Loading...

Plot:

An autobiographical look at the breakup of Ephron’s marriage to Carl “All the President’s Men” Bernstein that was also a best-selling novel. The Ephron character, Rachel is a food writer at a New York magazine who meets Washington columnist Mark at a wedding and ends up falling in love with him despite her reservations about marriage. They buy a house, have a daughter, and Rachel thinks they are living happily ever after until she discovers that Mark is having an affair while she is waddling around with a second pregnancy.

Also Known As: Féltékenység, Tzvita B'Lev, Φλογισμένες σχέσεις, I lust och nöd, Sodbrennen West, Se acabó el pastel, Vägen från mannens hjärta, Heartburn: i gode og onde dager, Heartburn, Ревность Soviet, Heart Burn, Plamteca srca, Zgaga, Heartburn - Affari di cuore, A Difícil Arte de Amar, Sodbrennen, Sydän karrella, Горещо сърце, Gorušica, Til ægteskabet os skiller, La brûlure, El difícil arte de amar, Decepción

Leave a Reply

26 Comments

  • moni-schubert
    Moni Schubert

    I love this movie. It is a such big true About life and marriage.

  • frau-jessica-striebitz
    frau jessica striebitz

    We got to watch this movie in my cinema class this semester and I really enjoyed it. As a movie, it was very realistic and funny at the same time. Nicholson is hilarious and a lot of scenes are even funnier because people can relate (i.e. while reconstructing their new house, they run into a few problems with the contractor). In real life, women get involved all the time with men who cheat and still go back to them. It never made sense to me, but it still happens and I’m glad Meryl Streep leaves Jack Nicholson. Not only is it great in literary design (which it should be as Nora Ephron had two screenwriters for parents), but the visual design is incredible. For example, during their wedding, pay special attention to the proximic pattern (where the player is in relation to other things and where the camera is in relation to other things). Specifically, even in the beginning of the scene, Mike Nichols uses interesting images. It starts focused on an old woman who’s fallen asleep, but even though she’s the center and focus of the frame, what really catches the eye is the couple behind her because they’re moving around a lot. Then, alas, they are the couple in the next shot approaching Streep in the bedroom to tell her they are Nicholson’s oldest friends. They start out far away as they don’t know her very well, but walk toward her as they try to get closer to her (which, I thought was good use of physical representation). Then, Nichols continues to use physical closeness for the rest of the scene to show her relation to each one. Streep’s held in the arms of her father because they’re close, her therapist is sits close to her on the bed but not as close as her father, and Nicholson holds her tightly as he would seem to be the closest. But that’s enough analysis for one day. But I do recommend seeing this film–I had never heard of it before but it’s actually very good. And one more thing, Yakov Smirnoff is always fun/funny to see.

  • baejunho
    baejunho

    “Heartburn” has Mick Nichols at the helm with Streep and Nicholson starring and an excellent supporting cast including a bit debut by Kevin Spacy. In spite of all that, the film has only managed lukewarm commentary from critics and public alike. Taking a somewhat cynical look at marriage as it follows one couple (Streep & Nicholson) from nuptials through the birth of two children including infidelity, this well crafted flick muddles comedy with drama to a nebulous end. An enjoyable watch for mature people who’ve been there, “Heartburn” will likely disappoint others because of its uneventfulness and lack of purpose.

  • esko-karjalainen
    esko karjalainen

    It comes as a total shock to me that people truly can hate this movie. Sure,even I’ll admit it had its slow points,but just because there weren’t any “special effects” “porno sex scenes” or “drugs” doesn’t make it a movie without any substance. Meryl Streep,as always gave a great performance.She makes you feel for her character.The part that really made me feel awful was the Itsy Bitsy Spider scene at the end. Think about it,would you have the courage to just get up and leave with two small children? Not to mention be able to sing about it. This is a movie that everyone should see before and after they get married,its nice to know that not everything in Hollywood is Hollywood. Thanks for a great movie

