Frankie & Johnny

source: Frankie & Johnny

I don't think I have spoiled the story in comparing the stage play with the movie. This film is almost perfect. Terrence McNally wrote both the stage play and the screen play. Clearly, he wrote the screen play better than the stage play. In the stage play, there are only two actors, Frankie and Johnny, and all the scenes take place in Frankie's apartment. And, in the stage play there is so much indiscriminate banter back and forth between the two that the story line seems to get confused at times. But, in the movie, McNally really develops a smooth story about how both Frankie and Johnny became who they are, and, merges them both together into a possible love duo. By introducing other characters in the restaurant where they both work and in the apartment building where Frankie lives, McNally helps show the life-style being led by Frankie and her vulnerabilities, which Johnny is there to assure her that he will always be there for Frankie. Both Michelle Pheiffer and Al Pacino are the perfect couple to act these roles. Michelle is a dreamboat whom any man could fall in love with. Frankie is defensive and seeks protection from life's bad turns. Michelle's "emotional breakdown" when she finally shares her past life experiences with Johnny is so well acted that one hangs on her every word. Johnny has fallen head over heals in love with Frankie and is blunt about telling her. Al Pacino is fast paced and typifies a person with a New York way of life. The conflict between the two characters is strong and makes for an interesting movie which will glue the viewer to their seat. I watch this movie whenever it comes on cable and I also have the video and play book. Clearly, I prefer the movie to the play in spite of the great reviews the play receives when it is performed on the stage. The play has much more cursing than the movie. Somehow, I don't think that the soft and subtle character of Frankie is right for her to curse so much in the play. In the movie, her cursing is minimal and gets the point across to Johnny. Garry Marshall captured the romance in directing this outstanding movie. It is destined to hold a place in romance movies parallel with Romeo and Juliet and You've Got Mail. Watch this movie with a date by your side!

Having a film with Michelle Pfeiffer, Al Pacino and one of my all time favorites - Kate Nelligan, all directed by Garry Marshall (of the Pretty Woman fame) would seem like a no-brainer. I mean, how could things go wrong right? But, boy, did they ever go wrong, and I mean, wrong with a capital W, R, O, N and G! I have gone through seven circles of hell watching this horrible excuse for a film. The only thing that kept me going was not even Pfeiffer or Pacino, but gorgeous and incredibly talented Nelligan. Ever time the film managed to disappoint me, which happened every other minute, I was hoping for another scene with Kate Nelligan. What an actress... simply marvelous. But, everything else, absolutely sucked. The story is non-existent, but one should not even attempt to hint at it because it would automatically result in spoilers - that's how little of a story there is. This sorry excuse for a film starts with Al Pacino trying to get Michelle Pfeiffer interested in him. She has some strange form of a Borderline personality disorder, which may have been interesting to the writer, but it was so poorly portrayed in the film that it did not work at all (because it was not believable and it was presented inaccurately). He, on the other hand, suffers from inexhaustible and unrealistic amount of optimism. I mean, talk about white knight syndrome! He is trying to save her from whatever her inner demons may be, and she is constantly rejecting him. And that goes on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on for some 1 hour and 25 minutes of this film. The attraction-rejection starts around the 10-15 min mark and goes on until the very end. Each rejection is like a 10-15 minute game, so imagine how many times you get to see the same scene played out all over again. Just horrendous. And to think that ANYONE would believe that that type of torture would work as a film? This film has managed to prove to me that Hollywood filmmaking is purely based on chance. I can guarantee that no one who made a decision that this film should be made had used their brains; no, they must have had a pile of screenplays, and they threw a dart and it landed on this steaming pile of dung. And that's why it was made. There is no other option, believe me. I managed to stay until the bitter end, at first hoping for some satisfactory resolution, but later just to test my patience. The ending failed too, but as it was getting closer to it, I figured there will be nothing better in the end than before it. All in all, watch it only to see HOW NOT TO CREATE A STORY. It does not matter that it is supposedly a love story. It could have been any type of a story - it should simply never "evolve" this way, and the characters should never be written the way they were. Dialogues were atrocious. Characters incredibly unbelievable, with exception of Kate Nelligan's (who managed to save it somehow). Story was still born from the start and never moved anywhere. Various random scenes were thrown in for good measure or to try and break up the monotony. The mood is somber and it never changes. The characters have no arc, and nothing goes anywhere. This is one boring, depressing, incredibly dumb, immature, psychotic story put on screen by accident. No one in their right mind would want to make this film I guarantee you. What a shame, because with that cast and money, one would expect at least a mediocre result, but that was not the case here. Not even close to mediocre. Not even bad. Hardly terrible. More like - run away and run fast, and never look back. Just god awful in every way imaginable.

