If Lucy Fell (1996) User Reviews

Yawn!

[=G= · 5/10 · 3 February 2003]

"If Lucy Fell" tells of a man and woman who have known each other since childhood, live together platonically, and are both single and looking for love unsuccessfully. Hmmm...what do you suppose is going to happen??

Schaeffer's shot at telling this old no-brainer in "If Lucy Fell" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and though it has it's moments they are few and far between. The film has many deficits with the most obvious being the lack of sincere sentiment and the usual gushing emotional crescendo at the end. What sentiment there is seems forced and awkward. A so-so little indie romcom which is watchable but not recommendable. (C)

No Offense...

[Stoshie · 4/10 · 10 July 2020]

...to Eric Schaeffer, but he's not the leading man type. He's a decent actor, writer, and director, but should stick to acting parts that fit his persona. The handsome, desirable leading man is not his strong suit.

Beyond that, the movie is predictable. We knew the ending right from the beginning. It is an inoffensive, puff piece of a movie, easily forgotten once it is over.

The only slightly interesting part is seeing Scarlett Johansson in one of her earliest roles. Beyond that, there's nothing original here.

Just as bad as I remember

[Mitiori · 4/10 · 29 January 2007]

I saw this in the movies. I think it was the one and only time in my entire life I've fallen asleep in public. But that might have been my date. Either way, this movie was terrible. Now, I've seen it again. It wasn't just age or what was going on with my life - or who I was with. This is a terrible movie. The two lead characters who are supposed to be best friends are mean to each other and do not communicate clearly. Joe, the lead "male" and writer of the movie, dresses like a girl - complete with headband and dresses and leggings. In fact, he dresses like a little girl in the 1980's. The lead woman, played by SJP, who I can never hate, is just not likable. Nor does she make sense. One second she likes Ben Stiller's pointless character, the next she's rolling her eyes at him like the rest of us. The base story is interesting and one of my favorites, I won't spoil what that is, but suffice it to say there was plenty of potential. This movie doesn't carry it off. The editing is bad - but perhaps that's mostly the fault of a shallow script and unlikeable characters. The actors can't be faulted. They do their best with virtually no material.

Satire and psychobabble...

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 4 May 2006]

Platonic best friends and roommates Sarah Jessica Parker (a New York City therapist bored with her clients) and Eric Schaeffer (a struggling artist who also teaches art to kids) are frustrated over their lackluster love lives and recall a pact they made years before: if they're both without partners at the age of 30, they will jump off the Brooklyn Bridge together. Romantic comedy alternates between being jaded and sentimental; it has flashes of satirical wit--but only flashes. Parker doesn't have much of a character here; perhaps sensing this, she compensates for the lack of substance by doing silly bits of business (stretching, giggling, making faces). The most natural performance in the film is turned in by Elle Macpherson as Schaeffer's dream girl; the role is an enigma, but Macpherson's offhand appeal and easy manner gives this fantasy figure some personality, whereas Parker is stuck in a vacuum. Ben Stiller overdoes his small part as a celebrity artist and a young Scarlett Johansson turns up as one of Schaeffer's students (looking like a pint-sized Lolita). Schaeffer, who also wrote the screenplay and directed, runs hot and cold as an actor; wearing funny hats and talking in different rhythms, he doesn't overplay or underplay--he's just a goofy mensch, but not a dynamic one like Albert Brooks or Woody Allen. He's careful to give his character some shading, yet all the little quirks--like much of the serious dialogue--are strictly superficial. *1/2 from ****

Has its moments, but kinda insulting to all involved.

[archer1267 · 7 January 2001]

I saw this movie in the theater - TWICE - when it first came out. I became smitten with Eric Schaeffer and thought If Lucy Fell was hilarious. Now that I caught it on USA (or TNT, whatever) recently, I'm able to see how flawed this romantic comedy really is and wondering why I was so taken in by it before.

First of all, I found the titular character to be pretty unlikeable. She's quick to point out everyone's shortcomings in a cold, clinical sort of way yet can't even look her father in the face when she talks about things that are important to her. She knocks her roommate for being afraid to talk to Jane when *she can't even talk to her own father*! She carries on this passion-less relationship with Dick, not even thinking that it might hurt him less to just cut it off.

