Unlike many, I believe that remaking isn't a bad thing. It's only in the way of making it. (Neil Simon) wrote a screenplay entitled (The Goodbye Girl) which became a (Herbert Ross) movie in (1977). It was a great comedy with great performances. Now there is a new one. A TV one. So, based on the above, why not. However, after watching it, it's "why" only?!

First of all, they remade it with THE SAME screenplay. Regardless of saving the fee of new scriptwriter, that could be quite a challenge for the director to experience a different form in terms of making a creative remake a la (Richard III - 1995),or (Romeo + Juliet - 1996). Or it's just the same, yet with higher or - at least - as good performance. But you know what? Forget it utterly. Because this one ended up as uncreative and spooky instead!

The glaring touch of wit is so out. It's more like the original movie after emptying it of fun. For instance, look at (Jeff Daniels). He does the role with silly flavor of seriousness, missing the extra vitality of the struggling cuckoo actor that (Elliot Garfield) is. (Patricia Heaton) is a major casting problem. Who selected her for God's sake?! She looks old (older than her co-star),annoying, with no magic. I don't know who's to blame for depriving her character of its ardor, loveliness and desperate romanticism; to be another soppy, totally undistinguished, divorced woman.

You heard that dialogue before, and here, you are hearing it again, entirely, as the same as it was. I don't get bored of (Simon)'s work, but this time, the soulless deliverance from all the parties forces to. When I see the lead jumps over the fire escape to reproach his love in the street, exactly like (Richard Dreyfuss) did in the 1977's movie, I must yawn, moving my head in pity, grieving not understanding: "Why bothering yourselves making a déjà vu? This is an insult to you guys before being the same to us!".

There is nothing new except being dull. Well, to be fair, it had 3 new things already; a poster for (Brad Pitt) hanging on the wall, a delicate song before the end, and slightly (Hallie Kate Eisenberg) as (Lucy); she seemed more childish and less sophisticated unlike (Quinn Cummings) in the first movie, not reasons to re-watch this again though!

Generally, the forever fresh text runs on screen like a river in a deadly desert, with zero echoes. It's barely (Neil Simon) meets (The Bold and The Beautiful). There is no beneficiary of anything, except some people get paid, for repeating poorly a rich thing, and some network gets something to fill out its empty hours! I believe by now that you caught on the reason why this movie is spooky; it's how it indicates insolvency all the way. The same money, which they produced this TV ghost with it, should have been spent over ANY OTHER PROJECT better. But, obviously, there wasn't ANY OTHER PROJECT in the first place!

And when you watch, among flood of remakes, (The Omen - 1976) being remade into another one in (2006),under the same title, by the same script of its original writer (David Seltzer)--then you must notice how making movies in America lives in the 2000s a state of resorting to the 1970s, or any other creative decade, through many remakes, spooky ones, with nothing new to be specific.

The Conclusions: (Simon)'s work fits to be watched many times, and this movie doesn't. Watch (The Goodbye Girl - 1977),and avoid this TV version, sorry copy. Being a copy is enough pathetic, so how about that there is none to win from it, but appreciating the first movie more, along with detracting the 2000s more as well. It is not the goodbye girl inasmuch as the goodbye movie!

Paula McFadden (Patricia Heaton) is 36 and a little too old to be a dancer. She is left behind by her married actor boyfriend Tony DeForrest for a job in Italy. She doesn't have any money staying in the apartment with her daughter Lucy (Hallie Kate Eisenberg). It turns out that Tony sublet his apartment to Elliot Garfield (Jeff Daniels) out from under her. She refuses to leave and Elliot reluctantly agrees to let her stay.

Patricia Heaton is wrong for this role. She can't pull off even a former dancer. Also I don't think that she's quite right to be Eisenberg's mom. She's much better in a soccer mom role. Daniels is charming. Eisenberg is great as the talkative little girl. The Neil Simon play is still good but everything is a little bit off. The '77 movie is perfectly fine. This feels like a faded copy. The apartment doesn't have quite the NYC feel. I do like Eisenberg with Daniels and their scene together is great. Basically the movie feels wrong but it still has the essence of a good story.

It was a made for TV movie, for goodness sake. If I were home alone on a Saturday night, I would really enjoy this movie--what is wrong with a movie simply being entertaining? I haven't seen the original, so maybe that is why you all hate it so much, but as for simple acting jobs, I thought that the little girl has actually really improved her acting skills and was nice and natural, with good comic timing. And Daniels was quite charming. I wasn't as crazy about P.Heaton as I normally am, but I think that that was a product of the way her character was written. And I was glad to see Alan Cumming do something light, too. Anyway, in general, it was enjoyable, and I would recommend it for a no fuss night.