"Falling in love" can (and should in my opinion) be seen as a modernization of "Brief encounter" (1945, David Lean). The metro has been substituted for the train and the extramarital relation between Frank Raftis (Robert de Niro) and Molly Gilmore (Meryl Streep) is a little bit less subdued and more explicit than the one between Alec Harvey (Trevor Howard) and Laura Jesson (Cecilia Johnson) in "Brief encounter".
Did it succeed? I think not, and the fact that a metro station is less photogenic than a train station (the scenes in which Alec and Laura are running through shady station tunnels to catch the last train after a date are mutch more beautiful than the corresponding metro scenes in "Falling in love") is but a minor reason.
The first major reason in the happy ending. This gives "Falling in love" the flavour of "When Harry met Sally" (1989, Rob Reiner) without the humor.
The second major reason are the defects in the script. These defects are noteworthy because Pulitzer prize winner Michael Cristofer was responsible for this script. The defects are in my eyes most prominent in the first and last meeting of Frank and Molly at booktore Rizzoli. The first meeting is very 1940's romcom cliché. The last meeting is exactly 1 year later (same time, same place), again at the Christmas shopping season. From previous conversations we know that both Frank and Molly are divorced in the last year. Although this definitely eliminates an obstacle for resuming their extramarital relationship, they both refuse to mention this fact in their small talk. In so doing the end becomes more romantic bur far less believable.
In summary, "Falling in love" is a film with good actors and a bad script, far less convincing than the relationship between de Niro and Streep in "The Deer hunter" (1978, Michael Cimino).
One last point is the city of New York. In most films from the '70s and early '80s, New York is a city in decay ("The French connection", 1971, William Friedkin or "Manhattan", 1979, Woody Allen). In "Falling in love" however, New York seems to be a pleasant place full of nice restaurants, stores and coffee corners.
Did it succeed? I think not, and the fact that a metro station is less photogenic than a train station (the scenes in which Alec and Laura are running through shady station tunnels to catch the last train after a date are mutch more beautiful than the corresponding metro scenes in "Falling in love") is but a minor reason.
The first major reason in the happy ending. This gives "Falling in love" the flavour of "When Harry met Sally" (1989, Rob Reiner) without the humor.
The second major reason are the defects in the script. These defects are noteworthy because Pulitzer prize winner Michael Cristofer was responsible for this script. The defects are in my eyes most prominent in the first and last meeting of Frank and Molly at booktore Rizzoli. The first meeting is very 1940's romcom cliché. The last meeting is exactly 1 year later (same time, same place), again at the Christmas shopping season. From previous conversations we know that both Frank and Molly are divorced in the last year. Although this definitely eliminates an obstacle for resuming their extramarital relationship, they both refuse to mention this fact in their small talk. In so doing the end becomes more romantic bur far less believable.
In summary, "Falling in love" is a film with good actors and a bad script, far less convincing than the relationship between de Niro and Streep in "The Deer hunter" (1978, Michael Cimino).
One last point is the city of New York. In most films from the '70s and early '80s, New York is a city in decay ("The French connection", 1971, William Friedkin or "Manhattan", 1979, Woody Allen). In "Falling in love" however, New York seems to be a pleasant place full of nice restaurants, stores and coffee corners.