It was true in the '50s and still is today: it's no exaggeration to state that most hitmaking careers are over in 18 months. Teen idols fare the worst, and such was the fate of Frankie Lymon, who scored but three Top 20 hits between February 1956 and the summer of 1957: "Why Do Fools Fall In Love," "I Want You To Be My Girl" (both with The Teenagers) and "Goody Goody" (as a soloist). After that, the industry and music buyers considered him to be yesterday's former fresh face. And, like most young teens who become overnight sensations, Frankie's firework-long popularity came to cripple him later as a) people would not accept him as anything other than a 13-year-old and b) he was utterly unprepared to cope with real life once his flash of fame had ended. An insightful peek into Frankie Lymon's mercurial life would have made a great movie -- but this isn't it. Instead, we get only a superficial look at Lymon, as the movie focuses instead on the three women who claimed to be his wife. Lymon does not deserve to be shoved into the background of his own biopic, especially as his story is representative of the rise and fall of many flash-in-the-pan artists who find themselves revered by the public one minute and then dumped into history's ashcan the next -- often before they really reach the summit of their skills. (Believe me -- as the writer of "The History Of Rock 'n' Roll," I know this all too well.) The three women battling over his estate were more a footnote to his story than the real drama and far too much time is allocated to letting the three female leads each take a star turn. Yes, Zola Taylor was the best-known of the three, but she is portrayed following her run with The Platters as an in-the-money solo star headlining live shows with her giant hit "Only You." Are the producers kidding? Zola Taylor didn't even JOIN The Platters until AFTER "Only You" had become a million-seller! The Platters scored big as the most successful hitmaking singing group of the late '50s (1955-9), despite the fact that the "group" was really lead vocalist Tony Williams -- with the others as mere background singers. (What were The Doors, for example, without Jim Morrison?) Zola only sang lead on a couple of minor Platters chart items -- and after leaving the act, immediately sank into near total obscurity. The Platters' golden era ended in 1960 after Tony left on his ill-fated solo career. (I explored this in great detail while assembling a 60-track Platters career retrospective 3-CD box set.) None of The Platters really made much money at all -- as they were mere salaried employees of their manager, Buck Ram. Ram wrote much of their material, told them what to sing and how, produced their records, owned The Platters' name and (no surprise) kept nearly all of the loot himself. The portrayal of Morris Levy, who owned several labels including Gee (the recording home of Lymon and The Teenagers) was pretty accurate. Not all record labels screwed artists as thoroughly as Levy's did, but his methods were none too unusual for the time. In fact, they're not much different than what the industry does today!
Add a Review
-
mattymatt4ever17 April 2001"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is somewhat flawed and takes quite a lot of artistic liberties, but it's always fun to watch. Larenz Tate isn't entirely convincing as Frankie Lymon--I guess they just cast him because he's real short. The concert scenes and TV appearances where he sings are noticeably lip-synched and look pretty cheesy. But acting-wise Tate did a fine job. Obviously, they didn't really delve into his drug addiction, to keep with its light-hearted feel. So we don't get to experience the heavy drama of Lymon's short life. The actresses were good--Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon. Their performances were equally effective and amusing. The great Little Richard has some spirited cameos. He definitely brought the mood of the film to an all-time high. I just wish he could've been in it for longer than 10 minutes. The whole movie basically concentrates on the romantic-comedy portions of Lymon's life--some true, some fabricated. There were some dramatic moments, but they occur mostly towards the end. But I got a lot of laughs and the film just has a fitfully satisfying upbeat tone. Of course, I LOVED the music. I have to admit that was one of the main reasons I enjoyed it so much.
"Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is a moderately loose portrayal of Lymon's life, but it makes great entertainment. -
WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE? is a supremely entertaining biopic of the young singer Frankie Lyman, which unfolds in a clever variation on the traditional flashback form of storytelling. The film opens with three women arriving at Frankie's former manager's office after his death, trying to claim his estate, all claiming to be the legal widow of Lyman and it is during the trial to determine which of these ladies is Lyman's legal widow where Frankie's story unfolds. As with all movie biographies, you never know how much you're watching is based on fact and what has been enhanced or diluted for dramatic effect. In this screenplay, Frankie is a charismatic young singer, who apparently had no problem charming women out of their clothes and their money, the latter of which apparently went to support his drug habit. Frankie's drug use is somewhat glossed over and the screenplay tends to concentrate more on Frankie's manipulative ways with these three women and how he, at one time or another, managed to convince all three of them that there were the only women in the world. Baby-faced Larenz Tate plays Frankie with a sincerity and sexiness that possibly oversells Frankie's real womanizing, but he manages to keep Frankie likable despite some of the slimy things he does. The three women in Frankie's life are well played by Halle Berry, Viveca A. Fox, and Lela Rochon, with Fox a standout in probably the best performance of her career. The musical sequences are troublesome...Tate works hard at lip-syncing authentically, but I never bought the lip-syncing in the film...all of the musical sequences in the film come off sounding "canned." Still, Tate and the ladies commit to their roles and do make the movie worth watching. I don't know how accurate the film is as a biography of Frankie Lyman, but it is a very entertaining film that will effortlessly hold interest.
-
Fromac126 March 2004Why Do Fools Fall In Love is an unexpected gem. In the previews it looks like a movie-of-the-week bio of a long dead celebrity, but this is actually a carefully crafted, well acted and visually fascinating film. With films that claim to be based on actual events, it is important to consider that those events have been interpreted by a writer, director, and actors. Whether this film accurately portrays events in the life of 1950's singing sensation Frankie Lymon is immaterial to the success if the film. The fact remains, whether truthful or fictional, the film is interesting to look at, entertainingly written, and cleverly constructed.
Director Gregory Nava has sculpted the film into a richly intertwined series of flashbacks, reminiscences and moments out of pop history. The performance scenes, where we see Frankie Lymon before an audience, either as a raw kid or as a fading icon, are wonderfully integral to the story, and not just blatant rationalization of the sound track cd on sale soon at music stores everywhere. Nava allows the innate energy of the music to flow into the film through lively editing, camera movement, colourful setting and costume. Particularly interesting are the long continuous Steadycam shots and the processing of footage to look like old home movies or 1950's live TV images.
Larenz Tate (The Postman) made an explosive impact early in his career with his role of O-Dog in Menace II Society, and then excelled on the short lived TV series South Central. Here, he is considerably reigned in either by the film makers, or by his own sense of how Lymon should be played. His performance, although capable, seems shallow at times and never really delivers any insight to what makes the man tick. The film makers knew that the strength of the story was in the perspective given it by the three women who each claim to be Lymon's widow and entitled to a share in his estate. The character of Lymon, as seen from these different points of view, is at times childishly naive, brutally malicious or tremendously generous and unselfish.
The film's best performance is from Vivica A. Fox (Booty Call, Independence Day) who plays Lymon's `first' wife Elisabeth Waters. Fox mixes a wry intelligence with a crude and unpolished demeanor to portray the woman who so loves Lymon in the decline of his career, that she will work as a prostitute to pay for his drug rehabilitation in a private clinic. The tragic irony of her pouring so much of herself into Lymon's empty shell is that she survives the giving while he can never find what he needs in the taking.
The two other wives are played very ably by Halle Berry (Bulworth) who appears as Zola Taylor of The Platters and Lela Rochon (Waiting To Exhale) as Emira Eagle. Zola is attracted by Lymon's talent and charisma and is so won over by his sincerity and her own belief in his character that she allows him to destroy all that she has earned as he destroys himself. Emira is the wholesome, God-fearing school teacher who finds the committed romantic in Lymon and manages to help him settle into a simple domesticity for a time before the call of his lost celebrity takes him from her in a last attempt to reclaim his fame.
