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.
56 Reviews
Mildly enjoyable fluff...but why make it?
connmoore17 January 2004
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 The original was not exactly out of date.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.
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 The original was not exactly out of date.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
boblipton17 January 2004
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.
Save your time and rent the original
Dave-in-Hayward19 January 2004
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.
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.
It was good but not great!
kcwbar8 June 2007
I thought Patricia Heaton did a fantastic job as Paula but No1 was as good as Richard Dreyfuss. They could have done a better job with the casting of Elliot too. Jeff Daniels was mediocre @ best. I also liked the daughter in this one better. The script was almost verbatim & it was still funny but I wasn't rolling & laughing so hard my sides hurt like I did when I first saw the 1977 version. As my title says: it was good but not great. They could have done a LOT worse. Look how horribly musicals like Best Little Whorehouse in Texas ; for one; the movie totally sucked. The musical was much better. All in all I give this remake of a classic a 6. I like how they modernized it too although it didn;t fit in the original plot. IE: Elliot first tries to use his cell phone . Then he drops it & breaks it. They didn't have cell phones in 1977. They were also talking a lot about revivals & improvs which are much more common now.
OK
smilie7717 January 2004
This was actually one of the better made-for-television movies I've seen. It was a good love story and a few laughs here and there. The only problem with is it got sort of confusing while they were fighting. When I thought they liked each they were really mad at each other. I also thought they could have done more to the ending. The people at the studios left you hanging. Other than those thoughts though, this was a movie a person should see. I would not recommend it to people who dislike romance movies.
Pretty good
BritishBaby1123 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The little girl always seemed smarter and older than she really was. Her attitude bothered me. The only time that she acted like a ten year old was when she was crying. The character of Paula could have been a strong character but she seemed to depend on others to help her and to make her feel better, even her daughter. I did think it was funny. Especially the buffo part. I liked how fast the dialog went. Not to fast that it was hard to understand but not to slow either. One thing however that irked me was the fact that Jeff Daniels was naked behind a guitar. Ewww! Over all I felt that it was a pretty good movie and wouldn't mind watching it again.
A river running in a deadly desert !
elshikh413 October 2010
Unlike many, I believe that remaking isn't a bad thing. It's only in the way of making it. (Neil Simon) wrote a screenplay entitled (The Goodbye Girl) which became a (Herbert Ross) movie in (1977). It was a great comedy with great performances. Now there is a new one. A TV one. So, based on the above, why not. However, after watching it, it's "why" only!
First of all, they remade it with THE SAME screenplay. Regardless of saving the fee of new scriptwriter, that could be quite a challenge for the director to experience a different form in terms of making a creative remake a la (Richard III - 1995), or (Romeo + Juliet - 1996). Or it's just the same, yet with higher or - at least - as good performance. But you know what? Forget it utterly. Because this one ended up as uncreative and spooky instead!
The glaring touch of wit is so out. It's more like the original movie after emptying it of fun. For instance, look at (Jeff Daniels). He does the role with silly flavor of seriousness, missing the extra vitality of the struggling cuckoo actor that (Elliot Garfield) is. (Patricia Heaton) is a major casting problem. Who did select her for such a part?! She looks old (older than her co-star), annoying, with no magic. I don't know who's to blame for depriving her character of its ardor, loveliness and desperate romanticism; to be another soppy, totally undistinguished, divorced woman.
You heard that dialogue before, and here, you are hearing it again, entirely, as the same as it was. I don't get bored of (Simon)'s work, but this time, the soulless deliverance from all the parties forces to. When I see the lead jumps over the fire escape to reproach his love in the street, exactly like (Richard Dreyfuss) did in the 1977's movie, I must yawn, moving my head in pity, grieving not understanding: "Why bothering yourselves making a déjà vu? This is an insult to you guys before being the same to us!".
There is nothing new except being dull. Well, to be fair, it had 3 new things already; a poster for (Brad Pitt) hanging on the wall, a delicate song before the end, and slightly (Hallie Kate Eisenberg) as (Lucy); she seemed more childish and less sophisticated unlike (Quinn Cummings) in the first movie, not reasons to re-watch this again though!