  • alice-pittman
    alice pittman

    Heartburn is probably classified as a “chick flick”, but I don’t care. It is a very good story about real people living in the real world. I’m sure there are many men out there that would probably fall asleep during this, due to lack of machine gun fire or kung foo fighting. But for women it is a great slice of life piece. I could watch it over and over again. It has some great comedic moments, from Mark (Jack Nicholson) and his friend Arthur (Richard Masur) several times as they have profound discussions about every day things in a Woody Allen type banter. One part that always touches me is when Rachel finds out about Mark’s affair and confronts him. A few minutes later she is packing up to leave and we hear Carly Simon’s song “Coming Around Again” on the soundtrack. If you listen to the lyrics of the song it perfectly fits the action that is going on at that moment. It helps the viewer understand Rachel’s despair. Her idea of the perfect marriage has been shattered.Anyway, if you want to watch a movie with heart, then this is it. I think many of the people who say this movie is boring or garbage are too used to today’s action standards and dismiss it too quickly. By the way, this is also a semi biographical account of now director Nora Ephron’s marriage to a Washington journalist. The book is also a good read as well. If you think Mark treated her badly in the movie, it is nothing compared to the book.In summary, Heartburn is a movie for people who are emotional and intelligent.

  • daniel-bartos
    daniel bartos

    Heartburn is a movie that admittedly requires little thinking or concentration, but I still found it very watchable. However, the beginning is a bit odd.*SPOILERS* Within the first 20 minutes Mark and Rachel have met, gone on a first date, had sex, agreed they never wanted to get married again, and then got married! I found it all very rushed and under developed, and I was tempted to turn off at this point. I was glad I didn’t. Once all of this is over, Heartburn actually turns into a good movie. It’s a very realistic, and often humorous account of an everyday marriage. Baby Annie is very cute! I was wondering how they managed to get a 2 year old to co-operate in such a way, but I understand that she’s actually Meryl Streep’s real life daughter? It definitely shows. Scenes between the two of them were really sweet and often very funny, and again realistic.But then, sadly, the ending lets this movie down. I found it very abrupt and un-explained, much like the beginning. It’s a shame really, the centre of the movie is very enjoyable. I cannot understand why the producers didn’t see the under-development of the plot at the beginning. And then nothing really happens at the end. Sure she leaves Mark again, but she already did that once and went back. So what exactly was she going off to do? Hmm, didn’t really ‘get’ the ending at all. Cute scene on the plane though.*END SPOILERS* While all of this sounds relatively boring, I can assure you it isn’t. Heartburn is a very pleasant movie, just don’t expect any major surprises.

  • lola-van-luinenburg
    lola van luinenburg

    You got (the now late) Mike Nichols, you got Streep, you got Nicholson, you got Nora Ephron adapting her own semi-menoir about her relationship with Carl Bernstein. Given the pedigree behind everything involved with the film – and, for me, I’m a sucker for a good infidelity drama – it’s only a shame this isn’t, you know, one of the top films of the 80’s. It doesn’t quite get there, but it’s not for lack of trying on anyone’s part. Heartburn is an entertaining picture, even as it doesn’t quite move to a beat of a fast drummer, nor does it have very easy solutions to its dramatic conflicts. But that’s a good thing here; Nichols and Ephron know this story has people who can’t resolve or move on too easily, despite all signs pointing in a direction the audience can read.It’s basically this: girl and boy meet, boy marries girl – though girl doesn’t really want to marry exactly, and one of the funnier set pieces shows Rachel stewing about in the bedroom adjacent to the wedding as friends and family come to try and support (sort of) this whole union – girl and boy find a real ‘fixer-upper’ house, girl is going to have boy’s baby, things are happy… and then suspicion creeps in for the girl. A lot of this is not very much ‘plot’ driven, though Nichols knows how to tell his story.If there’s anything ‘off’ it might be that the pacing is a little lackadaisical. Not quite the same as ‘slow’ exactly; you just have to be keyed in to the rhythm that’s going on here. The filmmakers here are emphasizing character more. You get scenes, sometimes very funny, like when Mark just breaks out into a goofy song following the news that he’s having a baby… and then breaks out into song again the next morning to wake up Rachel. A lot of the movie is more funny in a sly, observational way. It’s not as ‘LOL’ type of funny as work Ephron was to do after this, and some might say like those other movies it’s a little “chick” centric. I can’t say if it can be so easily pegged, albeit there are piffy bits like Rachel watching the TV and getting messages about the infidelities going on.Nichols knows this material needs the help of its actors, and of course he has two of the best… ever, really. The charisma and combination just works, there’s no doubt about that. And there’s both real comedy and real drama to work on (probably more drama than comedy). And sometimes things happen in the movie that seem to be more incidental than anything to push it forward – i.e. Kevin Spacey’s debut as a thief – but even this ends up kind of playing a part in the story, at a key moment, near the end. The actors make all these beats very, painfully, awkwardly, sadly and bittersweet-like real. When Rachel suddenly realizes that moment where things are “wrong” in a hair salon, the way it comes to her, how Nichols moves the camera (and, one of his gifts, knowing when NOT to cut), and how she looks and she goes from 0 to 60… it’s wonderful stuff.Why not great? Maybe a little too loose in parts, and the Carly Simon score is grating after a while and dates the movie (the songs too). But all in all, Heartburn is a very good movie about this relationship and its peaks and valleys, but also about the nature of indecision, and how something as seemingly clear-cut as ‘stay with your husband – or go’ is a real, concrete, existential dilemma. Underrated, really.

