IMDb user comments for
Why Do Fools Fall in Love (1998) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

24 comments in total

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Entertaining delight!, 3 June 1999

Author: Matthew-35 from Los Angeles

The filmmakers know you've heard this tale before - true life chronicle of a young singing star's rise and tragic fall - and so they wisely downplay the standard bio trappings and instead focus on a raucously entertaining ride through Frankie Lymon's woman troubles. The smart screenplay revolves around the court battle of Lymon's three wives (yes, three!) over song royalties, leading to vivid (and often humorously contradictory) flashbacks of their lives with the singer. Larenz Tate is magnetic playing the many different sides of the ever-changing lead character, but the film ultimately belongs to Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon as the wives. Each is allowed to shine as the trio portrays 30 years of changes in the women's lives, with Fox drop-dead hilarious as the most outrageous of the three. There's beautifully detailed '60s-era cinematography, sets, costuming and musical numbers, plus a side-splitting turn by Miguel Nunez as a young Little Richard. Major issues (such as '60s race relations) are barely glanced at, but what this film lacks in depth, it makes up for ten-fold in entertainment value. A winner!

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Very entertaining!, 17 April 2001

Author: mattymatt4ever from Jersey City, NJ

"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is somewhat flawed and takes quite a lot of artistic liberties, but it's always fun to watch. Larenz Tate isn't entirely convincing as Frankie Lymon--I guess they just cast him because he's real short. The concert scenes and TV appearances where he sings are noticeably lip-synched and look pretty cheesy. But acting-wise Tate did a fine job. Obviously, they didn't really delve into his drug addiction, to keep with its light-hearted feel. So we don't get to experience the heavy drama of Lymon's short life. The actresses were good--Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon. Their performances were equally effective and amusing. The great Little Richard has some spirited cameos. He definitely brought the mood of the film to an all-time high. I just wish he could've been in it for longer than 10 minutes. The whole movie basically concentrates on the romantic-comedy portions of Lymon's life--some true, some fabricated. There were some dramatic moments, but they occur mostly towards the end. But I got a lot of laughs and the film just has a fitfully satisfying upbeat tone. Of course, I LOVED the music. I have to admit that was one of the main reasons I enjoyed it so much.

"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is a moderately loose portrayal of Lymon's life, but it makes great entertainment.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Accurate Biography? Who knows? Entertaining film? You Betcha!, 17 August 2006

Author: Isaac5855 from United States

WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE? is a supremely entertaining biopic of the young singer Frankie Lyman, which unfolds in a clever variation on the traditional flashback form of storytelling. The film opens with three women arriving at Frankie's former manager's office after his death, trying to claim his estate, all claiming to be the legal widow of Lyman and it is during the trial to determine which of these ladies is Lyman's legal widow where Frankie's story unfolds. As with all movie biographies, you never know how much you're watching is based on fact and what has been enhanced or diluted for dramatic effect. In this screenplay, Frankie is a charismatic young singer, who apparently had no problem charming women out of their clothes and their money, the latter of which apparently went to support his drug habit. Frankie's drug use is somewhat glossed over and the screenplay tends to concentrate more on Frankie's manipulative ways with these three women and how he, at one time or another, managed to convince all three of them that there were the only women in the world. Baby-faced Larenz Tate plays Frankie with a sincerity and sexiness that possibly oversells Frankie's real womanizing, but he manages to keep Frankie likable despite some of the slimy things he does. The three women in Frankie's life are well played by Halle Berry, Viveca A. Fox, and Lela Rochon, with Fox a standout in probably the best performance of her career. The musical sequences are troublesome...Tate works hard at lip-syncing authentically, but I never bought the lip-syncing in the film...all of the musical sequences in the film come off sounding "canned." Still, Tate and the ladies commit to their roles and do make the movie worth watching. I don't know how accurate the film is as a biography of Frankie Lyman, but it is a very entertaining film that will effortlessly hold interest.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Clever and entertaining. (SPOILERS ENCLOSED), 26 March 2004
Author: Richard McDonald (fromac@rogers.com) from Ontario, Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Why Do Fools Fall In Love is an unexpected gem. In the previews it looks like a movie-of-the-week bio of a long dead celebrity, but this is actually a carefully crafted, well acted and visually fascinating film. With films that claim to be based on actual events, it is important to consider that those events have been interpreted by a writer, director, and actors. Whether this film accurately portrays events in the life of 1950's singing sensation Frankie Lymon is immaterial to the success if the film. The fact remains, whether truthful or fictional, the film is interesting to look at, entertainingly written, and cleverly constructed.

