Quand l'esprit vient aux femmes

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.

Remake of the 1950 Judy Holliday/William Holden/Broderick Crawford hit farce, adapted from Garson Kanin's popular play, about millionaire businessman hiring a tutor for his dizzy girlfriend, which backfires when she becomes wise enough to know she's being played for a dupe. In the leads, Melanie Griffith, then-husband Don Johnson and John Goodman all have a propensity to lapse into shtick, but, for her part, Griffith is well-cast and very likable. The men have a harder time: Johnson is charmingly low-keyed in a dull role (the problems with it go back to the play) and Goodman works hard at being both vulgar and sympathetic. Not a complete success by any means, this update still hasn't figured out how to make the last act work (the plot mechanisms become congealed, the action becomes stagy and the finale is limp), but there are some nice laughs spread around and an occasionally witty flash of original thought. ** from ****

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.

Putrid remake of the classic play and film about a scrap metal tycoon (a non stop shouting Goodman) turned real estate mogul who pays a Washington newsman (Johnson) to educate his feisty girlfriend (wretched Griffith). This film proves that some treasures should be kept buried and left alone.

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"!