  • marina-papageorgiou
    marina papageorgiou

    The movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before — and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy — for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me.

  • octav-diaconescu
    octav diaconescu

    You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I’ll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I’d have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I’d rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it’s time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.Best not to look this one up.

  • kate-sersic
    kate sersic

    This should be a great film… Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It’s dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!It’s a cookie cutter ‘boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy’ story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn’t sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I’m sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It’s not that it’s such a bad picture. It’s just that it’s such an un-good one.

  • rein-remmel
    rein remmel

    I love many things about this movie – first of all the cast is complete perfection (so many Oscar winners!); the comedy is funny without being stupid; and the end is not sugarcoated in the least. I love anything Streep does, and Nicholson really doesn’t register that much. I think he replaced another actor, but he certainly didn’t take this part and run with it. He doesn’t even get to grin. I also have to mention Catherine O’Hara, who is hysterical, and Anna Maria Horsford.

  • vitezslav-marek
    vitezslav marek

    Like a good relationship that goes sour, “Heartburn” is impossible to love but hard to write off entirely. Despite its fine cast and script by Nora Ephron, the film is disjointed and, ultimately, dishonest.Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson play two Washington journalists who meet at a wedding, and — seemingly in the next scene — are saying their own vows. The developments that follow in their relationship are just as abrupt and just as believable. The rapid-fire pace of their many separations and reconciliations stretches credibility to the limit, and it’s hard to generate any interest in these characters when it was never clear what drew them together in the first place.Streep does a fine job as magazine writer Rachel, but Nicholson’s cad is all too familiar in his role of Mark, the womanizing columnist. Supporting players Stockard Channing, Maureen Stapleton, Jeff Daniels and Kevin Spacey, while uniformly excellent, seem underutilized and distract from the main plot.”Heartburn” is worth watching, if only for its strong cast, but it’s as memorable as leftover lasagna.

  • pani-sara-bartoszczyk
    pani sara bartoszczyk

    Nora Ephron adapts her best-selling novel (a transparent dramatization of her failed marriage to reporter Carl Bernstein) to the big screen, but in the process falls into the same trap that snares too many filmed versions of popular fiction. In a nutshell, the movie is all dialogue and precious little depth, presenting a bare bones account of marital love and infidelity that skims lightly over the salient points of the relationship without ever scratching any dramatic surface. A large part of its appeal (if not its only attraction) lies in watching the not inconsiderable combined talents of Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson, but the popularity of the two stars only undermines their ability (with a script this thin, at any rate) to effectively ply their trade. Viewers will see the actors, not the character each is supposedly portraying, and if proof were needed try to recall in detail afterward anything about their respective roles.

  • sviatoslava-orlik
    sviatoslava orlik

    When I watch a movie I always find myself looking at the number of Oscar winners, for acting & directing, are in the movie. The Oscar winners could be for performances either prior to or subsequent to their performance in the movie I’m watching. This one features Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Mercedes Ruehl, Maureen Stapleton, Kevin Spacey, Milos Forman [acting not directing] and Mike Nichols. Just goes to show that outstanding actors and directors need a good story and/or script to make a good movie. Although Nora Ephron has been nominated for 3 Oscars for screenplays she has written, this one just didn’t do it for me and, from the tone of most of the comments, for many other people. Of course, I’d enjoy watching Streep & Nicholson reading the phonebook.