The period detail is vivid and slides up and down a continuum that ranges from deliberately romanticized to unbearably sordid. The film makers have wisely avoided the trap of dwelling on Lymon's heroin addiction. There is very little portrayal of the actual use of drugs, just an examination of their effect on Lymon and on the lives the women who love him. -
Lextical17 September 2005An interesting (but flawed account) of the battle over pop star Frankie Lymon's estate by three women claiming to be his widow...
The story portrayed here is actually semi-fictitious, but the background story of Frankie's life is entirely true.
From his starts as a fresh-faced Harlem kid to a haunted drug addict, Larenz Tate (one of the most underrated talents in Hollywood) shines as dreamer Frankie, and does well to give perspective to Frankie's conflicting attitudes towards his relationships with the women, which the script muddles- Frankie appears shallow yet introspective at the same time.
Halle Berry tries to make more of her understated and thin role as Zola Taylor, wifey no. 2, but provides an adequate performance.
The most developed of the three female characters, is Elizabeth Waters (Viveca A. Fox). Loyal yet dishonest, gritty Elizabeth is the only character aside from Frankie that seems to be real. This is a combined effort by the characterisation and the performance by Fox.
And Lela Rochon does very well cast against type, as a school marm dragged into this battle. Rochon clearly understands the character well, and manages to make her mark on the story despite being developed late into the film.
The period detail of this piece is well captured over the 20-odd years that this story is set (particularly the performances of Frankie with the Teenagers), and even the small scenes which provide insight into Frankie's younger days.
The main flaws of this film lie essentially in the struggle to develop some of the themes. As mentioned earlier, Frankie's reasons for bigamy are not established at all or how he copes this with this, or whether one of the wives in particular is lying about the legitimacy of her marriage.
Some of the characterisation is a bit thin, caused by some of the later events of the film and because this deep story of fame, loss, betrayal and torment has such a muddled structure the whole film comes across as sketchy by the end which clearly was not intended.
But never the less this is an adequate tribute, to the world of fame and its inevitable clingers-on, and those just caught up in the action. This will never be top of its genre however... -
Boyo-23 November 1999I enjoyed a lot of this movie but I would have liked a tad more insight into the life of Frankie Lyman. In one scene, he talks about his abusive father, but other than that, there was little revealed about him. I understand it was mostly from his wives point-of-view, but it have helped the story along. In addition, you couldn't tell which of the wives was spinning a tale in order to get a larger settlement.
The large cast was very talented and I especially appreciated that the make-up on the three women was not overdone to make them age. All in all, I enjoyed it very much, but it could have been much better. -
Why Do Fools Fall in Love? (1998) was an interesting picture about the troubled life of Frankie Lymon. Three women claiming to be his wife are in court to fight over his meager estate. Gregory Nava (fresh off of SELENA) does a better job in capturing the lost soul that was Frankie Lymon. But he just scratches the surface of this very bizarre and complicated individual. Larenz Tate does one hell of a job in the role of Frankie. His wives (Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox, Lela Rochon) are very good in their roles. An entertaining film that I wished was more in depth.
A good start but it needs to be fleshed out some more. Maybe Mr. Nava should have focused more on the group when they were younger and rising through the top of the charts. A younger actor would have been helpful as well (Frankie Lymon was a small dude). But the film wasn't all that bad, they even showed us a side of Mr. Lymon I never even knew existed. Not an offensive film, just a nice timer waster.
Recommended. -
rhkiii26 October 2003This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.
-
apocalypse later3 June 1999The filmmakers know you've heard this tale before - true life chronicle of a young singing star's rise and tragic fall - and so they wisely downplay the standard bio trappings and instead focus on a raucously entertaining ride through Frankie Lymon's woman troubles. The smart screenplay revolves around the court battle of Lymon's three wives (yes, three!) over song royalties, leading to vivid (and often humorously contradictory) flashbacks of their lives with the singer. Larenz Tate is magnetic playing the many different sides of the ever-changing lead character, but the film ultimately belongs to Halle Berry, Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon as the wives. Each is allowed to shine as the trio portrays 30 years of changes in the women's lives, with Fox drop-dead hilarious as the most outrageous of the three. There's beautifully detailed '60s-era cinematography, sets, costuming and musical numbers, plus a side-splitting turn by Miguel Nunez as a young Little Richard. Major issues (such as '60s race relations) are barely glanced at, but what this film lacks in depth, it makes up for ten-fold in entertainment value. A winner!
