JoeytheBrit The casting of crude millionaire Harry Brock is crucial to the success of this film simply because he dominates the story even when he isn't on screen. Choose the wrong actor and the whole thing will collapse because he is the origin of the story's conflict and therefore needs to be strong and bold. Luckily, the producers cast beefy John Goodman in the role and he managed to strike just the right combination of pent-up rage and apple-cheeked smiles. Although he's a Citizen Kane-type monster who slaps his girlfriend around and believes the offer of jewellery or money can soothe all ills, he also displays moments of genuine emotion that makes him quite likable at times. I guess the idea was to show how the nice guy he once was has been devoured by his hunger for money – hardly original, but nicely played by Goodman, anyway.The story is essentially a wake-up call to the slumbering giant that is the American public masquerading as a romantic comedy. A book called Democracy in America – which was actually written in the 19th Century by a Frenchman named Tocqueville – plays a big part. By studying its concepts, Brock's moll Billy (Melanie Griffith) awakens to the fact that she is being duped by Harry, who represents the forces of rampant capitalism, and rises up against her oppressor. Whether the message is particularly relevant to its target audience is open to question, but perhaps its assumption that it won't really be taken too seriously allows the film to make its symbolism so literal that few will miss the parallels. For example when Ed Devery (Edward Hermann), Brock's right-hand man who clearly feels he has sold his soul ('I died twelve years ago,' he tells Brock after his employer shows concern for striking him in a rage) picks up a copy of the book it signals a reawakening of his conscience which is quickly quashed when Brock snatches it from his hand and throws it to the ground. Others, like the radio presenter, pay lip service to the concept without really understanding it. The way the message is couched in this straightforward simplicity raises the film higher than others of its type.In a bland, thankless role that goes nowhere, Don Johnson wears horn-rimmed glasses and combs his hair forward to dispel memories of designer-clad cops. Even if he was anything more than a workmanlike actor he would struggle to do anything with the role. Griffith is likable enough, but her rapid transformation from bubble-headed blonde to hair-in-a-bun brain-box is so fast it fairly takes your breath away. One minute she's impatiently searching for something to watch during the dead time between the soaps and Entertainment Tonight and the next she's teaching a group of Senators the American constitution.The film itself is entertaining enough; it certainly isn't as bad as you'd expect, and it's rating on this site is surprisingly low. But then, I suppose a lot of people watch this because they've seen (and liked) the original, which is a major hurdle for any film to overcome.

Jackson Booth-Millard It is a brave move to remake such a classic George Cukor comedy film, and this was a challenge to see if the makers could create the near same enjoyment that I remember from the original. It follows the same premise, Billie Dawn (Melanie Griffith) is the girlfriend of construction planner and corrupt crook Harry Brock (John Goodman), and she is not all that intelligent about certain things, and is causing embarrassment. So Harry pays $5000 to Paul Verrall (Don Johnson) for him to teach Billie things she should know to make her look more acceptable and intelligent. As she learns more and more, Billie doesn't seem to be so thick after all, and it is obvious the teaching from Paul is turning into something more passionate. Billie is soon intelligent to know that Harry is bribing senators, and making her sign documents that make her owner of his illegal matters, and she plucks up the courage to refuse. In the end, Billie hands in the incriminating evidence to Paul to give to the press to finish Harry, and she says she will only give back small portions of his empire back as long as he leaves them alone. Also starring Ri¢hie Ri¢h's Edward Herrmann as Ed Devery, Max Perlich as JJ, Michael Ensign as Phillipe, Benjamin C. Bradlee as Sect. of the Navy Alex Duffee, Sally Quinn as Beatrice Duffee, William Frankfather as Sen. Kelley, Fred Dalton Thompson as Sen. Hedges and William Forward as Sen. Duker. Griffith is quite likable as the ditsy-turned-smarter bimbo, but she doesn't have lacks the comic timing of Oscar-winning Judy Holliday, in fact, she was nominated a Razzie? However, Goodman is a great and nasty as Broderick Crawford was, and the highlight for me was the 27 Constitutional Amendments song, to the tune of the 12 Days of Christmas, a pretty good comedy remake. Worth watching!

moonspinner55 Remake of the 1950 Judy Holliday/William Holden/Broderick Crawford hit farce, adapted from Garson Kanin's popular play, about millionaire businessman hiring a tutor for his dizzy girlfriend, which backfires when she becomes wise enough to know she's being played for a dupe. In the leads, Melanie Griffith, then-husband Don Johnson and John Goodman all have a propensity to lapse into shtick, but, for her part, Griffith is well-cast and very likable. The men have a harder time: Johnson is charmingly low-keyed in a dull role (the problems with it go back to the play) and Goodman works hard at being both vulgar and sympathetic. Not a complete success by any means, this update still hasn't figured out how to make the last act work (the plot mechanisms become congealed, the action becomes stagy and the finale is limp), but there are some nice laughs spread around and an occasionally witty flash of original thought. ** from ****

dpwkbw Watching this movie is not the waste of time most movies entail; I am not a Melanie Griffith fan, but it's worth watching for (1) script (2) camera work (4) de Tocqueville (5) (above all) the 1st ten amendments of a hallowed document.