  • pedro-baptista
    pedro baptista

    This is my favorite movie and I believe it’s incredibly underrated!! The story of the movie is not really as unlikely as it might seem at first… Remember this movie is based on Nora Ephron’s semi-autobiography, so it can actually happen!Meryl once said that her daughter, Mamie, got a better review for her role as Annie, than Meryl did for her role as Rachel, which I really don’t agree with. She did an excellent job as usual, and of course Mamie was outstanding too (I guess it runs in the family).Btw Meryl and Jack is a perfect match on the screen, they have such great chemistry! I could watch this movie 24/7!I love Carly Simon’s song “Coming Around Again”. It’s so perfect in the movie! That’s all…

  • anastasio-bruno
    anastasio bruno

    When viewing this movie, I en visualized a film making challenge. It was almost like presenting a class of senior year cinematic arts students with a graduate project. Take Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep and add a few seasoned comedic supporting members such as Catharine O’Hara, and produce the most boring movie imaginable.The set was dreary, repetitive, and depressing. Nicholson and Streep took to their characters well, but even their efforts couldn’t save this one. The lackluster plot was commonplace and predictable. It played out like a slow moving expanded drama that replicates itself millions of times in American homes. In fact many of you could have watched the same drama unfold in the homes of your neighbors, co-workers or family. So why go to the theater or rent this DVD?

  • kristina-karlsson
    kristina karlsson

    Am I blind, or did I just see that this film has an overall rating of 6.0/10 on IMDb and a 47% approval rating on RottenTomatoes? Acting:Alright, so let me start this review by stating that I’m a die-hard fan of Jack Nicholson. So, I might be slightly transparent about the flaws of the movie, but there aren’t many. This film is very hard to get a hold of actually. I stumbled upon a used DVD store and being a collector of Jack Nicholson’s films and a huge fan, I immediately purchased it. I hadn’t ever heard of this film until then and made a quick research on IMDb and Wikipedia about the movie. This movie’s story is written by Nora Ephron and is loosely based on her life and relationship with real-life journalist Carl Bernstein. On paper, the story of the movie goes like this: Divorced woman meets a sort-of heartless playboy, falls for him, marries him, has children with him, and leaves him after figuring out that he’s been cheating on her. Sounds so simple, but in reality, it isn’t. That’s the reason why we have veteran actors like Nicholson and Meryl Streep on board. Meryl Streep is brilliant. Totally. Even in totally clichéd scenes, she performs to her fullest. Many people might be surprised, but this is actually the first film of Meryl Streep I’ve seen. I had always wanted to see her work ever since learning that she has the most number of Academy Award nominations for Best Actress or Supporting Actress, but never really got around to doing so. I wonder what her really brilliant performances would be like, if this was off the hook itself. Jack Nicholson plays the uber cool guy he always is and as we always have more often than not, there is a scene of him going totally crazy. But I don’t want to give away too many things. You should check out the movie for yourself. This movie also marks the feature-film debut of Kevin Spacey, whom I was quite surprised to see actually, but it turned out that it was only a small cameo. Story, Screenplay and Direction: Enough about actors. Lets get down to the story, screenplay and ultimately, the execution of the overall film. This film is ultra-realistic. Except a couple of teeny-tiny moments in the film, you’ll be surprised at how super realistic that this film is. Being born in the 90s, I was able to get a slight sense of how life revolved in the 80s and was super-thrilled and totally upset in not being able to experience the US of that era. That is also where the film goes awry, in a sense. It is so realistic, that it loses itself onto you at a point where you wouldn’t know what is going on. There are hints of Mark (Jack Nicholson) being a brilliant and a sincere reporter, but we really don’t get to see much of that. However, we do get to see a couple of scenes of Rachel (Meryl Streep) working in her NY paper where she’s a food journalist, but it doesn’t go beyond that. Basically, the emphasis is so much on the character’s emotions, especially Streep’s, that the film kind of weighs down a bit when you reach the 58 minute mark. Other than this slight niggle, this film is amazing. Streep showcases her character’s emotions so perfectly that you actually start to feel for her and get a tight sense of what her character is going through. Jack Nicholson shines in whatever scene he’s in, as always, but is ultimately weighed down by a superb display by Meryl Streep. I was surprised that she hadn’t gotten an Oscar Nomination for this, but hey, Nicholson didn’t either, for ‘The Shining (1980)’, which was one of his best works in the 80s. Technical Work: The cinematography is top-notch too, considering the fact that this was the 80s. I had initially thought that this was a Stanley Kubrick film, which always has the best camera work. But it was good to know that Mike Nichols also had an affinity towards great camera work and composition to each and every scene. Lastly, I had learned that this film had become even more popular because of the superb musical score by Carly Simon. ‘Coming Around Again’ is too good. Whoever you are, whatever era you were born into, you would surely have heard this song, even if you might not be able to recognize it just by reading the name. Overall, this is a brilliant film, with a very few cons. You should definitely watch it, if only for Meryl Streep’s performance. This is a very, very highly underrated film.

