Release Year: 1991
Starring: Al Pacino, Michelle Pfeiffer, Nathan Lane, Hector Elizondo, Kate Nelligan
Directed by: Garry Marshall
Written by: Terrence McNally
IMDB: 6.4 (8,038 votes)
This could be the second Al Pacino’s film without him being the badass that I’ve watched up to now. If in 88 minutes he was being relentlessly terrorized, this time he fervently chased romance with Frankie (Michelle Pfeiffer). Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think Al is suitable for timid roles.
This movie was adapted from an off-Broadway play Frankie and Johnny in the Claire de Lune (1987) also written by Terrence McNally. As an ex-con trying to rebuild his life, Johnny rebooted his life by taking a job as a cook at Nick’s restaurant. This brought him to meet Frankie, a thirty-something woman who has been trying to stay away from love. Why she did that would be explained later in the movie. Still, I believe that it shouldn’t take too long to tell the audience the background story of Frankie. As a result, the movie seemed to be too slow (at least for me).
If it was intended to be a romantic comedy, well, I think it wasn’t funny at all. I believe it was a totally drama piece. Where’s the comedy, then?
The supporting cast were average, with the exception to Nathan Lane, which I think was doing pretty good portraying Tim, Frankie’s gay friend. Too bad he only got limited screen time. The plot was lacking the capacity to impress me, and I felt that it was too flat with no surprises at all. Even when Frankie revealed her reason behind her behaviour to Johnny I didn’t feel surprised at all.
Sorry folks, but my personal grade for this movie is 5.0.
This movie was adapted from an off-Broadway play Frankie and Johnny in the Claire de Lune (1987) also written by Terrence McNally. As an ex-con trying to rebuild his life, Johnny rebooted his life by taking a job as a cook at Nick’s restaurant. This brought him to meet Frankie, a thirty-something woman who has been trying to stay away from love. Why she did that would be explained later in the movie. Still, I believe that it shouldn’t take too long to tell the audience the background story of Frankie. As a result, the movie seemed to be too slow (at least for me).
If it was intended to be a romantic comedy, well, I think it wasn’t funny at all. I believe it was a totally drama piece. Where’s the comedy, then?
The supporting cast were average, with the exception to Nathan Lane, which I think was doing pretty good portraying Tim, Frankie’s gay friend. Too bad he only got limited screen time. The plot was lacking the capacity to impress me, and I felt that it was too flat with no surprises at all. Even when Frankie revealed her reason behind her behaviour to Johnny I didn’t feel surprised at all.
Sorry folks, but my personal grade for this movie is 5.0.
