good film but with many flaws

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

What the Hell was that? I'm normally an Altman defender in all cases - I'm a fan of stuff like That Cold Day in the Park, Quintet and Pret-a-Porter - and I've never seen him as a hit-or-miss director who has directed half masterpieces and half flops, as his reputation tends to go. But this is truly a disaster! It's based on a stage play by Christopher Durang, who also adapted this screenplay with Altman. I just can't imagine anyone sitting in the audience watching this garbage thinking, "Oh, man, that would make a great movie!" unless the play was significantly different on stage. I kind of doubt it, though. It has such a peculiar energy, and it's not much like anything else Altman made. It feels like something pretentious people might have enjoyed on stage, more likely in the 60s than in the 80s, because it's just so odd. I'm usually a fan of odd, but this one almost made me violently angry at times. Jeff Goldblum stars as a bisexual man living with his boyfriend (Christopher Guest), but trying to branch out into women. He meets Julie Hagerty on a blind date, and they immediately hate each other. After therapy sessions and a second blind date (they both change their ads slightly but end up together again), they hit it off, much to Guest's chagrin. Every character in the movie is constantly going to their therapist (the two therapist characters are played by Glenda Jackson and Tom Conti). No one acts like a human being in this film, just weird simulacra making faces at each other. There's hardly a laugh in it, and the actors universally embarrass themselves. Better off completely forgotten.

I've been having my own little Altman revival over the past months, watching all of his available movies in chronological order, both his masterpieces and his duds. I'm up to 1987, and I think I may have finally found it -- that elusive thing known as Robert Altman's absolutely worst film.If you know about Altman, you know that all of his movies were an experiment to a greater or lesser extent and that some of them misfired dismally. In re-watching them with a fresh eye, I've found that none (not even some really bad ones, like "A Wedding", "Quintet", or "Popeye") misfired quite as egregiously as "Beyond Therapy". A farcical romp lampooning modern-day (for the time) romance, sexual preferences, neurotics and the analysts who are crazier than they are, "Beyond Therapy" has nothing to recommend it. The two leads, Jeff Goldblum and Julie Hagerty, make their characters instantly unlikable and never recover. Tom Conti and Glenda Jackson are probably the best members of the cast, as two whacked out therapists, but the parts they're given to play feel random and arbitrary. Christopher Guest basically plays the petulant gay man he would reprise so classically ten years later in "Waiting for Guffman".I don't know how Christopher Durang's stage play would read in a different context. It seems paper thin judging by this version, but knowing Altman, I have a feeling he dealt with the source material liberally, and who knows how much of Durang's original play remains. This film certainly has Altman's footprints all over it, and in this case that's not a good thing.Grade: F

This movie has been trashed by a lot of folks, both professional reviewers and amateurs, and gets an overall little better than a "4" average in this site. Some I've seen have given it a zilch - not even 1 star. There are those who bemoan Altman's ruining Durang's great play (c'mon, he's a good one, but certainly not Shakespeare, and this story isn't "Hamlet"). Besides, he wrote the screenplay, too, and who - either writing or viewing this film - should be surprised at Altman's usual cacophony among the participants. This signature trait of his is why so many folks are at the opposite extremes in their opinions of Altman's work (I'm one of those who love his films). "Columbo" is one of my all-time favorite television shows, especially the earlier ones (after only the great "Larry Sanders Show;" don't know whether "Larry David" will settle into 3rd place, or nudge-out Peter Falk). My late mother couldn't watch "Columbo," although detective dramas were always her favorite genre. She couldn't abide his mumbling, and the way he always schlepped into and out of scenes, and always came back for "just one more thing." She was very intelligent, and didn't need me to explain that these were the key elements of this iconic lead character - she simply didn't like them. So it should be with those who watch an Altman offering and then bitch about it. Go watch some "Capra," no less great in his own way than Altman, but you'll keep your blood pressure down. This flick is outstanding, in my opinion. The characters are quirky (understatement), funny, sympathetic and interesting. The main cast - Goldblum, Hagerty, Guest, Conti, Jackson and Page - are wonderful, as are the supporting group. I'll admit - making the film in Paris, with a New York setting, is unusual, and seems at first an interesting puzzle - but not really (who wouldn't, for example, take the opportunity to film a story set, say, in Los Angeles, in Madrid, if the producers would approve?). This is one of those films, also, where I find myself rewinding the DVD to see certain scenes over again, every time I watch it.

I agree with the other posters. I directed the Australian premiere of this play back in 1983, and just LOVED it and all of Christopher Durang's works (I also directed 'Dentity Crisis). So when I saw that one of my favourite directors of all time, Robert Altman, was making the film version, AND it had people like Glenda Jackson, Julie Hagerty, Tom Conti etc in it, I was agog with anticipation. It was probably my biggest disappointment in the cinema.What is it about Altman that he seems to make a real turkey about once or twice a decade, in between all the wonderful films he makes?What I can't understand is how Christopher Durang allowed his name to be credited as screenplay writer, when it's a travesty of his play. Especially what was done to the two psychiatrist characters..And why set such a New York story in Paris/And why ... and why .... oh forget it.