New Yorkers Paul Bratter and Corie Bratter née Banks have just gotten married. He is a stuffed shirt just starting his career as a lawyer. She is an independently minded free spirit who prides herself on doing the illogical purely out of a sense of adventure, such acts as walking through Washington Square Park barefoot when it’s 17°F outside. Their six day honeymoon at the Plaza Hotel shows that they can get to know each other easily in the biblical sense. But they will see if they can get to know each other in their real life when they move into their first apartment, a cozy (in other words, small), slightly broken down top floor unit in a five story walk-up. While Corie joyfully bounds up and down the stairs, Paul, always winded after the fact, hates the fact of having to walk up the six flights of stairs, if one includes the stairs that comprise the outside front stoop. Beyond the issues with the apartment itself, Paul and Corie will have to deal with an odd assortment of neighbors, most specifically eccentric senior Victor Velasco, who lives in the unusual attic and who would like to consider himself a dirty old man. Corie, worried about her single straight-laced mother Ethel Banks, wants to set her up with Victor. Without Corie or Paul truly realizing it, Ethel and Victor as a twosome is as illogical as Corie and Paul. What happens between Ethel and Victor may be a predictor if Corie and Paul’s marriage can make it in the long run.

Also Known As: Barfota i parken, Боси в парка, Pieds nus dans le parc, Blootsvoets in het park, Mezítláb a parkban, Descult în parc, Op Blote Voeten in het Park, A piedi nudi nel parco, Ξυπόλητοι στο Πάρκο, Hadashi de sanpo, Bosonoga u parku, På bare tæer i parken, Barfuß im Park, Paljain jaloin puistossa, Descalzos en el parque, Xypolyti sto parko, Boso w parku, Barbent i parken, Descalços no Parque, Barfuß im Park West, Босиком по парку Soviet, Barefoot in the Park, Paljajalu pargis, Descalzos por el parque, Çıplak Ayaklar

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • martin-uibo
    martin uibo

    The film Barefoot in the park interests me, because it describes a love affair, and because it has been recorded during the flourishing period of the counter culture movement. It is a time of rapid changes in the social position of women and in the (pre-)sexual habits. Lovers start calling Dr. Ruth. Indeed the film gives a sparking display of the new lifestyle, although the couple has just effected a traditional marriage. Apparently the institution still has a nice ring to it. The male character is rather boring, even in his profession (lawyer). He uses his personality for birth control. On the other hand, the female character certainly has the attitude of a hippie. And what else can you expect from Jane Fonda? Corie (Fonda) loves to break through conventions, rules and authority. Her favorite T-shirt is offensive in 19 states. Thus it is evident from the start that this marriage is forged in hell. Already in the second week Corie complains: “There are doers and watchers”, and she is the doer of the two. She realizes her mistake, and wants a divorce. This would indeed have been the logical end, were it not that the narrative is supposed to be a comedy. Therefore her mother convinces her that in a good marriage both partners must give up some parts of their personality. They must support each other. Now Corie comes to the conclusion that she actually wants a sterling and caring husband, that is to say, a watcher. The marriage is saved. In its joyous end the film turns back to the spirit of the gay and conservative fifties, in the days before Doris Day was a virgin. The same can be said about the music, which is still classic. Electric guitar players are meant to deliver pizzas. The film is a recast of a theatrical play, and the melodrama is kept intact. The original theater script is also visible in the lack of dynamics in time and space, and the location of most scenes in just a few rooms. In conclusion, Barefoot is an amusing but not deep pastime (at least, I do not see it). It hovers somewhere between conservatism and revolution. If you ate pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry?