Director Gregory Nava has sculpted the film into a richly intertwined series of flashbacks, reminiscences and moments out of pop history. The performance scenes, where we see Frankie Lymon before an audience, either as a raw kid or as a fading icon, are wonderfully integral to the story, and not just blatant rationalization of the sound track cd on sale soon at music stores everywhere. Nava allows the innate energy of the music to flow into the film through lively editing, camera movement, colourful setting and costume. Particularly interesting are the long continuous Steadycam shots and the processing of footage to look like old home movies or 1950's live TV images.

Larenz Tate (The Postman) made an explosive impact early in his career with his role of O-Dog in Menace II Society, and then excelled on the short lived TV series South Central. Here, he is considerably reigned in either by the film makers, or by his own sense of how Lymon should be played. His performance, although capable, seems shallow at times and never really delivers any insight to what makes the man tick. The film makers knew that the strength of the story was in the perspective given it by the three women who each claim to be Lymon's widow and entitled to a share in his estate. The character of Lymon, as seen from these different points of view, is at times childishly naive, brutally malicious or tremendously generous and unselfish.

The film's best performance is from Vivica A. Fox (Booty Call, Independence Day) who plays Lymon's `first' wife Elisabeth Waters. Fox mixes a wry intelligence with a crude and unpolished demeanor to portray the woman who so loves Lymon in the decline of his career, that she will work as a prostitute to pay for his drug rehabilitation in a private clinic. The tragic irony of her pouring so much of herself into Lymon's empty shell is that she survives the giving while he can never find what he needs in the taking.

The two other wives are played very ably by Halle Berry (Bulworth) who appears as Zola Taylor of The Platters and Lela Rochon (Waiting To Exhale) as Emira Eagle. Zola is attracted by Lymon's talent and charisma and is so won over by his sincerity and her own belief in his character that she allows him to destroy all that she has earned as he destroys himself. Emira is the wholesome, God-fearing school teacher who finds the committed romantic in Lymon and manages to help him settle into a simple domesticity for a time before the call of his lost celebrity takes him from her in a last attempt to reclaim his fame.

The period detail is vivid and slides up and down a continuum that ranges from deliberately romanticized to unbearably sordid. The film makers have wisely avoided the trap of dwelling on Lymon's heroin addiction. There is very little portrayal of the actual use of drugs, just an examination of their effect on Lymon and on the lives the women who love him.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
I liked this movie, 25 October 1999

Author: Roger-81

I don't believe this movie didn't do better in the ratings. I thought it was clever and entertaining. Halle Berry is beautiful and Larenz Tate was engaging as Frankie Lymon. Again, Gregory Nava is a director to watch for. I didn't realize he also did Selena and that was a movie I also enjoyed. Nothing heavy or slick, no action, fires, explosions, just good story telling about characters and their relationships with one another.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
PRETTY C_O_O_L, 12 December 2003
Author: lefteyez54 from usa

i think halle berry, viv fox, and lela rochon are tops!! great flick!! i bought it on DVD and cant stop watchin it!! wheres lela rochon lately though?? shes too talented to just leave films!! i think larenz tate did real good too~~~

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Great music, adequate characterizations, 3 November 1999

Author: Boyo-2

I enjoyed a lot of this movie but I would have liked a tad more insight into the life of Frankie Lyman. In one scene, he talks about his abusive father, but other than that, there was little revealed about him. I understand it was mostly from his wives point-of-view, but it have helped the story along. In addition, you couldn't tell which of the wives was spinning a tale in order to get a larger settlement.

The large cast was very talented and I especially appreciated that the make-up on the three women was not overdone to make them age. All in all, I enjoyed it very much, but it could have been much better.

---

5 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
"Fools" hits some high notes, but most are sour, 26 January 2005

Author: bobkurtz-1 from United States

Director Gregory Nava misunderstands the complex, drug-addicted Frankie Lymon getting some of it right and much of it wrong.

His fatal mistake from beginning to end is playing Frankie as a late teen instead of the 13 teen year old he was. This deprives one and all of seeing the simple true source of Frankie's problems. Too much fame, too fast and too young. Larenz Tate struggles with the role where he sometimes looks more like a young Sammy Davis than Frankie. The singing and dancing sequences are acceptable and Tate brings the music off adequately.