I liked Joe, esp. his diatribes (still love that job in Central Park scene) but he too was hard to relate to. He hasn't had sex in five years because he's obsessed with Jane, the woman next door? OK, so I know this is Hollywood and things are exaggerated for comic effect, but what are we supposed to think of "Bwick?" The guy doesn't speak in complete sentences at first and seems near illiterate (or, I guess he's so enmeshed on the artistic plane that he can't be bothered with the concrete). I could have cried for Ben Stiller when again I saw the scene of him "painting" (i.e. yelling and hurling paint-coated body parts at canvas) - totally ridiculous. I know, that was the point... hook Lucy up with a nutter so that she'll realize what's under her nose.

When I first saw this movie, I think I was 28, and the idea of 30 still loomed ahead. Now, at 33, the idea of two single people taking their lives because they haven't found reasonable relationship material is not only beyond crazy, but it's insulting. (Well geez, maybe these guys would have found love if one hadn't wasted years obsessing over an unattainable woman and the other had extricated herself from a dead-end relationship!) It feeds into this ridiculous notion everyone under 30's got that somehow, single life goes downhill after one hits 30. (I can tell you it only gets better!) Still, "every pot finds its cover," and these two half-wits "find" each other by the end of the movie, so all's well that ends well.

Complete ego trip

[nordic_princess68 · 3/10 · 23 August 2005]

If there is any merit in this movie, it is thanks to the performances of Sarah Jessica Parker and Ben Stiller. Elle McPherson is mediocre, as usual, and was obviously only picked for her looks (if you like the boring model type - how original to have her as an object of fantasy - yawn!) In fact, my theory is that the truly awful Schaeffer only wrote this tripe so he could legitimately molest Elle McPherson. He is extremely unattractive physically (what is with that hair and the dreadful clothes?), which wouldn't be a problem if he had a likable personality. I suppose his character is supposed to be sweet, funny and bumbling, but instead he comes across as unpleasant, selfish and completely in love with himself. At one stage Elle's character describes him as "funny, intelligent and good looking" (or words to that effect) - I'm afraid she's wrong on all three. How the viewer is supposed to believe that any woman would find him attractive, let alone two, is beyond my comprehension.

Lucy should fall

[Aiike · 1/10 · 2 September 2008]

There was a brief moment in the history of cinema in the 90's when coffe shop hippies made movies. They usually consisted of a stupid idea played out over 90 minutes with a terrible deluded and quiet boring conversations. This movie is one of them.

Let me start with the main 2 characters. Both are meant to be finding love and along the way find watch other. But wait you guessed it with a stupid twist along the way to keep the dopple headed crowd cheering along the way. This movies insults its viewer by making a movie around a premise which is so retarded that quiet frankly the director should have been shot. Anyway i digress. (I apolgize to the viewer not director). This movie is filled with that 90's cheese that ozzes from every frame. SJP is just awful and her chemistry with her supposed love interest is as noticeable as a fly on doo doo.

Let me save you from this rant/review just do not watch this garbage. It is from an era that spawned some great movies but this was not even close to a rental!

The fun side of romantic extremism

[evilmatt-3 · 7/10 · 30 July 2001]

When compared to other romantic comedies, _If Lucy Fell_ is more than a little dark. (Of course, I can't imagine a film based on a suicide pact that wouldn't be dark.) Despite this somewhat risky departure from genre rules and the sometimes overbearing Parker, the film remains fun and true to the spirit of romance. I especially liked the fact that it does reflect a little more of the reality surrounding single people and their relationships than we typically see in the movies. This seems to be one of the main thematic points of the film and is well reinforced visually with a grey urban atmosphere, which paradoxically breeds numerous romantic encounters.

There are a few rough points in this film which need to be overlooked. The scenes involving Elle MacPherson don't jive with the rest of the film as well as they should and feel kind of detached. Also, Sarah Jessica Parker seems to be very fond of using this movie (and any other she happens to appear in) to show us just how cute she is. If you're willing to get over those (and you should be) and this definitely worth a viewing.

This is one of those movies that is so bad it will make you nauseous.