  • t-oros-barseghyan
    t oros barseghyan

    Redford and Fonda should get a kissy-face Oscar for the most lingering lip-smackers on movie record.The comedy’s premise reminds me of one of those WWII madcaps, where wartime conditions prompt an unlikely couple into quick marriage and barebones apartment. The idea’s rich in comedic material so no wonder it keeps coming back. On their honeymoon, stodgy lawyer husband (Redford) is overwhelmed by sexy free-spirited wife (Fonda). She can’t get enough kissy-face or sex, while he struggles between lawyerly duties and a burgeoning libido. Meanwhile, she oozes over their cramped apartment, six long flights up, while he’s too smothered over to object. Things bumble along until complications take their toll. I love it when goofy neighbor Boyer takes the married couple and Fonda’s straight-laced mother (Natwick) to a run-down Albanian eatery. It may be seedy on the outside but on the inside it’s a vibrant bohemian paradise. Of course, Fonda and Boyer are in their element, real swingers, while the two conventional types can barely endure. In fact, Redford’s quiet discomfort as he sits at the noisy round table amounts to a triumph of low-key expression. And catch it when the belly dancer smothers his unhappy face in her ample breasts. Edelman also scores as the drooping telephone guy. It’s like, time and again, he’s having to climb Mt. Everest with a heavy load. In fact, the movie milks that 6-long-flights-up, but still gets laughs from a sweaty cast. I can imagine what the auditions were like. Anyway, the movie’s first two-thirds is full of such inventive comedic moments that had me thinking “real classic”. But then, much too abruptly, Fonda’s sparkly role shifts and the prevailing mood goes with it. Same thing with Redford’s conventional personality. That is, he goes from stodgy to goofy and she goes from ditzy to crabby. In short, they suddenly swap roles in unconvincing fashion, even for what is now a serio-comedy. In my book, the change over is too clumsily handled to maintain comedic momentum, and a potential classic is lost. Nonetheless, on balance, the movie’s still lively entertainment, full of bright moments, and worth catching up with.(In passing- I suspect the moral to the story, if such can be said, is that without some common ground even the best offbeat relationship can’t last.)

  • kader-sensoy-guclu
    kader sensoy guclu

    I’m reading Jane Fonda’s autobiography right now, so of course I had to get this. It’s all at white hot intensity, which is not how I like my comedy. I prefer a little subtlety, but Jane is giving a perpetual nervous breakdown of the MANIC type. Her complete obliviousness to anyone else but her own narcissistic self drives you mad, but of such is the fabric of a Neil Simon comedy.Robert Redford is adorable and plays well against Jane’s hyperactivity. Her mother is also excellent, working well against Charles Boyer’s flamboyant loveur. The fact that he lives in the attic of a 6 floor apartment building, which can only be reached by climbing on the roof is somewhat spooky and certainly adds tension. I couldn’t help but think of ‘Klute’ while this part was going on. The feeling up that Boyer does to Jane wouldn’t be tolerated in movies of today, but it’s a little comforting to know that we were once so naive. He seems delighted that he makes her a little nervous, since he’s too old to cut the mustard.Simon of course is a comic genius but his misogynism really shows forth in this movie. There’s no trace of reality here, which is more the difference between then and now than the sets or the great vistas of New York City. Somewhat unlike Woody allen’s New York City, the backdrop is kept just that but it’s still gorgeous.I’ll finish seeing it, because I bought the damn thing and I do appreciate the good lines. But this kind of marry/divorce ‘comedy’ isn’t very funny in concept to me. After 3 divorces, you somehow don’t have a taste for such.

  • edgar-at-anesyan
    edgar at anesyan

    I was surprised to read all the positive reviews above because… I thought this movie really failed to deliver. This film might have made more sense in the 60’s when the idea of an independent, free-spirited woman was seen as more ‘madcap’ (not to mention ‘new’), but to a 21st century audience, Jane Fonda’s character will appear whiny, clingy, and co-dependent. (When a neighbour asks her what she does for a living, she replies ‘I’m a wife’). There are one or two good lines, and of all the performances I thought Charles Boyer’s was the best, but it seemed truly surprising that Jane Fonda was nominated for awards for this; at times, her delivery of Neil Simon’s lines felt stiff and awkward. Again, this movie may have made a lot more sense in context; ‘couple’ sit-coms were new. Now, we’ve seen so many of them, that the bickering between Fonda and Redford seems not funny but tiresome. There are many better films from this period.