Generally, the forever fresh text runs on screen like a river in a deadly desert, with zero echoes. It's barely (Neil Simon) meets (The Bold and The Beautiful). There is no beneficiary of anything, except some people get paid, for repeating poorly a rich thing, and some network gets something to fill out its empty hours. I believe by now that you caught on the reason why this movie is spooky; it's how it indicates insolvency all the way. The same money, which they produced this TV ghost with it, should have been spent over ANY OTHER PROJECT better. But, obviously, there wasn't ANY OTHER PROJECT in the first place!
And when you watch, among flood of remakes, (The Omen - 1976) being remade into another one in (2006), under the same title, by the same script of its original writer (David Seltzer)--then you must notice how making movies in America lives in the 2000s a state of resorting to the 1970s, or any other creative decade, through many remakes, spooky ones, with nothing new to be specific.
The Conclusions: (Simon)'s work fits to be watched many times, and this movie doesn't. Watch (The Goodbye Girl - 1977), and avoid this TV version, sorry copy. Being a copy is enough pathetic, so how about that there is none to win from it, but appreciating the first movie more, along with detracting the 2000s more as well. It is not the goodbye girl inasmuch as the goodbye movie!
First of all, they remade it with THE SAME screenplay. Regardless of saving the fee of new scriptwriter, that could be quite a challenge for the director to experience a different form in terms of making a creative remake a la (Richard III - 1995), or (Romeo + Juliet - 1996). Or it's just the same, yet with higher or - at least - as good performance. But you know what? Forget it utterly. Because this one ended up as uncreative and spooky instead!
The glaring touch of wit is so out. It's more like the original movie after emptying it of fun. For instance, look at (Jeff Daniels). He does the role with silly flavor of seriousness, missing the extra vitality of the struggling cuckoo actor that (Elliot Garfield) is. (Patricia Heaton) is a major casting problem. Who did select her for such a part?! She looks old (older than her co-star), annoying, with no magic. I don't know who's to blame for depriving her character of its ardor, loveliness and desperate romanticism; to be another soppy, totally undistinguished, divorced woman.
You heard that dialogue before, and here, you are hearing it again, entirely, as the same as it was. I don't get bored of (Simon)'s work, but this time, the soulless deliverance from all the parties forces to. When I see the lead jumps over the fire escape to reproach his love in the street, exactly like (Richard Dreyfuss) did in the 1977's movie, I must yawn, moving my head in pity, grieving not understanding: "Why bothering yourselves making a déjà vu? This is an insult to you guys before being the same to us!".
There is nothing new except being dull. Well, to be fair, it had 3 new things already; a poster for (Brad Pitt) hanging on the wall, a delicate song before the end, and slightly (Hallie Kate Eisenberg) as (Lucy); she seemed more childish and less sophisticated unlike (Quinn Cummings) in the first movie, not reasons to re-watch this again though!
Generally, the forever fresh text runs on screen like a river in a deadly desert, with zero echoes. It's barely (Neil Simon) meets (The Bold and The Beautiful). There is no beneficiary of anything, except some people get paid, for repeating poorly a rich thing, and some network gets something to fill out its empty hours. I believe by now that you caught on the reason why this movie is spooky; it's how it indicates insolvency all the way. The same money, which they produced this TV ghost with it, should have been spent over ANY OTHER PROJECT better. But, obviously, there wasn't ANY OTHER PROJECT in the first place!
And when you watch, among flood of remakes, (The Omen - 1976) being remade into another one in (2006), under the same title, by the same script of its original writer (David Seltzer)--then you must notice how making movies in America lives in the 2000s a state of resorting to the 1970s, or any other creative decade, through many remakes, spooky ones, with nothing new to be specific.
The Conclusions: (Simon)'s work fits to be watched many times, and this movie doesn't. Watch (The Goodbye Girl - 1977), and avoid this TV version, sorry copy. Being a copy is enough pathetic, so how about that there is none to win from it, but appreciating the first movie more, along with detracting the 2000s more as well. It is not the goodbye girl inasmuch as the goodbye movie!
