Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Emil Bakkum The film Barefoot in the park interests me, because it describes a love affair, and because it has been recorded during the flourishing period of the counter culture movement. It is a time of rapid changes in the social position of women and in the (pre-)sexual habits. Lovers start calling Dr. Ruth. Indeed the film gives a sparking display of the new lifestyle, although the couple has just effected a traditional marriage. Apparently the institution still has a nice ring to it. The male character is rather boring, even in his profession (lawyer). He uses his personality for birth control. On the other hand, the female character certainly has the attitude of a hippie. And what else can you expect from Jane Fonda? Corie (Fonda) loves to break through conventions, rules and authority. Her favorite T-shirt is offensive in 19 states. Thus it is evident from the start that this marriage is forged in hell. Already in the second week Corie complains: "There are doers and watchers", and she is the doer of the two. She realizes her mistake, and wants a divorce. This would indeed have been the logical end, were it not that the narrative is supposed to be a comedy. Therefore her mother convinces her that in a good marriage both partners must give up some parts of their personality. They must support each other. Now Corie comes to the conclusion that she actually wants a sterling and caring husband, that is to say, a watcher. The marriage is saved. In its joyous end the film turns back to the spirit of the gay and conservative fifties, in the days before Doris Day was a virgin. The same can be said about the music, which is still classic. Electric guitar players are meant to deliver pizzas. The film is a recast of a theatrical play, and the melodrama is kept intact. The original theater script is also visible in the lack of dynamics in time and space, and the location of most scenes in just a few rooms. In conclusion, Barefoot is an amusing but not deep pastime (at least, I do not see it). It hovers somewhere between conservatism and revolution. If you ate pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry?

JohnHowardReid A wonderful film – gay, warm, witty, amusing, lively, delightfully original – right up to the halfway mark. Then the scenario starts to fall apart. Writer, Neil Simon, runs out of ideas, so he stages an unconvincing quarrel. As a result, Jane Fonda – and the audience – lose interest in the proceedings and the whole movie simply goes to pot. There are over a hundred good jokes in the first seventy-five minutes, but there hardy any at all in the last forty-five! Director Gene Saks is of no help. He is obviously one of those directors who believe that direction should be inconspicuous – which it sure is! Fortunately, Joseph La Shelle's Technicolor photography is always pleasing. Much of the film – including the scene at the Plaza Hotel – was obviously shot on location, and that at least is a plus!

Robert W. Since the first time I saw a Jane Fonda film which (believe it or not) wasn't until Monster-in-Law (which I loved and she was amazing in...I don't care what anyone says) I've been a fan. Now with the amazing Netflix series Grace and Frankie, I'm hooked! I've also been a huge fan of Robert Redford's since I was a boy so the two of them together appealed to me! They both have incredible charisma on screen so how could this go wrong? Well it doesn't. The two of them are great and the film is cute and funny sometimes but I feel like this particular Neil Simon play doesn't translate quite as well from stage to screen as some of his other works. The running gags (living so high up, all the stairs, the guy in the attic, the tiny cramped quarters) just don't seem to be as funny as they think it is. The characters do grow on you by the end but in the beginning Jane Fonda's character is scary obsessive and irritating. I don't know if that's the point and its another running gag but she was a little scary. Then she starts to build a slightly more normal personality and Redford and her click a little better but even still the story stumbled around and just seems like it belongs on stage.Jane Fonda is and was full of energy and this is a good role for her. She's happy and hyper and full of pep and once the scary obsessive role is quashed, she is better. Robert Redford is good as her straight laced new husband but I feel like this role is simply too bland for him. If it was anyone but Redford, they would get lost in such a bland role but his charisma wins out. He doesn't get enough truly slapstick moments outside of his drunken scene near the end. Mildred Natwick is good as Fonda's mother who lets loose when she meets the man in the attic. Natwick actually gets some of the best scenes and is probably the most fun in the entire cast. Charles Boyer and Harry Pepper are both decent in small supporting roles and definitely add a hint of fun to the cast.I can absolutely see this being a good play but just in general I don't feel like this is Neil Simon's best work by far. The characters just don't have a lot of depth and the story feels almost rushed. Gene Saks started a small directorial career with this film and followed it with the classic Odd Couple (which I'm not sure I've ever seen believe it or not) but I'm just not sure he had what was necessary to make this memorable. The set is so simple (often the case when translating a play to screen) that it requires a strong, fast paced, funny plot but this one is just okay. It literally holds its own thanks to Fonda and Redford being the stars that they are. Otherwise it is a forgettable experience. 6/10

Wuchak "Barefoot in the Park" (1967) is a romcom starring Robert Redford and Jane Fonda as newlyweds in Greenwich Village, Manhattan. The former is conservative while the latter is free-spirited and their differences come to the fore after a few days of marital bliss. Mildred Natwick plays the mother of Fonda's character and Charles Boyer plays an eccentric neighbor, Victor Velasco, who lives in the attic of their apartment building.This movie is good as a mid-60's period piece where you get to view a 20-something couple who are just a bit too old for the counter-culture, albeit somewhat "hip." It's an amiable and innocent sitcom with a few amusing moments, but it was a chore for me to get through. The story and characters just never engaged me. The film only perked up when the eccentric neighbor was around, Velasco. Another problem is too much of the movie takes place in the apartment -- like 90% -- which means the setting is one-dimensional. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the story and characters were interesting. Also, Natwick, as the mother, is too old for the part because the character's supposed to be like 53 years-old while Natwick was 61 during filming and looked like 63-65.While "Barefoot" is a must for serious fans of Redford and Fonda, 1979's "The Electric Horseman" is the far superior choice if you want to see the two starring together.The film runs 106 minutes and was shot in Greenwich Village, Manhattan.GRADE: C-