  • aida-rhowstamyants
    aida rhowstamyants

    Barefoot in the Park is one funny movie from director Neil Simon and highlights the comedic talents of two people on the verge of stardom, Jane Fonda and Robert Redford as Corie and Paul Bratter. They are ably supported by Charles Boyer as Victor Velasko, the neighbor, and Mildred Natwick, as Corie’s mother Ethel. Herb Edelman is a repairman, whose forays to the apartment bring some hilarious lines delivered with his fine brand of Jewish humor. The story is dated but the acting more than makes up for it and the repartee between the two major characters is exceptional. Taking place in New York City, a newly-married couple take up residence in a leaky, drafty, walk-up apartment (five storeys up). There is a running gag every time visitors climb the stairway, since they collapse from exhaustion on arrival. Much in love, Corie and Paul must deal with the fact that they are two totally different personalities. She is a bubbly extrovert and talking machine and he is a rather staid, young lawyer, who must suffer the butt of her jokes. Charles Boyer, a free spirit like Corie, gives Ethel a new lease on life. Following a side-splitting double date with Victor and Ethel,Corie and Paul face a shakeup in their relationship that reaches a finale when Paul becomes drunk and goes barefoot in the park. In this scene, Robert Redford shows his talent, trading roles with Jane Fonda, as he staggers and hops around Washington Square.It is great to see Fonda and Redford in action just before they made the leap to stardom, not to mention the superb supporting cast. Great fun…recommend.

  • zohrab-dzit-oghts-yan
    zohrab dzit oghts yan

    It is no longer funny and would really have had limited appeal in its day. The lines are some of Neil Simon’s weakest, the acting may have worked on a stage, but do not transfer. That it relies on repeated jokes makes it pretty tedious, in fact. That it has leading actors and in the direction, and other support does not lend it anything either. If you liked that kind of Broadway show, farce that has little wit and limited visual humour I suppose it might, possibly, work. I usually do but not here. The sets are about as minimal in interest and thought as could have been from a stage version. Better quietly forgotten by all by the aficionados.

  • eric-larson
    eric larson

    Another film adaptation of Neil Simon’s play with the same name, directed by his frequent collaborator, the stage and film directer Gene Saks, who has recently passed away at the age of 93. It pairs Fonda and Redford as a couple of newlyweds Corie and Paul, whose marriage is hanging on a thread when they find out their personalities are poles apart. Like the outworn running gag of climbing a five-storey building (New Yorkers are really that easy to be defeated by this not-so-challenging altitude?), the film doesn’t weather too well through the time, its story is quite common-or-garden, the adventurous spirit Vs. the prudent comportment, which is also reflected by pairing up their idiosyncratic neighbor Victor (Boyer) and Corie’s widow mother Ethel (Natwick). Nothing is wrong about all that, but the viewing experience is chiefly blighted by Fonda’s hammy endeavour to be “funny”, her character is irritating to say the least, and her high-pitched voice doesn’t help either, surely her hyperactive restlessness is by design, but the effect is cringe-worthy, what is the virtue of this woman (apart from her gymnastic physique)? Maybe it is the gaping generation gap which sours the supposed comedic moment for Generation Y. Also knowing that Simon based the story on his first marriage, it could be a deliberate manoeuvre of aggrandisement with an intent of personal mockery. Redford, on the other hand, is in a safer place of being likable, by the way, he is reprising his role in the original play, he has that kind of awkward charm of “pretty boy entrapped in a nicely-fitting suit”, and when it comes to his “barefoot in the park” inebriated caper, he is competent enough to act in a comedy without overdoing what the script offers. But the amorous frisson between him and Fonda has never hit the boiling point, in spite of the fact they kiss a lot in the movie, mostly instigated by the free-spirited Corie, whose aggressive longing and volatility is the killjoy of any romance at all. Veteran theatrical dab hand Mildred Natwick is honoured with an Oscar nomination for rehashing her role in the film version, she both dignifiedly and comically personifies Ethel as possibly “the kindest mother-in-law” ever on the silver screen; also Charles Boyer exhibits a droll poise with his exotic panache, oddly enough, their flirtation seems to be more appealing than our two young protagonists. Anyhow, it is sad to find out there is a Jane Fonda’s performance I am wholeheartedly unable to stomach, this is something I could never have expected before watching this substandard Neil Simon flick.