-
A very good film despite being uneven at times. It is most shocking that wives 1 and 2 would take Lyman back after each episode. Wife number 3 represented the very opposite of 1 and 2. She was prim and proper but knew how to get uptight when the judge ruled against her.
Larenz Tate, as Frankie Lyman, is absolutely terrific in the lead role. Tate is a very powerful performer and he knows how to very well evoke the Lyman of drug use, despair and a brief wonderful career.
The court rooms scenes are great and Little Richard steals the show by playing himself in one particular scene in the witness chair.
The music and dancing scenes are well staged and the title song rings out true to form.
Hell certainly had no fury here when 3 women were scorned.
Frankie Lyman was certainly a victim of himself. He certainly showed his inability to maintain relationships. -
bobkurtz-126 January 2005Director Gregory Nava misunderstands the complex, drug-addicted Frankie Lymon getting some of it right and much of it wrong.
His fatal mistake from beginning to end is playing Frankie as a late teen instead of the 13 teen year old he was. This deprives one and all of seeing the simple true source of Frankie's problems. Too much fame, too fast and too young. Larenz Tate struggles with the role where he sometimes looks more like a young Sammy Davis than Frankie. The singing and dancing sequences are acceptable and Tate brings the music off adequately.
The racial issues, which the film deals with, have some truth, but the details are inaccurate. In 1957 audiences in some venues were segregated, but in others were mixed and not a problem. The idea that this music helped end segregation is mentioned, but not really seen, except for the incredible scene of Frankie dancing with a white girl on 'The Big Beat'. This big surprise is very effectively handled and has major impact.
I don't think Nava understands doo-wop or the relationship of the lead singer to the backups. There is a big difference between the Platters, essentially a white pop adultish Ink Spots type group and the Teenagers who were rock 'n' roll, appealing to those under 21. This just never comes across.
Nava does do some clever things, pointed out in the director's cut (not recommended, way too 'Goody, Goody') as he uses a continuous roll camera to suck you in and wrap you around the scene he is filming.
The attempts to stylize 'Fools' mostly works. The theme of creating the four main characters as Earth (Lela Rochon as Emira Eagle), Fire (Halle Berry as Zola Taylor), Water (Vivca Fox as Elizabeth Waters) as the 3 wives to play off Wind (Tate-Frankie) is clever and consistent. The use of scatchy 8MM flash backs is a bit over done, but gets the point of flashbacks across.
All three of the parts of the wives suffer from being overly dramatic (and over acted)with the need to fit truth to the story, rather than the other way around.
Most disturbing is the handling of Frankie's music. Its hard to tell his solo work from his Teenagers stuff and the sequencing of the music is out of order. At least Nava makes it clear Frankie was not a 'One hit wonder' and he had four years of outstanding singles and (not mentioned at all) some super albums, mostly as a solo. As one of the wives mentions, above all "he could sing my panties off". If you don't think so, play Frankie's version of "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" followed by the weak, sad Diana Ross version.
Next time Mr. Gregory Nava when doing an autobiography spend as much time keeping your facts straight and in order, as you do with clever stylization.
Not recommended unless your a fan of any of the elements involved. Wanna a good music bio from more or less the same period and effectively dealing with drug addiction, watch "Ray" the magnificent Ray Charles story. -
Roger-8125 October 1999I don't believe this movie didn't do better in the ratings. I thought it was clever and entertaining. Halle Berry is beautiful and Larenz Tate was engaging as Frankie Lymon. Again, Gregory Nava is a director to watch for. I didn't realize he also did Selena and that was a movie I also enjoyed. Nothing heavy or slick, no action, fires, explosions, just good story telling about characters and their relationships with one another.