[chaoscraz · 1/10 · 5 November 2004]

I don't know how to classify this movie. It is disgustingly bad. It is not funny, yet its supposed to be a comedy. The only part mildly entertaining is Ben Stiller's character, yet he is not developed at all. Everything else is just so serious. These two losers have it so bad. Oh, poor them. Please! Do jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.

I did not know anything about this movie before watching it. Initially I thought Joe (Eric Schaeffer) was a homosexual. After all, he had very feminine characteristics. Additionally, he wore a dress in parts of the movie. And also, there is his hair (you know what I'm talking about). And the makeup, etc... etc... I'll admit that I couldn't stand watching the last 20 minutes, but I do know how it ends. Anyway, it would have turned out better if Joe came out of the closet.

This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It should get a rating of 1. Don't watch this movie!

worthwhile

[nbw2101 · 7/10 · 28 December 2004]

Although this is only a so-so romcom, i feel that it is entirely worth watching for two important reasons, and for these reasons, i truly enjoy this film. One, it is about as early 90s as a movie can get. Case and point, Schaeffer's character, an artist is as often as not seen wearing a dress. Why people in the early 90s thought this was an okay look for guys is beyond me. Second, and more importantly, in my opinion, this is one of Stiller's best performances to date. There is nothing that Bwick does that does not make me laugh out loud. (eg. "I. . . art?") Additionally, Elle Macpherson is insanely hot, which doesn't hurt the film.

Pathetic waste of time

[shakawtwf · 1/10 · 26 July 2005]

Nothing in this movie worked. SJP criticizes one of her patients for being boring when she is one of the most boring creatures on Earth. Her roommate is beyond pathetic and as sorry a specimen as you're likely to find. Why does he wear a skirt and a woman's headband? Because he's a quirky artist. Why does he run around and chase the Chinese menu guy? Because he's a quirky artist. We get it, we just don't care.

The characters' quirks were completely manufactured and phony. Nobody speaks, acts or does anything like the people in this movie. I almost cracked a smile once but it went away really fast. I watched half of the movie and couldn't finish it.

"The girl in your heart isn't always the girl in your dreams"

[If Lucy Fell · 10/10 · 22 September 2001]

This film is a masterpiece...in my opinion anyway. It depicts the 90's romance of two roommates that proves that "the girl in your dreams is not always the girl in your heart." Eric Schaeffer delivers a brilliant cast and a wonderfully written script. It's funny, clever, and it's a great movie that represents its genre well. Highly recommended. The person who commented on the movie before me, obviously, did not understand that Joe was embarrassed when Jane found out his secret. To add to that, Joe and Jane only had a physical attraction to one another, no love was exchanged. Therefore their relationship wasn't going to last very long anyway and by the end of the movie you should be able to understand that love is much more stronger than lust. If you didn't enjoy this movie the first time viewing...give it another chance. Listen to the music and notice how well one band's music can collaborate so well with one movie. Think deeper into each character and pull out their insecurities. And finally, rethink the moral of the story.

Sweetness

[Philipfairchild · 7/10 · 8 February 2006]

This movie was quite funny, I'm not sure what this other person is talking about. Its more of a dark comedy, which is more of my style. Ben character was great he is just so out there, Like the part when he says something like, I dare you for me not to call you. I don't know exactly what he said but it was just such a great line. And Sarah Jessica Parkers character was just as great. I've watched her in Sex in the City she is just a great Actor.

I've seen quite a few movies, I think this is a good movie. Its worth watching a few times, I've seen way I'm mean way way worse movies than this. If you like dark Comedy watch this.

If Lucy fell and suffered brain damage, she could still make a better movie.

[nsps · 1/10 · 20 February 1999]

I saw this movie on cable, so I can't ask for my money back. However, I would like that time of my life back. If Lucy Fell attempts to be an insightful dialogue film, but fails due to lack of insight and any knowledge of how people talk and recognition to any hint of human intelligence. Maybe people talking about spitting in each other's mouths could be slightly funny if the writer had any talent or could sense any direction, but no. Evaluating the performances is pointless, since any actor working with this material is obviously in too much pain to develop a character. Save your money and life, avoid this movie at all costs!