  • erik-eide
    erik eide

    All the glowing reviews astonish me. The ridiculous behaviors and reactions of the female characters bewilder me. How anyone could call this film “delightful” or “sparkling” is beyond me. Out of one hour, forty-six minutes and fifty-one seconds, I managed to hang on for approximately an hour and a half. But then I decided, no, there’s no possible finale that could make up for the stupidity of what I have heretofore witnessed. So I quit and am writing this review. Save your money. Save your time. Save your hope for an enjoyable comedy for another day!

  • hilda-janavaryan
    hilda janavaryan

    I’m 54 years old. I first saw this movie as a boy and found it amusing. I recently just saw it again. Ugh.Jane Fonda’s character is over the top, insatiable, whiny, out-of- control, illogical, and emotional.Meanwhile, Redford’s character is just trying to go work and get a good nights sleep which is impossible.And after a mere six days of marriage, she wants a divorce. Please.It was an absolute pain to watch this movie. Had I bought popcorn, I would have asked for my money back.This ridiculous story while light-hearted in it’s original release has proved on film over time to be an embarrassment to intelligent women everywhere and forever.You couldn’t pay me to watch this ever again. Well actually you could.But it would have to be a lot.

  • kimberly

    I must have seen it five times. What a delightful movie, so gentle, so understanding of human nature, so devoid of vulgarity or hard edges. Neil Simon is a jewel. He has single-handedly rescued American cinema from total mediocrity since the mid-sixties. Yes, he has had some weak scripts, but when he’s bad, he is never terribly bad. I am glad that as good a writer is so successful. The cream does rise to the top, – once in a million years. Seeing this movie should be mandatory for any couple considering divorce. It shows how silly fights are. Too bad it didn’t save Simon’s own marriage. Boyer is priceless as an eccentric bohemian. Everyone is inspired by the script and delivers his or his best performance. Simon makes happiness seem possible, because he knows where it’s hiding.

  • roza-klinkosz
    roza klinkosz

    Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are both outstanding actors and compensate each other very nicely in this romantic comedy. This movie has all the quality ingredients needed to make it a classic comedy. Redford, as usual, displays great talent enhanced by the school-girl charisma of Jane Fonda. I love it.

  • grieta-avotins
    grieta avotins

    You won’t roll on the floor laughing but you won’t be sorry you spent 90 minutes with the characters on-screen. Very light and easy to take, brought to a nice level of fun by some very talented actors. Mildred Natwick earned her Oscar nomination; I wonder why Charles Boyer didn’t get one, too. Fonda & Redford are both so young its hard to remember they were ever that age. I lived in a walk-up apartment in Manhattan (fifth floor!)and had to quit smoking so I wouldn’t have to have an oxygen tank installed on each floor in order to just make it home every night. I enjoyed reading the ‘trivia’ section about this movie and find it very interesting that the French version had to change the running joke to the 9th floor; since they are also infamous for smoking, one wonders why elevators were not more popular.