Enjoyed remake as much as original
buz_lightyear200020 November 2005
Maybe my critical eye is not all that it might be or I'm just very generous in my appreciation of films.Either way I have thoroughly enjoyed the 2004 made-for-TV version of Simon's brilliant play.I watched the original on satellite TV and a week later tuned in again,thinking it was the same version, not knowing of the re-make.As it dawned on me,I realised that it was the plot,setting,writing etc which appealed to me more than the acting performances.Jeff and Patricia are fine in the roles, as were Richard and Marsha before them.I see no reason to condemn this re-make and I've no doubt the next version of "The Goodbye Girl" will be just as good as these two.It's a great poignant comedy with wonderful one-liners.
Not a Bad Remake
Glassix17 January 2004
This was a pretty good remake of a movie that was perfect to begin with. I think Jeff Daniels made his own fabulous spin on the character of Elliot yet was able to still capture some of the original scenes with "Dreyfuss-Daniels" flair. Patricia Heaton also did a grand job. I wasn't as thrilled with the performance of Lucy but then again not everything could be perfect. She did a great job of embodying the character yet overall I'm not sure I took a great liking altogether to the actress. Kudos to Hootie for redoing the song by "Bread", as always an awesome classic. Overall if you enjoyed the original this was film was a nice breath of fresh air. As usual though on a late afternoon I'll always opt for some Dreyfuss meditation anyday.
Not nearly as good as the original
shootersteve23 June 2006
I loved the original, so I was very excited when I heard about the remake. I adore Patricia Heaton and being a hometown boy, I like Jeff Daniels. However, there is absolutely no chemistry between Heaton and Daniels. Elliot is supposed to be a struggling actor, which Dreyfus played to a "T". He had that scraggly, avant garde actor appearance. Jeff Daniels is way too clean-cut. Mason and Dreyfus are closer in height whereas Daniels is 6'3" and Heaton is 5'2. Completely awkward. Lastly, with the amazing screen chemistry was between Dreyfus and Mason, not to mention the fantastic performance by Quinn Cummings, I think this remake was doomed from the onset. It didn't help that TNT showed the original before airing the remake. Dreadful.
fabulous remake!
thefutters25 August 2006
This movie was brilliantly done. I confess that I've never seen the 1977 original, and it is no insult to the actors in that one to say that Jeff, Patricia, and Hallie are a fabulous trio in this film. Take this version as a standalone and you will be impressed! The comic timing is excellent; the emotion is vividly real in almost every scene; the chemistry is actually better early on, when it is more below the surface, than later in the film; and the casting could not have been more perfect.
Jeff Daniels is particularly excellent as Elliot Garfield, with his artful blend of dry humor and simple passion. An actor playing an actor on screen is rarely demonstrated so well, but his charm keeps this character utterly believable. I was not a big fan of Patricia Heaton until she took this role, but I discovered a depth in her acting that was not as evident to me from her television work. It helps that she is obviously an intelligent woman, and she brings an endearing mix of tentative hope and cynicism to this character, just as she should. Hallie Kate Eisenberg, in her second role as an intelligent, rather mature child, is the perfect complement to Patricia's Paula McFadden. Hallie plays Paula's daughter in this film, more innocent and hopeful than her mother, but not a stranger to the world and its emotional threats. All three characters are very human, very real; and the intelligent, witty dialogue is so plausible that you almost feel you are being told this story by the characters themselves who are your personal friends.
Overall, brilliantly made, perfectly cast, and a real delight! Fans of comedy, romance, and even biting wit, will all be charmed and impressed.
Jeff Daniels is particularly excellent as Elliot Garfield, with his artful blend of dry humor and simple passion. An actor playing an actor on screen is rarely demonstrated so well, but his charm keeps this character utterly believable. I was not a big fan of Patricia Heaton until she took this role, but I discovered a depth in her acting that was not as evident to me from her television work. It helps that she is obviously an intelligent woman, and she brings an endearing mix of tentative hope and cynicism to this character, just as she should. Hallie Kate Eisenberg, in her second role as an intelligent, rather mature child, is the perfect complement to Patricia's Paula McFadden. Hallie plays Paula's daughter in this film, more innocent and hopeful than her mother, but not a stranger to the world and its emotional threats. All three characters are very human, very real; and the intelligent, witty dialogue is so plausible that you almost feel you are being told this story by the characters themselves who are your personal friends.
