Starting Over (1979)

I really like a lot about this movie, mainly Burt Reynolds playing against type. Instead of his Alpha male ladies man, we get a lonely, hurt, confused writer/teacher who's just been dumped by his wife Jessica (Candace Bergen). Escaping from New York City glitter, Peter (Burt) moves to Boston and after a failed attempt to enter the dating cycle again, connects with Marilyn (Jill Clayburgh) a neurotic preschool teacher.***SPOILER ALERT****The relationship is rushed and on shaky ground from the onset and we wonder how these two can overcome their own set of insecurities and become a couple. Phil's main roadblock to opening up to Marilyn is that he still loves his ex wife.Candace (Jessica) causes several rifts between Phil and Marilyn. The first being an out of the blue Thanksgiving phone call, the second by showing up on the day Marilyn is moving in with Phil. What follows in short order is a breakup...a failed make up of Phil and Jessica...then a reconciliation with Marilyn.And that's my first of a few issues with the film. Rom Coms seem to suspend belief. Marilyn tells Peter she doesn't want to hear from him again (because she doesn't want to be the Rebound Lady). Phil breaks the rule...and she relents.More importantly...cinematographer Sven Nykvist did a horrible job, this is where the murky comes in. We know it's Winter in the Northeast but all of the interiors are dark...even the bedroom display at Bloomingdales is dark. Hard to get involved in characters who we can't see. It's supposed to be a comedy, so lighten up; literally. As a result, the whole film takes on a more serious tone.Plus, at times screenwriter James L. Brooks seems to tease us with a few quirky moments..like Marilyn's involvement with basketball player John (Sturgis Warner) because he's 'big'. Also...continuity is an issue. I wasn't sure if this took place over one winter or two. Plus, last time I checked...there isn't six weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.One highlight...the divorced men's encounter group meetings. They precede the women's group and we get to peek in on a bunch of lonely, displaced males. The staircase scene as the aggressive women march down the basement steps to start their meeting and the departing males plaster themselves to the staircase walls are great moments.On the whole, there are fun moments and nice ones too. Not meant to be a laugh riot, just a commentary on two people with 'issues'...trying to move on and cope.

I loved Burt Reynolds when I was wee. And performances like this, for me, are what he was best at. Here's the scoop: he is normal, we are normal, but the world is a bit crazy, and us normal guys have got to navigate it and find true, terrific, wonderful love.This is a romantic comedy, a genre which seldom produces a great film, and indeed this is not a great film. That said, it is an above - average, very enjoyable film of it's type, which is genuinely LOL funny in places, and has not dated at all. And, it has a nice Christmas-time thing going on, which may or not be relevant to your interest. Slightly wonky (New York / Bostony) music is fitting, and I would defo give Bergen a cuddle with that see-through blouse thing on.When the end credits come up, with another cheesy song, you might feel that you know a wee bit more about humanity, and more again about what love really is, and isn't.

this film is very well done, portraying those very real situations that people find them selves.first off, in small but very important, vibrant roles, Mary sternhagen, and Charles durning once again prove their worth, their talent, and their ability to MATTER to a story. both of these actors are just fantastic at recognizing their roles, and DELIVERING more than needed. just fantastic.also look for Austin Pendleton, in a small but vital role playing it to the hilt. he is a spectacular actor who deserves way more credit and recognition then he receives from Hollywood. versatile, fantastic actor. without actors like him, Hollywood would never survive.as to the two female leads, well, one and a half, as i can't see why Candice bergen would be nominated for an academy award for this limited performance. she is definitely a major part of the story, BUT NOT A MAJOR FORCE ON THE SCREEN. now, Jill clayburgh, on the other hand is so good in her role here, and so believable, that she definitely deserved recognition. she has the character, the personal trauma, the desperation, the fear down pat. bergen, on the other hand, while she does nail the character, is not that memorable at all.and Burt Reynolds, is is usual magnificent self, giving 110 % to the story, the character, the production.if you are an aspiring actor, STUDY Burt Reynolds. he is far more than a plastic banana head sex symbol, leading man. he is of the same cloth of classic actors Humphrey Bogart, Clark gable, john Wayne.....he gets the character down, and gives his all.this film is a keeper, very well done, and keeps your rapt interest in the final outcome, WHICH IS NOT ETCHED IN STONE, by any means. it can go either way.well produced, well directed, and well acted.

Almost every scene in this movie is painful to watch. While I won't deny James L Brooks his due as a producer and part creator of some great films and television over the years, his writing is downright awful. A (written by) James L Brooks (As Good as it Gets, Broadcast News, Terms of Endearment, Starting Over, etc) film is unmistakable in it's utterly amateurish and sophomoric written word and silly and predictable utilization of EVERY scene for some sort of dramatic effect. Characters sitting by the phone when it rings. Perfectly timed and delivered dialogue and speeches at the most dramatic of times (like Burt Reynolds saying the worst possible thing at the worst possible time when the worst possible person is perfectly within earshot). At his divorce group, Reynolds suddenly asks one of his groupmates for a ride to...Bloomingdales? Why? What sort of madcap happenings are going to take place there for seemingly no reason? Brooks refuses to let his audience get to really know, like or care about his characters because something HAS TO HAPPEN in EVERY scene. One dramatic punchline after another.His "specialization" seems to be these talky, seasoned adult melodramas but his style of writing is so much more suited to comedy. As a result, his written words are neither funny nor dramatic. I don't like or care about any of the characters in this film. To make matters worse, Reynolds, Clayburgh and Bergen do nothing to rise above the material. I don't know what any of them see in any of the others, particularly Reynolds and Clayburgh. With the exception of As Good as it Gets, these movies are brutally written and acted and painful to watch. As Good as it Gets actually does rise above Brooks mainly because Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt do manage to rise above the material.And maybe I'm crazy, but about 15 or 20 minutes in, don't Reynolds and Clayburgh have a first date where he arrives at her apartment and they can't yet leave because the sitter hasn't arrived yet? Sitter for whom? Why, her two children, who he meets! After he takes her home, they seem to have another first date where the kids are no longer there and aren't seen or heard from for the rest of the movie. Did I miss something? The only good scene in the whole film was the breakup/goodbye scene between Clayburgh and Reynolds. The only well written and well acted dialogue in the film was when she makes him promise not to call her again. The last ten or fifteen minutes, when Reynolds finally gives up on his ex wife, are so stupid, I wanted to bury my head in a pillow. How in the world would he even know she was at the Boston Garden at that moment and how would he get in? God awful film.