The Goodbye Girl (2004) Reviews

• a good sweatpants/ice-cream movie

  megsmassage2004-07-31

  It was a made for TV movie, for goodness sake. If I were home alone on a Saturday night, I would really enjoy this movie--what is wrong with a movie simply being entertaining? I haven't seen the original, so maybe that is why you all hate it so much, but as for simple acting jobs, I thought that the little girl has actually really improved her acting skills and was nice and natural, with good comic timing. And Daniels was quite charming. I wasn't as crazy about P.Heaton as I normally am, but I think that that was a product of the way her character was written. And I was glad to see Alan Cumming do something light, too. Anyway, in general, it was enjoyable, and I would recommend it for a no fuss night.

• Mildly enjoyable fluff...but why make it?

  connmoore2004-01-17

  It is almost impossible to watch this movie, without comparing it to the 1970's movie. Jeff Daniels does a servicable job in this role, but to my eyes he seems miscast. He is just not desperate or manic enough in this part. Patricia Heaton is actually an upgrade over Marcia Mason in the female lead. This is just an odd film to remake. The original was not exactly out of date. They did not make any big changes in this version, except very minor mentions of more current events. If you are bored, the source material this comes from is still pretty good. However if you really enjoy this movie, take the time to rent the 1977 version. I promise you will appreciate it being better.

• Another Pointless Remake

  boblipton2004-01-17

  This perfectly serviceable remake of the 1977 picture raises the question as do so many remakes, of why this was remade. The scene is changed from the Upper West Side to West Greenwich village, but other than that, it looks like the leads worked on their characterizations by looking at the earlier film -- and the originals do it ever so slightly better.

• scene-for-scene re-shoot

  stephenhow2004-06-26

  I have both the 2004 and 1977 versions on my TiVo, and the former is a scene-for-scene remake of the latter. It's interesting to see the small changes in the scenes from the two movies. Like in the "morning after" breakfast scene where the 1977 Lucy's Bicentennial lunchbox (remember 1976? remember lunch boxes), is replaced in 2004 with today's over-sized book backpack. Also, the 1977 Lucy had a Habitrail (TM) for her hampster -- still available today, but alas, not in the 2004 set. Of course, political correctness is evident in the 2004 version -- the 3 black purse-snatchers in 1977 are replaced by 3 white purse snatchers in 2004. In more evidence of progress, the 2004 rooftop dinner has much more Christmas lights than the 1977 version. Similarly, the Subaru in the 1977 auto show scene gets 39 mpg, while the Toyota in the 2004 auto show gets 60 mpg. The best thing I can say about the 2004 version is that Patricia Heaton looks better in the role though 10 years older than Marsha Mason at the time of shooting.

• Save your time and rent the original

  Dave-in-Hayward2004-01-19

  I loved the original. This remake was just painful. Try though he might Jeff Daniels could not carry off the roll of Elliot with any degree of charm, humor or frenetic energy that Richard Dreyfuss made work so well in the original. Matthew Perry MIGHT have been a better casting choice for Elliot, but it's hard to follow a classic. And though Patricia Heaton is much easier on the eye than Marsha Mason ever was, she seemed to be phoning in her part as well. Marsha sold the part of a hopeless romantic who'd been dumped one too many times. Patricia seemed to be acting like it was one of her Albertson's commercials. I really tried to cheer for this remake, but it just didn't hold a candle to the original.