The racial issues, which the film deals with, have some truth, but the details are inaccurate. In 1957 audiences in some venues were segregated, but in others were mixed and not a problem. The idea that this music helped end segregation is mentioned, but not really seen, except for the incredible scene of Frankie dancing with a white girl on 'The Big Beat'. This big surprise is very effectively handled and has major impact.

I don't think Nava understands doo-wop or the relationship of the lead singer to the backups. There is a big difference between the Platters, essentially a white pop adultish Ink Spots type group and the Teenagers who were rock 'n' roll, appealing to those under 21. This just never comes across.

Nava does do some clever things, pointed out in the director's cut (not recommended, way too 'Goody, Goody') as he uses a continuous roll camera to suck you in and wrap you around the scene he is filming.

The attempts to stylize 'Fools' mostly works. The theme of creating the four main characters as Earth (Lela Rochon as Emira Eagle), Fire (Halle Berry as Zola Taylor), Water (Vivca Fox as Elizabeth Waters) as the 3 wives to play off Wind (Tate-Frankie) is clever and consistent. The use of scatchy 8MM flash backs is a bit over done, but gets the point of flashbacks across.

All three of the parts of the wives suffer from being overly dramatic (and over acted)with the need to fit truth to the story, rather than the other way around.

Most disturbing is the handling of Frankie's music. Its hard to tell his solo work from his Teenagers stuff and the sequencing of the music is out of order. At least Nava makes it clear Frankie was not a 'One hit wonder' and he had four years of outstanding singles and (not mentioned at all) some super albums, mostly as a solo. As one of the wives mentions, above all "he could sing my panties off". If you don't think so, play Frankie's version of "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" followed by the weak, sad Diana Ross version.

Next time Mr. Gregory Nava when doing an autobiography spend as much time keeping your facts straight and in order, as you do with clever stylization.

Not recommended unless your a fan of any of the elements involved. Wanna a good music bio from more or less the same period and effectively dealing with drug addiction, watch "Ray" the magnificent Ray Charles story.

---

wow, 24 July 2006

Author: xolilswtthang3 from United States

this movie was one of the best movies i have ever seen..i think it should have gotten rates of 6 to 10 not any lower..i gave it a ten for the people who performed outstandingly well and for what the movie was about..money,love and all the others because most of us deal with that in real life and it shows us a way of how we can deal with it in a sort of good way.it also shows us ways of life that we have never seen before that we don't even care..and i just have to say that Frankie Lyman or a.k.a Lorenz Tate was hot in this movie and i think was the best actor in this whole movie but the ladies making a deal to split the money was so stupid because everyone knows that whoever won was not going to stick to the deal but maybe the good hearted one would have.

---

Doo Wop Nostalgia at its peak, 17 September 2005

Author: Lextical from Colchester, Essex

An interesting (but flawed account) of the battle over pop star Frankie Lymon's estate by three women claiming to be his widow...

The story portrayed here is actually semi-fictitious, but the background story of Frankie's life is entirely true.

From his starts as a fresh-faced Harlem kid to a haunted drug addict, Larenz Tate (one of the most underrated talents in Hollywood) shines as dreamer Frankie, and does well to give perspective to Frankie's conflicting attitudes towards his relationships with the women, which the script muddles- Frankie appears shallow yet introspective at the same time.

Halle Berry tries to make more of her understated and thin role as Zola Taylor, wifey no. 2, but provides an adequate performance.

The most developed of the three female characters, is Elizabeth Waters (Viveca A. Fox). Loyal yet dishonest, gritty Elizabeth is the only character aside from Frankie that seems to be real. This is a combined effort by the characterisation and the performance by Fox.

And Lela Rochon does very well cast against type, as a school marm dragged into this battle. Rochon clearly understands the character well, and manages to make her mark on the story despite being developed late into the film.

The period detail of this piece is well captured over the 20-odd years that this story is set (particularly the performances of Frankie with the Teenagers), and even the small scenes which provide insight into Frankie's younger days.

The main flaws of this film lie essentially in the struggle to develop some of the themes. As mentioned earlier, Frankie's reasons for bigamy are not established at all or how he copes this with this, or whether one of the wives in particular is lying about the legitimacy of her marriage.

Some of the characterisation is a bit thin, caused by some of the later events of the film and because this deep story of fame, loss, betrayal and torment has such a muddled structure the whole film comes across as sketchy by the end which clearly was not intended.

But never the less this is an adequate tribute, to the world of fame and its inevitable clingers-on, and those just caught up in the action. This will never be top of its genre however...

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history