  • kristopher-stone
    kristopher stone

    Let’s face it, these aren’t the two most likable people on the planet, but that’s only because writer Nora Ephron may have been a little too hard on herself. (Actually, she’s hard on most everyone in this.) We care about this relationship, and the performances ofthe excellent cast make it intriguing at first, but viewers are just as likely to grow impatient with these characters as they do with each other. It’s worth seeing, but a hard film to love.Now, some words about the Carly Simon song, “Coming Around Again.” I heard the song before I saw the movie and it no doubt affected my viewing of it. So many movies seem to just tack on any old song at the end credits, but this song really captures the essence of love and marriage and brings out all the emotions of a great film scene in merely a few minutes. I cannot believe the overblown “Take My Breath Away” from “Top Gun” (also overblown) won the 1986 Oscar for Best Original Song, and “Coming Around Again” was not even nominated! Perhaps this is why Carly Simon won her Oscar for “Let the River Run” two years later, to make up for this gross omission. (She would also duet with Streep during the end credits of “Marvin’s Room”–an even better film.) The song alone is reason enough to see “Heartburn”.

  • igor-miklecic
    igor miklecic

    i’ve got an option facing me of moving my mouse along an array of ten stars that will as intended accurately describe my emotional and critical response to this film. so i’ll save myself the trouble of nitpicking and bitshing about this and that and give it a straight ten.a vintage ’80’s movie , with scenes of eastern airlines and such , and a very nice closing scene of an eal dc-9 taking off whafting behind it a trail of burnt oil , to the soundtrack of carly simon’s itchy bitchy spider (someone said joni mitchell, probably still under the influence of ’60’s acid). some movies you remember by little things like these – they have no direct influence on plot or screenplay, and yet they’re worth gold , a photoflick you’ll treasure. 1986 was a good year , and this film has an almost documentary value for those who appreciate the vintage.

  • hanna-karen-hauge
    hanna karen hauge

    Heartburn is probably classified as a “chick flick”, but I don’t care. It is a very good story about real people living in the real world. I’m sure there are many men out there that would probably fall asleep during this, due to lack of machine gun fire or kung foo fighting. But for women it is a great slice of life piece. I could watch it over and over again. It has some great comedic moments, from Mark (Jack Nicholson) and his friend Arthur (Richard Masur) several times as they have profound discussions about every day things in a Woody Allen type banter. One part that always touches me is when Rachel finds out about Mark’s affair and confronts him. A few minutes later she is packing up to leave and we hear Carly Simon’s song “Coming Around Again” on the soundtrack. If you listen to the lyrics of the song it perfectly fits the action that is going on at that moment. It helps the viewer understand Rachel’s despair. Her idea of the perfect marriage has been shattered.Anyway, if you want to watch a movie with heart, then this is it. I think many of the people who say this movie is boring or garbage are too used to today’s action standards and dismiss it too quickly. By the way, this is also a semi biographical account of now director Nora Ephron’s marriage to a Washington journalist. The book is also a good read as well. If you think Mark treated her badly in the movie, it is nothing compared to the book.In summary, Heartburn is a movie for people who are emotional and intelligent.

  • glen-joe
    glen joe

    Among All Meryl Streep Films, this one is my all time favorite.now many people might say that she made a lot of better films, but for me this one is my favorite ( maybe because it is a light comedy, or maybe because there are a lot of lovely actors in this movie such as : Jack Nicholson,Stockard Channing, and of course Miss Streep). The films tell a story of a naive women who married a guy who thought that he is the man of her life, and that all blow up when he love another women although they had two beautiful kids, but he still can’t leave his tall mistress! The film has a lot of funny a enjoyable scenes such as the imaginary TV show that is talking about the heroin own feeling and what she is going to do, the phone scene between Merly and Stockard and of course the pie scene (which is a mix of comedy and grief ) It is really Sad that both the of the leading actors hadn’t got an Oscar nomination for there brilliant performance or even a Golden Globe nomination!Final rate: 8 out of 10