Love CAN be scary. Especally if you don't expect it. This movie is very good at describing how love can be. Fate can bring two people together. Believe in it. And how perfect the theme song Clair de Lune is. It's worth a listen. Love can happen....only if you believe in it.

After their brief encounter in SCARFACE, Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer were reunited for FRANKIE AND JOHNNY, a charming romantic comedy about an ex-con hired to work at a restaurant where he falls in love with one of the waitresses there. I absolutely love this move...Pacino has rarely been more sexy and appealing on screen and no matter how much they tried to make her look like a Plain Jane, Michelle Pfeiffer is just beautiful and also gives a very affecting performance as the repressed Frankie, afraid to release the love she has to give due to a troubled romantic past. Pacino and Pfeiffer make the most of a clever script, buoyed by Garry Marshall's sure-footed direction and solid comic support from Nathan Lane, Kate Nelligan (hysterically funny as another waitress at the restaurant) and Marshall's good luck charm, Hector Elizondo, as the restaurant owner. A warm romantic comedy with an unexpectedly quiet denouement.

I watch this movie over and over and never tire of it. Each time I notice more nuance. A great exploration of despair and hope, of class consciousness, and true eartly aliveness. Poignant and honest. Michelle plays a depressed soul, beaten down who has given up completely. And Pacino is a beaten down battered ex-con, who somehow, has held onto "the dream". Nathan Lane is great - It's romantic, poignant, funny, sad, ecstatic. I love the last scene so much. What more can I say?? Don't miss this film - it's a treat. Nancy Mehegan, Montclair, NJ

Frankie and Johnny is a simple love story - incorrigible romantic Johnny, working as a short order cook in a Greek restaurant following his release from prison, sets his sights on waitress Frankie despite the fact that she is clearly bruised by the experiences of her life. Will his positiveness overcome her negativity? In an effort to be objective, I have to say that I don't find the character of Johnny easy to believe in - you could specify the qualities you want in the bloke to rescue your damaged psyche from the walls you are building for self-protection, and Johnny has all those qualities plus a handful more for good measure. But Al Pacino invests him with such magnetic presence that it is easy to overlook this. Michelle Pfeiffer's Frankie, on the other hand, is all too believable, both in the construction of the character - wounded, hurting, and scared of having those wounds reopened - and in its performance. Pfeiffer is almost too painful to watch. The gentle humour which runs through Frankie And Johnny makes the painful emotional heart easier to bear, but this would ultimately be a bleak piece were it not for the hopeful note upon which it ends. The supporting cast are solid, and the screenplay has been opened up nicely from the source stage play.

A popular Broadway romantic comedy is transformed by star treatment into Grade-A Hollywood fluff: well crafted, undemanding, and totally predictable. One requirement of the face lift was the casting of the more fashionably attractive (i.e. more bankable) Michelle Pfeiffer in a role designed originally for Kathy Bates, a move which drew criticism from viewers unfamiliar with Hollywood means and methods. Big movies need big stars, who in turn need to protect their fragile reputations, so the revamped character of Frankie, supposedly slinging hash in a New York City deli, is now a disappointed romantic unaware that Prince Charming (in the unpolished guise of a short-order cook) is about to rescue her. Al Pacino's Johnny is likewise simply too perfect: everyone adores him on sight, so it's only a matter of time before Frankie learns to do the same. But, character quibbles aside, the film works very well on its own terms, and writer Terrance McNally has to be commended for opening up his play in a way that effectively conceals its stage origins.

Although I am a fan of both lead actors, I think that Al Pacino is not suitable in the role of a lover. He is simply too persuasive and while desperately trying to convince Frankie about his love he anticipates his upcoming brilliant performances as devil's advocate or merchand of Venice. The movies is saved by some humorous scenes and by Michelle Pfeiffer who plays the role of the lonely woman in her late 30's disappointed by love, but still hoping for the miracle in her life. Some of the dialogs seemed very unnatural in the context and the sex scene between those 2 is simply horrible IMHO. I got the feeling all of the time, that Frankie is trying to convince herself that this is it, just because she is out of options at her age, so she ultimately accepts this big mouth guy in her life. I am rating it 5 because of the failed romance due to Al's exhaustive talking and predictable "happy end".

I cannot believe how many favourable reviews this movie has earned. I repeat:I cannot believe. If you were to tell me you lined this movie, I would clearly understand that you are either insane or mentally impaired. The love making scenes in this sicken me. Pacino is disgusting in this. I cannot even bother to begin to dissect this film in any rational way. I only came on here to even the score. This is the worst movie I have ever been abused by. I just cannot believe the positive reviews. What the f##+?