  • wendy-howard
    wendy howard

    As my girlfriend noted before I watched for the first time, this is like the original ‘Dharma & Greg.’ She’s the free spirit, he’s the button-down lawyer struggling to adjust to the new world into which he’s just married. After six days of a honeymoon at the Plaza, where eyebrows are raised amongst the staff because the young lovers never leave the room, conflicts come to a boil at home when she realizes that her new husband isn’t such an adventurous fella. Amongst the number of reasons she compiles to determine that they just can’t make it after all: he declines an invitation to take off his shoes, in February, to walk barefoot in the park. Of course, with your knowledge of romantic comedies about marital discord, you know generally how it all ends. How the conflict is resolved, beginning with some advice from Mother, may seem realistic and true to some. Others raised on self-empowered heroines may think it’s a trite sell-out. There’s no question that young Redford fits the bill as Handsome & Charming, but it’s a little hard to believe in him as a character who’s supposed to be a stick in the mud. Fonda at this point had carved out a niche for herself in Wild, Untamed Belle roles, and she’s fine again in that role here. But I must admit it was hard to watch without thinking about Holly Golightly, and imagining a sophisticated presence like Audrey Hepburn in the part, instead. The script also calls for the Mother to comment that she’s never seen another couple who looked so much in love, but I really didn’t see it. The couple seems at complete odds from their first evening at home. I can’t think of a scene that illustrates why the two fell in love in the first place, except that they’re both so young & sexy.It’s worth watching for the snappy dialogue, the work by Charles Boyer & Mildred Natwick as Mr. Velasco & the Mother, the chance to admire Redford & Fonda in their youth, and as a nice Neil Simon period piece. But it would be no crime for someone to attempt a better, updated remake. It could be done, and you probably can already picture it.

  • chelsea-jones
    chelsea jones

    A frantic 1960’s romantic comedy that is still a vibrant look at a New York City that has all but vanished; however, the movie HAS shown signs of wear and tear of late. I like Redford but I don’t get Fonda. She’s all over the place; her nervousness bothers me. She handles the dramatic parts in the script fine, but displays a shrill, manic nature in performing the comedic elements. She’s, ultimately, too over-the-top for my tastes. I wish the director would’ve simply yelled “CUT!” once or twice. Charles Boyer, on the other hand, is a godsend from above. Literally. He lives in the building’s attic, one flight above the newlyweds. Boyer is fit–looking much younger than his stated age at the time–and his acting chops are sharpened to a razor-thin cut. The small, quirky (the radiator is skyward) N.Y.C. apartment set serves an important purpose: It’s the unofficial arena for our trio of thespians to do battle. Joined (later) by Fonda’s understanding mother and an agitated telephone repairman, Neil Simon’s sly narrative is finally completed. Numerous public conveyances are used to provide color in this movie. The old cars, Checker Cabs, N.Y.C. buses and even the Staten Island Ferry, make classic appearances before the film’s final fade out. The ferry takes the two couples–minus the phone guy–to sleepy Staten Island, so they can experience an authentic Albanian restaurant, complete with belly dancing and homemade brew. It’s the highlight of the film.

  • joep-buijs
    joep buijs

    Noted playwright Neil Simon has successfully adapted many of his plays onto film and this 1967 Paramount release ranks as one of his best film adaptations of all. Robert Redford reprises his stage role as a newly married man who along with his new bride (Jane Fonda) gets involved in many hilarious situations as Fonda attempts to help him be more “free-spirited.” A 1960’s comedy classic.

  • gregory-duffy
    gregory duffy

    Master of Broadway comedy Neil Simon adapted his hit play about a conservative young lawyer and his off-the-wall bride for this warm 1960’s film classic. Robert Redford is Paul Bratter, the “Mister Straight” lawyer. Jane Fonda is his new wife Corie, who dedicates her life to the pursuit of fun. As the ecstasy of the honeymoon at the Plaza gives way to setting up housekeeping and a home in a modest five-flight walk-up, the harmony of marriage turns into comical discord. The mother-in-law (Mildred Natwick) complains meekly. The middle-aged Lothario upstairs (Charles Boyer) flirts shamelessly. Joy turns to anguish…and the results are pure Neil Simon comedy at its best. This is a great example of 1960’s comic genius. Neil Simon would follow this one with 1968’s The Odd Couple starring Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon.My rating: 2 and a half stars