  • dr-szilagyine-bognar-magdolna
    dr szilagyine bognar magdolna

    Although somewhat artificial, the humor and “heartburn” of this Nora Ephron film seem more affecting and less manufactured than those in her more slick subsequent films, When Harry Met Sally… and Sleepless in Seattle. Perhaps the autobiographical slant helped.Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson play a couple based on Ephron and Carl Bernstein. They meet, marry, settle in Washington, and have children. Streep’s wedding-day jitters, it turns out, were amply justified; she discovers an affair between her husband and a social-climbing hostess.Streep is so luminous and so natural that one may not realize until the end of the film how completely insipid and devoid of any distinguishing qualities her character is. “Rachel” changes from a wan, nervous divorcee (before meeting Nicholson’s character) to an obsessively devoted wife and mother who keeps babbling about how happy she is.Nicholson is well-cast as the rakish but (initially) endearing husband. The supporting cast reflects the expert hand of Juliet Taylor, Woody Allen’s longtime casting director, who peppered it with many familiar faces, including Allen favorites Joanna Gleason, Caroline Aaron, and Karen Akers. Maureen Stapleton is particularly droll as Streep’s shrink. Nineties audiences will enjoy seeing Kevin Spacey as a neurasthenic mugger.The comedy in the film is somewhat uneven, but often extremely engaging, as in a running parody of “Masterpiece Theatre.” And compare the spontaneous bravado of Nicholson’s lopsided rendition of “Soliloquy” from Carousel (the comic highlight) to the forced quirkiness of Meg Ryan’s tone-deaf “Surrey with the Fringe on Top” in When Harry Met Sally…

  • zvonka-sitar
    zvonka sitar

    I can watch this movie over and over again and will never get tired of it.Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson at their best! I originally loved the book as well.The ups and downs of a marriage juggling carreers,pregnancy,adulterous spouses,social events etc is really brought up in a masterful but still truthful way.Streep was actually pregnant for real in the movie.The subtext she brings out in her acting and all the little details just make you love her more and more.Her culinary tricks makes you run for your notebook.I actually get so hungry for Carbonara whenever I watch this movie.It is full of tears and laughter and you can’t help loving it.I take this movie to my heart forever.

  • zukauskas-milda
    zukauskas milda

    It is some years since I saw this film, but I definitely thought at the time it was vastly under-rated, and now that I have seen the voter’s scores for this, I am surprised all over again. Obviously, I have to log off and go to the video store to refresh my memory, but: the story was great, the song Joni Mitchell contributed was one of her all-time bests, and how could Meryl Streep ever be in anything that wasn’t worthwhile? By the way, the book was better, punctuated with recipes. It is an autobiographical tale, which bursts the balloon of the Watergate heroes and is definitely one of the most entertaining and realistic of the cinematic versions of life and love.

  • carla-smith
    carla smith

    Just to watch Streep and Nicholson together in a movie is good enough for me. A lot of the scenes seemed kinda improvised. They’re crazy good together. I always wondered why they weren’t in more movies together. Who knows, maybe they didn’t like each other very much in real life. Also, Nicholson always seems to be dancing between genius and insanity. Streep’s more the straight-forward type. At least to me.Nora Ephron who wrote this and the supposed autobiographical novel it’s based on, wasn’t known for immense depth, but for romance. I think every girl or woman who grew up before the start of this century is familiar with her work (Sleepless In Seattle, When Harry Met Sally etc.).6.6/10 just for the main leads.

  • makarova-agafia-oskarovna
    makarova agafia oskarovna

    This film is based on Nora Ephron’s “novel”. we’re told, but the novel was a largely biographical depiction of her failed marriage to Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post journalist famous for his exposure of the Watergate scandal which brought down President Nixon,,a marriage which ended in divorce as a result of his long affair with a fellow journalist. The Carl Bernstein character, Mark Forman, is played by Jack Nicholson with his usual devilish, eyebrow-twitching, grinning charm but the film is carried by Meryl Streep as his long-suffering wife, whose character, writer Rachel Samstadt, seems to age without recourse to added lines or makeup or any of the usual Hollywood trickery but purely by a change of body-language and a certain implied physical heaviness. The film is well-served by its supporting players as well as its principals, notably Stockard Channing and Jeff Daniels. It’s both moving and very funny and the fact that their first child, Annie, is played by Streep’s real-life daughter makes the mother/child interaction natural and utterly charming.The acting is superb by the whole cast and what could’ve become an over-dramatic film has wonderful moments of humor that works so well. Although the story is quite sad in parts the film is balanced out by a lot of humor. I found myself laughing out loud at this film a lot. Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson are brilliant, and Carly Simon wrote the soundtrack which is also great. It is still well worth watching.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.