Overall, brilliantly made, perfectly cast, and a real delight! Fans of comedy, romance, and even biting wit, will all be charmed and impressed.
everything is a little off
SnoopyStyle6 October 2014
Paula McFadden (Patricia Heaton) is 36 and a little too old to be a dancer. She is left behind by her married actor boyfriend Tony DeForrest for a job in Italy. She doesn't have any money staying in the apartment with her daughter Lucy (Hallie Kate Eisenberg). It turns out that Tony sublet his apartment to Elliot Garfield (Jeff Daniels) out from under her. She refuses to leave and Elliot reluctantly agrees to let her stay.
Patricia Heaton is wrong for this role. She can't pull off even a former dancer. Also I don't think that she's quite right to be Eisenberg's mom. She's much better in a soccer mom role. Daniels is charming. Eisenberg is great as the talkative little girl. The Neil Simon play is still good but everything is a little bit off. The '77 movie is perfectly fine. This feels like a faded copy. The apartment doesn't have quite the NYC feel. I do like Eisenberg with Daniels and their scene together is great. Basically the movie feels wrong but it still has the essence of a good story.
Patricia Heaton is wrong for this role. She can't pull off even a former dancer. Also I don't think that she's quite right to be Eisenberg's mom. She's much better in a soccer mom role. Daniels is charming. Eisenberg is great as the talkative little girl. The Neil Simon play is still good but everything is a little bit off. The '77 movie is perfectly fine. This feels like a faded copy. The apartment doesn't have quite the NYC feel. I do like Eisenberg with Daniels and their scene together is great. Basically the movie feels wrong but it still has the essence of a good story.
Entertaining? yes, even if unbelievable
master12288316 January 2004
What got me to watch this movie in the first place was seeing Patricia Heaton in something other than Everybody Loves Raymond and to see Jeff Daniels in something a little more serious than Dumb and Dumber.
I won't give away any of the plot, but I will say that the movie was entertaining. Although the speed at which emotions changed back and forth was a little too quick to be believable. Some people also might be turned off by the overly mature NYC 10 year old daughter who at times seems to be more of a sister then a daughter to Heaton's character.
It was a nice film to end the day with.
I won't give away any of the plot, but I will say that the movie was entertaining. Although the speed at which emotions changed back and forth was a little too quick to be believable. Some people also might be turned off by the overly mature NYC 10 year old daughter who at times seems to be more of a sister then a daughter to Heaton's character.
It was a nice film to end the day with.
scene-for-scene re-shoot
stephenhow26 June 2004
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.
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.
charming
joe_movies16 January 2004
Who doesn't dread a TV movie? But then again, how many TV movies are advertised on billboards on the side of the highway? I read the reviews before I watched this movie, and they weren't kind. I thought it was charming. Patricia Heaton slips comfortably out of the `Raymond' housewife role into the convincing life of a washed-up Broadway dancer. She's incredibly sympathetic as a conflicted woman who has never had a break in her life and seems to just be living in ever-repeating circles and never goes anywhere. Her only salvation is in her young daughter, who is oddly wise for her age. She (Heaton) wants to trust, but hates herself when she finally does. Then there's Jeff Daniels. He's always good. I wouldn't have thought he could pull off this role, but the gay Shakespeare bit and the neurotic outbursts are all well done. As far as TV movies go, this was right on the money. There were some things that were probably hangovers from the original that didn't quite fit in with the present day, such as the incense, nude guitar playing, and bicarbonate for stomach aches, but that just nit-picking. I don't like to over-analyze things just to sound smart, so I'll just say that if you can't make it to the theater, then sit back and enjoy this one at home. I give this movie a little 'handicap' score since it was on TV, and so I give it a 7. Enjoy!
