I cannot believe nobody has commented on this site what a complete and utter rip-off this story/film is of Kramer vs Kramer! I also find it hard to believe how the journalist Tony Parsons has been so lauded as having come up with such a 'great book' which was a best seller! Parsons must have just sat and watched Kramer vs Kramer and wrote it down transferring it to Britain and putting it in his own words! Making this into a film has made it seem even more of a rip off.
1. Both films feature a 'yuppie' like couple with a young son where the mother is the 100% carer for the boy while the husband is obsessed by his career and slightly neglects his little family.
2. In both films the mother ups and leaves to 'find herself' - the only difference is that in Kramer there has been no infidelity - and the father is left to care for the son.
3. In both films there is a first morning together trying to make breakfast scene where the father is useless.
4. Both films have the father struggling with the shopping with the son taking the lead.
5. Both films have the father then losing his job being got rid of by a former friend.
6. Both films have the father initially struggling, have a key bedtime story moment of success and an increasingly wonderful relationship developing between them.
7. Both films have the father teaching the boy how to ride a bike in the park and have identical father letting go and boy riding off in a straight line away from him scenes.
8. Both films have the son receiving a serious head injury playing in a park while the father is distracted. Both films have the father running to the hospital carrying the boy prostrate in his arms. Both films have the father blaming himself and being blamed in court for allowing the accident to happen.
9. Both films have the mother returning and a custody battle ensuing. Both have a reunion scene between mother and son in the park preceded by a father to son chat and with the son running into the mother's arms.
10. Both films have a similar result.
The only additional plot elements are the father's relationship with his parents and suffering bereavement and a new relationship with another woman. The first of these 2 additions is done well and is the best aspect of the film. The new relationship is not done that well and doesn't make it seem the father is remotely bothered by the split or responsible as a father. The whole film is set over a shorter space of time than the 'Kramer' film and thus much increased and rushed swiftness in character development which is far less believable and less sympathetic. Especially bad is the 'devoted' mother and wife rushing into a new marriage. It is also, unsurprisingly, not in the same league in acting, film-making, script or subtlety as the Hollywood film. The boy is adorable and good in this film but even he was out-acted totally by the boy in the Kramer film! Just watch the 1979 movie.
3/10
1. Both films feature a 'yuppie' like couple with a young son where the mother is the 100% carer for the boy while the husband is obsessed by his career and slightly neglects his little family.
2. In both films the mother ups and leaves to 'find herself' - the only difference is that in Kramer there has been no infidelity - and the father is left to care for the son.
3. In both films there is a first morning together trying to make breakfast scene where the father is useless.
4. Both films have the father struggling with the shopping with the son taking the lead.
5. Both films have the father then losing his job being got rid of by a former friend.
6. Both films have the father initially struggling, have a key bedtime story moment of success and an increasingly wonderful relationship developing between them.
7. Both films have the father teaching the boy how to ride a bike in the park and have identical father letting go and boy riding off in a straight line away from him scenes.
8. Both films have the son receiving a serious head injury playing in a park while the father is distracted. Both films have the father running to the hospital carrying the boy prostrate in his arms. Both films have the father blaming himself and being blamed in court for allowing the accident to happen.
9. Both films have the mother returning and a custody battle ensuing. Both have a reunion scene between mother and son in the park preceded by a father to son chat and with the son running into the mother's arms.
10. Both films have a similar result.
The only additional plot elements are the father's relationship with his parents and suffering bereavement and a new relationship with another woman. The first of these 2 additions is done well and is the best aspect of the film. The new relationship is not done that well and doesn't make it seem the father is remotely bothered by the split or responsible as a father. The whole film is set over a shorter space of time than the 'Kramer' film and thus much increased and rushed swiftness in character development which is far less believable and less sympathetic. Especially bad is the 'devoted' mother and wife rushing into a new marriage. It is also, unsurprisingly, not in the same league in acting, film-making, script or subtlety as the Hollywood film. The boy is adorable and good in this film but even he was out-acted totally by the boy in the Kramer film! Just watch the 1979 movie.
3/10