  • eline-van-allemanie
    eline van allemanie

    I got so excited that Robert Redford did a romantic comedy film with Jane Fonda. Barefoot in the Park was indeed very funny and very entertaining. The story was simple. All the matters with the characters slowly rise. We can see that Corie Bratter (Jane Fonda), from being lovely and cheerful goes arguing and hating his conservative, spoilsport husband Paul Bratter. It was really funny. Robert Redford amuses me the most. He had that accentuated aura that reminded me of “The Sting” and his role in “Butch Cassidy and Sudance Kid”. Jane Fonda was particularly witty too in her character. The latest humorous movie I watched about her was “Monster in Law”. It took me a little time recognize her character in Barefoot in the Park, because honestly I haven’t watch too much yet of her old movies. I must admit however that the first part of the film wasn’t too much captivating. It got me bored a little. But when I saw finally Corie arguing with Paul because of their differences and incompatible attitudes, it got me the extreme laughs ever. Truly this is one cute, comically entertaining film of the old times I’ve ever seen. Highly recommend it.

  • dr-sarkozi-antalne-toth-maria
    dr sarkozi antalne toth maria

    I happen to prefer ‘The Odd Couple’ and ‘The Out-of-Towners’ but ‘Barefoot in the Park’ is good too. Surprisingly, I didn’t find it as dated as ‘The Goodbye Girl’ which I saw recently.As in all Neil Simon scripts, you’ll get the weird situations, the quirky characters and the good lines. (My favourite: “Who lives in 4D?” “A big cat with a can opener.”)True, the movie appears staged, and the 1960s sets are, well, 1960s sets. But who cares. Robert Redford and Jane Fonda were young and attractive. And Charles Boyer steals the show, if that’s possible with a Neil Simon script.

  • melinda-romero
    melinda romero

    Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are at their best in this fast-paced, movie version of Neil Simon’s BAREFOOT IN THE PARK. They show you what happens when the honeymoon’s over and “real life” begins. The interaction between Redford and Fonda is superb and flows smoothly, the acting is brilliant and shines brightly throughout the movie. It’s like witnessing perfection. Even the supporting cast is marvelous with their humorous dialog and perfect timing. What I like best is the characters will have you laughing without even half trying. Everything is put together so splendidly. This is one of those movies where everything comes together: the actors, the writing, the scenery, the situation, and of course the performances.In my opinion BAREFOOT IN THE PARK is a rare gem that should be seen by all.

  • dragan-baric
    dragan baric

    Despite the electricity of “The Odd Couple” the emotional force of “Lost in Yonkers” and the Depression-era angst of “Brighton Beach Memoirs,” this remains the best movie made of a Neil Simon play. Like “The Odd Couple” it owes most of its enduring success to the chemistry between Jane Fonda and Robert Redford (reprising his role in the Broadway show) as the hapless newlyweds trying desperately to make it work. This is the movie that is responsible for most of the “mismatched” romantic comedies we’ve ever seen, including “Along Came Polly” and TV’s “Dharma and Greg.” It proves that flowery romantic prose isn’t what makes a great love story, bold heroes and damsels in distress don’t make a good love story. No, what makes a good love story are two people who, from start to finish, makes the audience go “Oh, God in heaven, please let them work it out!”The brilliant dialogue of Mr. Simon, the charm of Mr. Boyer and the majestic backdrop of New York City make this a must-see for anyone who loves 1, comedy, 2, love stories or 3, Robert Redford because after this, he never really made another movie that was at all comparable. Oh, I just remembered “Laughter on the 23rd Floor.” I guess it’s a tie for best Neil Simon movie.

  • liza-kalejs
    liza kalejs

    I would recommend this movie to anyone for its simplicity. Though simple and quiet, this movie is stunning. The situation of a young married couple played out almost entirely in their one bedroom apartment adds to this movies basic plot. The nonchalant attitude of a newly married man and his very emotionally free wife is quite exciting. I would normally ask for a lot more from a movie, but in “Barefoot in the Park” it is not needed. The superb acting of both Robert Redford and Jane Fonda leave you stoked for the thrilling dialogs that take place between the couple. There is an abundance of humor. The movie simply leaves you feeling casual in a very glamorous world.