Nice Remake
treylindauer23 January 2004
Over all it was a feel good moive. For a remake I truely enjoyed this movie. Jeff and Patricia worked well together. Plus I've missed seeing Jeff in the movies. I guess he's been hiding. Hopefully he will come back around and make some good movies. I also enjoyed the girl in the movie.
the actor talent gap is wide between original & remake
anonreviewer2 July 2018
This is a decent remake ...because it is just a great script...however there is a big gap in the quality of acting between original and remake...the remake actors are just OK...but watching the remake just shows how good the original actors really were...in particular Dreyfuss is a far better actor than jeff daniels...even the little girl, played by quinn cummings in the original, was significantly better...
This movie was dumb.
rabdill314 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I wish I had a better word than "dumb" for this movie, but it's the one that fits. The modern adaptation of The Goodbye Girl was an absolute joke. Besides being a remake in the most literal (and lazy) sense (practically every camera angle was identical to the 1977 original), it had badly casted characters and, due to the use of a practically untouched script, many highly unlikely situations in the modern world.
To start, Patricia Heaton is horribly miscast. Her inability to "find a good man" is unbelievable- with her boob job, she should be beating men off with a stick. In addition, she didn't do anything we weren't used to seeing; frankly, I'm tired of seeing Patricia Heaton play the embattled housewife. Very boring.
Jeff Daniels was a slightly better fit (less creepy than Richard Dreyfus), but his slooooooow delivery and lackluster performance left much to be desired.
Poorly acted and poorly translated to modern times. Stick with the original.
To start, Patricia Heaton is horribly miscast. Her inability to "find a good man" is unbelievable- with her boob job, she should be beating men off with a stick. In addition, she didn't do anything we weren't used to seeing; frankly, I'm tired of seeing Patricia Heaton play the embattled housewife. Very boring.
Jeff Daniels was a slightly better fit (less creepy than Richard Dreyfus), but his slooooooow delivery and lackluster performance left much to be desired.
Poorly acted and poorly translated to modern times. Stick with the original.
A decent television adaptation
palmer_rl17 January 2004
This remake of the the 1977 Neil Simon, Herbert Ross film is effective. The performances are genuine and well done, generally, though not as well realized as those by Richard Dreyfuss and Marsha Mason in the original. While Jeff Daniels' more subdued and slightly more attractive Elliott Garfield is appealing, Dreyfuss' over the top, oscar winning performamce is still superior in many ways. Patricia Heaton is warm, lovely, and appropriate as Paula, but never truly outstanding. Again, a more attractive actress than Mason, but she plays at it with somewhat more vulnurability and less strength than Mason.
This production robs the material of a bit of its original realism; the massive New York apartment, with its clean, modern appliances and wide open spaces takes away the charm and immediacy of the tiny two bedroom in the original film. The scene where they repaint and redo the living room does damage, where in the original film the scene was poignant for its improvement on the dusty living space they shared.
Pepsi-faced Halli Kate Eisenberg is the most wonderful surprise in the film. She approaches the material with more warmth and understanding than the rather spoiled brat take we got from the child actress in the first film. She is bright, approachable, even when she's angry she's vulnurable and believeable.
All around, this film gave me the warm fuzzies. It's well written, well performed, MOSTLY appropriately updated including its pop cultural references. Interesting cameo by director Benjamin as a, well, a director.
This production robs the material of a bit of its original realism; the massive New York apartment, with its clean, modern appliances and wide open spaces takes away the charm and immediacy of the tiny two bedroom in the original film. The scene where they repaint and redo the living room does damage, where in the original film the scene was poignant for its improvement on the dusty living space they shared.
Pepsi-faced Halli Kate Eisenberg is the most wonderful surprise in the film. She approaches the material with more warmth and understanding than the rather spoiled brat take we got from the child actress in the first film. She is bright, approachable, even when she's angry she's vulnurable and believeable.
All around, this film gave me the warm fuzzies. It's well written, well performed, MOSTLY appropriately updated including its pop cultural references. Interesting cameo by director Benjamin as a, well, a director.
Hard to replace a classic
tgfobiwan3 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Patricia Heaton is the only reason to watch this movie. The kid in the movie was a bit too old to be so cute, and Jeff Daniels performance was less than his best. The acting seemed a little forced and unnatural especially Daniels and the kid. The movie needed more attention paid to Daniels' and Heaton's sexual tension to make the romantic connection that ultimately occurs more believable. It seems the romantic connection occurs more out of desperation that love. I admire Heaton for attempting this role, but it was only her sexy outfits that made this movie endurable. The often-conservative housewife from Everybody Loves Raymond expanded her role capabilities by showing how beautiful and sexy a middle-aged women can be, too bad it was wasted on this remake.