-
billcr1228 August 2012Truth is stranger than fiction, and Frankie Lymon proved it with the life he lived. The title taken from the 1950s hit song, matches perfectly, the story told here. Lymon was only thirteen years old when he became a star. His career was over, five years, at the age of eighteen, and fell into heroin use, which killed him at twenty five; a sad life, indeed.
Instead of focusing on the music, the film follows the court case of the three wives that Mr. Lymon left behind. Halle Berry, Lela Rochon, and Vivica A. Fox play the three women with style and humor. They are a singer, a schoolteacher, and a woman who became a prostitute to support Lymon. What an incredible story, with a funny script, good music, and solid acting from the three sexy and beautiful actresses, especially my personal favorite, Halle Berry. Worth watching for the soundtrack alone. -
CriticsVoiceVideo23 March 2021That's about it for this movie. Vivica Fox steals all the scenes she's in but it's not enough to sustain a boring tale like this. Larenz Tate is way too cute and sexy to be playing the gremlin Frankie Lymon. I don't know how accurate this biopic is either.
-
jlacerra1 June 2004Other commentators seem to feel this is, or should have been, a movie about the life of Frankie Lyman. However, as the title indicates, it is really about three women who fell in love ... with a guy named Frankie Lyman. As the movie brings home fairly early, there is not much about Frankie to love. He is portrayed as a shallow, self-centered fool, with as little understanding of the music business as of the women he scams into being his wives.
Did Frankie have raw talent? Of course he did. Did Frankie do anything to develop this raw talent into an enduring musical career? No evidence of that. So much for Frankie. Larenz Tate plays him fairly well on stage, and rather flat off stage. We are not given a clue as to what the attraction may have been.
And, since two of the women were relatively unaware of his celebrity status when they were first taken with him, and the third had a celebrity status of her own, we expect the movie to answer the title question. The women do not entirely succeed in this, but they are terrifically watchable while they try.
Halle Berry is great as Zola Taylor, singer with the Platters. Viveca Fox is almost as good as the home girl who turns hooker to support Frankie, and Lela Rachon is perfect as the goodie-two-shoes last wife, a God-fearing and educated working woman.
The music scenes are good, and the courtroom scenes are outrageously unrealistic.
This would have been a better movie if they had not specifically based the story on Lyman, but only alluded to him. In this manner, the Hollywoodization of the story would have been less noticeable. Unfortunately, realizing that such a course would inevitably preclude using the Lyman hits, they chose to make this a triography of the wives, and allow them to play off Tate's weak Lyman persona.
All in all, a good couple of hours of enjoyment that is not too compelling. When it was over, we found ourselves asking, "Why DID these three fools fall in love?" -
xyumaboy15 August 1999The most interesting thing about the movie was the insider's look at a tortured artist after his popularity is gone. Frankie Lymon was Michael Jackson (of the Jackson 5 vintage) before Michael Jackson. The film never really brought out the fact that Frankie was 13 when he hit it big with the Teenagers (probably because the director didn't think Larenz Tate could pull it off). 3 wives fighting over his estate, mercurial rise and fall, and dead at 25, there is a good story here. The movie however falls a little short. I recommend with slight reservation.
-
valstone5217 November 2023This is the third time I've watched this tripe. I've been doing some reading about lymon. He was 13 or 14 when singing with the teenagers. Larenz tate could not and did not pass for this age in the movie. The only thing that matched might have been the height. The three women were all supposed to be, between 18 and 19 when he met them. Even while telling how they met, none of them could have passed for those ages. And for all them to have been married to him, tells you about their morals. This was a kid, so I would call them, child molesters. Then you think about the people who married them, didn't they need proof of ages??? This movie is sooo fictional, only good thing was the music. Talk about a sham.
-
mls41824 July 2022All three women are stunning and entertaining.
Viveca A. Fox has the best and most challenging role and she NAILS IT. She is absolutely amazing.