A new york woman and man search for love in the 30 year old singles scene

[Verona · 2 September 1998]

Essentially, I found this movie meaningless. Even though I do like Sarah Jessica Parker, Joe (played by Eric Schaeffer) seemed like an unnecessary jerk. He who has been watching through a telescope supermodel Elle MacPherson, suddenly becomes turned off by her when she admits to having fantasized about him. Dissapointing ending.

A comedy for the mentally challenged.

[Freddy1 · 1/10 · 12 September 1999]

The suspension of disbelief for this film would require a large crane and at least 10 high-tension cables, each strong enough to raise the Titanic from the bottom of the ocean.

In fact, James Cameron's Titanic was a better romantic comedy than this film. What's that you say? Titanic *wasn't* a romantic comedy? Guess what neither is "If Lucy Fell"!!!!

Dorky, dress-wearing, pseudo artist stalks (and then gets) supermodel (who happens to have a studly GQ boyfriend) and then lets her go....  uh... ... okay...

Death-pact???????

And their *true* objective is to open some pre-school?????  Uh-huh... I buy that one too...

Even Ben Stiller (who I love) reeks in this film.

The best thing about this film is the old dude in the wheel-chair who yells obscenities at the lead character... (but *only* when he's doing that.  His mentor-esque speech at the end is as weak as every other moment in this film)

And I can't believe that the back of the video box compares this film to "When Harry Met Sally"! Not even close. Read the Maltin Review, he's on base with this one all the way.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

[rosanna_rosannadanna · 1/10 · 4 October 2006]

No mistake, I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did, and I gave it one star. But it's a gold star! A big bright shiny-no wait, that's a finger. Definitely one finger. A middle finger, belonging to me. A long time ago two friends of mine told me they'd just gone to see it, and I made fun of them. Mind you at the time I knew little about the movie other than it had an incredibly stupid name and that Sarah Jessica Parker still looked human. They both told me to shut up because at least I hadn't suffered the movie. Well I never felt really good about my initial response to being told they'd seen it (I literally laughed at them) so when it came on a movie channel last might I decided to check it out. I'll say that I was impressed. Not with Sarah Jessica Parker, who was moving away from pretty (Honeymoon in Vegas pretty) toward the thing from Family Stone. Nor was I impressed with Eric Shaffer (don't know if I spelled that right, don't care-he doesn't' deserve the consideration), who first wrote this horrible movie, then made it, and worst of all cast his own ugly stupid ass in the part that gets Elle Macpherson (I think I spelled that right, checked on her IMDb page and it looks good). And I wasn't impressed by Ben Stiller's moron because, while he did a fine job of playing an idiot, the character lacked any redeeming quality and came across as a prick who tried to act like an artist but who didn't understand art (like the writer/director). What impressed me was that Scarlett Johansson was pretty good at a very young age, that Elle Macpherson acted attracted to an idiot and managed to pull it off a bit and that there was someone in the movie (the old guy) who felt the same way I do about the clown who made the movie. This movie sucked about as badly as a movie can, right up until the cliché 'realize what they're looking for has been staring them in the face' ending. At that point it fell into that brown, stinky, steaming pile of filth, one of which actually IS the worst ever, the rest being serious contenders.

What this movie is missing is something vital to a good date movie. The two leads make a pact to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. A good date movie develops characters that you could potentially like in real life and so you'd rather see them end up happy. Both leads in this suck. They're zeroes, completely lacking in value. I wanted them to jump.

One other thing-when I was in college a friend of mine was an art major. Every art major had to exhibit their work openly for anyone who wanted to see. I went to my friend's show and was really surprised. Not because of how good his stuff was (it was and he's made a career of it for almost 15 years now). No, what surprised me was that his wasn't the only exhibit, and that the subject of the other exhibit was---a kid that lived in my dorm. Every picture this chick made (and I think they were all chalk) was this kid in my dorm. Just like in the movie! And when I went to make fun of him for it I couldn't because he thought it so weird and frightening he was afraid to leave his room! Just like in the movie...oh wait, she liked it. I forget that in movies obsession is an appealing quality, peeping is admired and stalking is cool.

Having thought about it I think if I ever see Eric Schafer I'll have to give him a good slap.

This is a comedy?