I liked it, now watching second time.
daveposh18 January 2004
I didn't see the original Goodbye Girl, so I'm not comparing it to that film. My opinion of this movie may be different if I had, but seeing this on TNT 1/18/04, I liked it, especially the the last hour. I'm now watching the repeat performance on TNT with my wife (told her to bring a box of kleenex).
Why bother?
jlacerra18 January 2004
Why did they remake this picture? It was a pleasant enough TV movie if there was not a really excellent original to which it pales in comparison.
Jeff Daniels, usually a favorite of mine, is not cut out for this type of comedy. He is neither funny or sympathetic as Elliot. Patricia Heaton is OK, but there is virtually no chemistry between her and Daniels. The daughter is too cute and wise.
Oddly, a high point in this picture is a cameo by director Richard Benjamin. This production makes one want to go back into the archives and retrieve the Dreyfuss/Mason version to REALLY see the show.
Jeff Daniels, usually a favorite of mine, is not cut out for this type of comedy. He is neither funny or sympathetic as Elliot. Patricia Heaton is OK, but there is virtually no chemistry between her and Daniels. The daughter is too cute and wise.
Oddly, a high point in this picture is a cameo by director Richard Benjamin. This production makes one want to go back into the archives and retrieve the Dreyfuss/Mason version to REALLY see the show.
Shoulda left it alone
davidsco2717 January 2004
Here is another example of a movie/show that was perfect or near perfect in its original incarnation, and low and behold, some unoriginal "genius" has to come up with the brilliant idea to ruin it. It's funny, my wife and I just watched the video of the original 2 weeks ago, before we knew this was coming out. It was my wife's first time seeing the movie, and she loved it. 10 minutes into this lifeless remake, and we knew it was a mistake.
First of all, you can NOT build upon or act against Richard Dreyfuss' original performance. Dreyfuss' Garfield was as near perfect a characterization as one could find. he was perfect and masterful. Daniels, while a fine actor, does not hold a candle in this role. The rest of the cast too appears to be sleep-walking through the lines. I'm sorry but, it just doesn't work. Patricia Heaton is obviously talented, and I love her on "Raymond" but she is out of her element here and it does not work. Hailey Eisenberg was cute to a point in the Pepsi commercials, but judging by her performance here, she shoulda hung 'em up afterwards. Blame can probably be placed justly on the directing, which is equally lifeless, and appears to not be capable of capturing the magic of the original.
The only saving grace is, it's on TV, so it's free. Watch if nothing else is on, but otherwise, forget it.
First of all, you can NOT build upon or act against Richard Dreyfuss' original performance. Dreyfuss' Garfield was as near perfect a characterization as one could find. he was perfect and masterful. Daniels, while a fine actor, does not hold a candle in this role. The rest of the cast too appears to be sleep-walking through the lines. I'm sorry but, it just doesn't work. Patricia Heaton is obviously talented, and I love her on "Raymond" but she is out of her element here and it does not work. Hailey Eisenberg was cute to a point in the Pepsi commercials, but judging by her performance here, she shoulda hung 'em up afterwards. Blame can probably be placed justly on the directing, which is equally lifeless, and appears to not be capable of capturing the magic of the original.
The only saving grace is, it's on TV, so it's free. Watch if nothing else is on, but otherwise, forget it.
Decent Movie, Decent Acting
Stomperk10 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Although i found The Goodbye Girl cute and entertaining, I do not think the acting was sufficient. Patricia Heaton plays a character who possesses extreme emotions and she was not able to carry out this role successfully. Most of her feelings looked too fake. Because of this it was very hard for the audience to feel compassion for her. Also, I personally do not like unrealistic movies and I felt the plot was very unrealistic. Two complete strangers comfortable with living together in New York City is just ridiculous. I did, however, think Jeff Daniels fit his character and was funny especially with his awkward body movements and his one-liners.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