  • carminho-claudio-pinho
    carminho claudio pinho

    This film version of one of Neil Simon’s early Broadway hits coasts on the likability of its cast and a lot of classic Simon banter. The gossamer-thin plot, about newlyweds who find out they don’t know each other as well as they thought, is only a framework to hang a bunch of running gags about drafty New York flats, endless stairs, oddball neighbors and the like.Laughs are plentiful, although as in the rest of Simon’s work, one is acutely aware that nobody is so quick with the one-liners in real life.Boy, were they young back then! Robert Redford underplays charmingly as Paul Bratter, up-and-coming lawyer and all-round stick-in-the-mud; Jane Fonda is his new bride Corie, sexy, fun-loving and relentlessly cute to the borderline of annoyance. When you find her schtick getting a little hard to take, concentrate instead on veteran character actors Charles Boyer and Mildred Natwick, who lend spirit and class to their comedic roles.Perhaps the direction by Gene Saks is a tad stagebound (he directed the Broadway version), and the cinematography a bit muddy, but Neal Hefti contributes another sprightly score that does a lot to compensate. Overall, an undemanding, undeniable pleasure.

  • roger-holmberg
    roger holmberg

    This is a superb comedy with a perfect dream of a script and the comedy is genuinely funny. It’s one of those rare movies where you can get a real belly laugh. The plot has been very well described by others. Fonda is great and its a pity she did not do more farce because she is perfect and she gives it all shes got. Redford never looked sexier and its impossible not to fall head over heals in love with him. Charles Boyer is superb and the scene when he takes the young lovers and the mother to that incredible restaurant is hilarious. The real scene stealer is Mildred Natwick who is unforgettable. She will have you in stitches. Her under play is brilliant and its a performance I have never forgotten. Why she never got an Oscar for this is beyond me because its the most perfect performance. Natwick was one of America’s finest actors and she is deeply missed. Whatever she did she did with distinction. Proof there are no small parts.What a classy lady! You will love this movie but you will never forget Natwick.

  • nagys-laura
    nagys laura

    This is just one of those movies that can make you feel better if you’ve had a bad day. Honestly, it’s charming, funny, light and I don’t know, just the right amount of comedy and romance. Redford and Fonda are perfect together. This is a truly great comedic performance by Jane Fonda, she’s amazing in this movie. Then again I am a stickler for her lighter, funnier work from the 60s. But this one stands out as being genuinely funny and well made. I love all the funny little details, like the tuna fish cans, Robert Redford’s comment about “a big cat with a can opener”, Jane Fonda’s mother, Jane Fonda doing a “Cambodian fertility dance”, etc. It is all just too classic for words. Buy this movie if you love 60s cinema and/or its two stars, it’s too good.

  • gilberto-bustamante
    gilberto bustamante

    I’m no great fan of Neil Simon, but this neat adaption of his popular stage success BAREFOOT IN THE PARK brings a smile to my face–and it probably will yours too. The story is quite simple: newlyweds Robert Redford and Jane Fonda have moved into a New York apartment building peopled by eccentrics… and their own tiny apartment has hole in the skylight, no heat, and you have walk up five flights to get there. Redford, a rather stodgy conservative, takes a dim view of the whole thing; Fonda, who has an excessively happy-go-lucky disposition, thinks everything is great fun. Needless to say, they’re soon going at it hammer and tongs.This is a very contrived, sitcom-ish plot, but the cast carries it well. Although Redford has remained a great star for forty years, his films have been very hit or miss; here he is well cast, and he plays expertly. During this period of her career, Fonda was very much the perky girl-next-door with a slight sex-kitten spin, and she too is fun to watch. But the real winners here are Charles Boyer, as their eccentric neighbor, and particularly Mildred Natwick, as Fonda’s mother. Natwick excelled at playing disconcerted matrons, and this is perhaps the best of the many fine, memorable variations of the type she offered during her long and very enjoyable career. BAREFOOT IN THE PARK won’t go down in history as a great film, nor will change your point of view. But it is tremendously good fun, a film I’ve enjoyed every time time I’ve seen it–and that is a good many. Recommended; you’ll enjoy it.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer