship. End of story. The cons are evident in the film - simplistic story, no real depth of any character, no "laugh out loud" scene, no dewy-eyed scene. The script is mundane, the humor is flat. The best you'll get is a smile. The pros are few, but speak volumes to the main three actors. Firstly, Wilder is pitch perfect as usual - completely at ease in his character. Lahti gives a fine performance, elegant and sweet. Masterson - such a beautiful and amazingly talented actress - is wonderful in her strong-willed yet completely vulnerable character. Finally, Nimoy must be given credit for the pacing of the movie by keeping the scenes quick and fun. While the movie is long on relationships, it is short on character and development thereof. The easy-come-easy-go of the Wilder/Lahti, Wilder/Masterson relationships simply demand the viewer to not only accept but understand. While the viewer can certainly understand the situations, the viewer never sees the nuts and bolts that drive them. For me, this was the most frustrating part of the film. Overall, not great, but not bad, either - light and airy.

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 ****

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!

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.

This movie should not have been made. It is the only thing that I have seen Christine Lahti in that failed to entertain me. All I kept thinking of while viewing it was that it would eventually get to the good part. Mary Stuart Masterson was cute and Lahti was her usual beautiful self but nothing could save this disaster. I will give it 2/10 for effort.