[KUAlum26 · 2/10 · 13 May 2005]

I genuinely like Sarah Jessica Parker. She's bright,chatty,funny and stage-trained. She seems quite sweet from the interviews I've sen her in. So I felt I should give this film a chance. This film,about two platonic friends(Parker and the writer,director Eric Schaefer)who are so convinced that finding love is such a bleak undertaking that they decide to make a suicide pact if they don't find somebody by the time they both turn 30,is such a mind-numbing,depressing film that it shows off all the pretense of the coffee house hipness of the era.

The concept of the film is unique and intriguing,but the lengths it goes to,plus all the clever little "Friends"/"Singles"-like humor(for examples:the spit-test,Joe going nuclear over a guest taking a crap in their apartment bathroom,etc.) makes this more self-indulgent and sad than the "ironic" that I think the filmmaker was aiming for.

Not to mention it wastes Ben Stiller and Elle MacPherson(who they manage to make look remarkably UNattractive!). I like to think I'm a fair and moderate judge of movies,but this film was so bad that I probably haven't had a look at this in over eight years and I STILL have a bad reaction to it.

Even Sarah Jessica Parker's charm couldn't save this stillborn romantic comedy

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 1/10 · 20 January 2005]

This is one of the better examples of how Hollywood have lost their edge, and how easy it is to make a romantic comedy. The plot is uninspired, the acting is unimpressive, the characters are poorly written and uninteresting, and the pacing is just awful. It goes too far for laughs, that never actually come. Ben Stiller is unfunny, and the rest of the cast are uninspired. Even Sarah Jessica Parker, who usually makes even the least entertaining film passable. The clichés are all there: best friends who should be together but can't see it, the main guy is infatuated with someone who doesn't know that he exists, etc. No new ideas or even semi-interesting presentation of old stuff. Parker plays a therapist, and I couldn't help but think of how happy I am that I don't have a therapist like that. She should seriously be fired, and have a letter of... uh... un-recommendation written that should be mandatory reading for every future possible boss. Yes, she's that bad. There's a scene of her giving children advice, and she charges them. She takes the money of young children... I'll let that sink in. Both of the main characters are annoying and at times despicable, so I suppose they fit together quite nicely. One final criticism: why is it, that no Hollywood film can contain a favorable of an artist, particularly a painter? Here he's presented as a childish, eccentric moron. Is that supposed to be funny? Final thought: only reason to see this film is to see the young and (already then) talented actress Scarlett Johansson in a very little role as a young child. I recommend this to women who don't care about the quality of romantic comedies and no one else. In fact, I urge you to avoid this at any and all cost, if you don't belong to aforementioned group. Yes, it's that bad. Believe me. 1/10

Awful movie

[cjlove2523 · 1/10 · 11 November 2021]

The writer/director is one of the most unattractive leading men on film I've ever seen. And he cast Elle Macpherson just so he could stick his tongue down her throat 100x... and we have to witness it. There's no charm, no charisma, and definitely no comedy in this movie. Didn't care about the leading characters at all, didn't care if they jumped to their deaths or not (in fact I actually hoped they would.) The lingering thought of Eric Schaffer's nasty tongue continually going in and out of Elle Macpherson's mouth has been a 25 year old nightmare for me, and it pops in my head once in awhile just to make me nauseous. I wish I could erase this entire movie and scrape it all from my mind, but all I could do is make sure no one else sees this steaming pile of crap.

One of my favorite romantic comedies....ever

[mivanitch77 · 9/10 · 15 June 2003]

O.K. Stop Here...... You've read this far and it seems every other review is negative, right? Why? Because people are idiots. Well, not all of you. Some people just don't have a romantic or sentimental bone in their body I guess. What's with all the snivelling comments about unbelievable plot twists and Joe's clothes of all things. It's called suspension of reality folks. Get over your practical self and let yourself be silly for a little while - you rented the freakin' movie didn't you? And one other thing - this movie isn't trying to be "Something About Mary" OR "Sex in the City". You know why??? Because it came out before either or them....DUH. Allright, enough venting.

I LOVED THIS MOVIE SO MUCH I GOT THE DVD. I want to watch it every 6 months of my life until I die. Well, maybe not that much. First of all, Joe is hilarious. He made me laugh like a 6th grade school girl every time he opened his mouth. He was as funny as Jim Carey in "Liar Liar". Why he's not on the big screen more is one of life's great mysteries. Sarah Jessica Parker is as cute as ever, and yeah her character is a little annoying, but she's supposed to be. It was in the script. If she was perfect, Joe would have fallen for her long ago. And Ben Stiller's character was off the wall. My wife and I love the scene where he's trying to impress Lucy with his "art=life=symbolic" piece. God, that's classic Ben Stiller humor. The characters are wrapped inside a good story too. Not your average "coulda seen that coming from a mile away" big studio hollywood crap. It has some twists that you don't see coming. Well, I didn't see them all at least.

I think I'm done. Sorry for the attitude before.

Yes this movie has a sappy ending, but it has a great soundtrack, an independent-film feel, it doesn't try to do too much, it develops it's characters and you care for them (except Elle McPherson's - who we're not supposed to like anyway) and it has a sappy ending. Oh wait, I wrote that already. I love sappy endings. Touching, sappy, romantic endings that make you want to BE one of the characters. As good an end as "Harry Met Sally". What more can I say - Eric Schaeffer created a gem here.

Terrible movie

[sixxqueen · 1/10 · 19 February 2020]

90 minutes of nonsense and drivel. Don't waste your time watching this movie.

(spoiler!) goofs

[arieleigh · 8 March 2006]

OK. i don't know if anyone else noticed, but this movie has like a million goofs in it. if you guys see anymore, comment back so you know the scene when joe is in jane's apartment when he finds out that she knew he was watching her. every time the camera focuses on jane and comes back to joe, his shirt if buttoned a different way. like one minute it will be half open and the next it will be fully buttoned. and his hair is different too. This scene just seemed so blatantly obvious too me that i felt i had to write this.

i don't know, i thought it was interesting. also because there is no "goofs" section on this page.

Very Disappointing

[savanna-2 · 5/10 · 6 April 2000]

Don't tune into this film if you are looking for the sparkling actress, Sarah Jessica Parker. In this film she is "angst" ridden and her male room mate "Joe" is well a, frustrated (in every since of the word), struggling artist.

They were best college pals and have shared a rather large NYC apartment, until one or both find "the one" for them.

Wish, I could find something positive to say, but it just isn't there. An interesting, if rather trite, premise, completely misses the mark in every area. Are they supposed to be "avant garde?" The "edgy" soundtrack, and weird performance/character "Blick" played by Ben Stiller, tips me off that they were aiming for "hip or black comedy." Elle Macphearson was completely wasted, and half of her screen time, she was wearing some "hunter in the great white north hat." Terrible.

Whatever. None of it works, and parts of the script were so pathetic and embarrassing (i.e. "would you drink my spit?" and the hug test), it seems that someone would have objected.

By the way, who is the actor portraying the faithful room mate, Joe. Hope the casting directors are hanging their heads in shame, along with the wardrobe department, and script writers.

Too much time spent on his pathetic weirdness, would have been better spent fleshing out the relationship between Lucy and her father. Did most of end up on the editing room floor, in favor of more screen time for "Joe?"

All around sad, check out episodes of "Sex and the City," to see what this film was trying to capture, but missed by a mile. What makes it worse, are the few glimpses of "what could have been." This will only make you more disappointed, in the overall film.

Stupido

[paulouscan · 3/10 · 25 January 2011]

Implausible betting, especially the way the script brings it and the performers and the play make it. A few twists of the plot may attract some interest, but overall, the film is perfectly stupid, "eau de rose", despite his unrealistic disguise behind NY American artists. Some gags are trying to make us believe that nothing is serious there, but the insistence of the scenario, the traditional Disney-type music of U.S. cinema, relentlessly trying to highlight ten times with bold lines all the time any love emotion when it is supposed to be present. We feel that it addresses an audience which it does not think too much good about its ability to feel and judge for itself, or is it because if fear of misinterpretation or direction that would betray the intentions of the writer, the author. Why such a thick layer of musical peanut butter (brain?). Sarah Jessica is doing its best, obviously, but has not yet be seen out of the cart of the series B… Scenario is rather confused, message stinks the scent of rosewater usual easy clichés. Not much to be grabbed out of this, in my opinion.