This film is a must see. It really has it all. You will adore these three actresses after viewing. -
bronzesrv8 January 2021This was not a bio about Frankie Lymon! This was a movie about the three trashy females who went after his money, who didn't seem to even give a damn about Frankie in the first place. You're better off watching documentaries or interviews from friends and family members. Was the movie entertaining? Yes, but as a bio for theYoung Troubled Soul who lost his life so young... NO! It was disgraceful and Offensive. As far as I'm concerned, they killed him a second time with this movie.
-
davispittman21 March 2016This movie really is very well made and is entertaining. Halle berry was great as Zola Taylor, she really had the persona and what Zola was like down pat. Vivica A. Fox was awesome too! She was so spirited and energetic in her role all throughout the film. The costume design was spot on throughout all the different time periods. Also, the script is very well written and thorough, it really showed the talent of the writers. This movie is funny, entertaining, dramatic when it wants to be, and is acted very very well! 8/10 for Why do fools fall in love. A great fun time! I would highly recommend and suggest this movie! I'm surprised this film did not win more awards than it ended up winning, I think the actors deserved more recognition for their great work in this Frankie Lymon story.
-
rdoyle2913 February 2023Larenz Tate stars as Frankie Lymon, who was 13 when he had a giant hit with the titular song, and was 25 when he died after about a decade of drug abuse. In the mid 80's, Vivica Fox appears claiming to be his widow and demanding royalty payments from record executive Paul Mazursky. Halle Berry and Lela Rochon turn up also claiming to have been married to Lymon and the matter goes to court.
This is a potentially interesting story turned into a pretty terrible film. There are several ways you could tell this story, and the script seems to try all of them, but none successfully. Most of the story is told in flashback as characters testify in court (which lawyer is questioning which witness seems completely random), but sometimes not ... and some story related in "testimony" clearly has nothing to do with the trial.
All the leads do okay, but with characters that are so undefined they struggle to make much out of them. Lymon's story is told only through the perspectives of his brides, and it jumps around so much, you really get no picture of who he was. He's successful and talented and then not and then a drug addict and a loving husband and then a thief and a wife beater. It's very hard to care about this cypher that seems to only have Tate's charm going for him. The three women end up having less personality, so by the time it's over, you realize you just don't care who wins. -
pooh-2428 August 1999Frankie Lymon died of a drug overdose in 1968.As a big one hit wonder with his song "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" Lymon might have received some royalties from the record, but didn't. When three former wives hear a version of the song done by Diana Ross,they want to sue for royalties but first each of the three women must win a court case to prove who was the real and legal wife of Frankie Lymon. The movie "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" is a shoddy and disrespectful look into the life of Frankie Lymon. The movie is truly about these three women trying to win the royalties of the song, not to prove they really loved Frankie Lymon. It is bad enough that Hollywood makes a movie about a black male celebrity that Hollywood always brings up the details of Lymon's drug use and points to him for the audience that he is a loser after his singing days are over. We never get a true look at Frankie Lymon and his life.Where did the movie fail in one big detail? Lymon was not as short as the actor who portrayed him ,the talented Larenz Tate,he grew up to over six feet tall.His singing voice changed of course,he couldn't sing those sweet songs of his youth,but he had a decent voice in his adult years. But no one wanted the grown up Frankie Lymon.They wanted this little kid with the falsetto voice,not the adult Frankie Lymon and he couldn't get noticed in the new R&B market that came to pass in the sixties. His story ,and the story of his former group the Teenagers,was done quite well in a PBS documentary about the group called "I Promise To Remember".This was shown several years ago and it is worth while to look at about what happen to the group ,where they are now(where they were at the time of the broadcast),and and what happened to Frankie in truth.It is a well done program. The movie is not,however.Filled with profanity,the women come off as bitter uneducated jerks only going for the money.The film and the film makers in essence then to degrade the subject as a three timing drug taking failure.The film lowers itself then as the wives complain about Frankie and start the feminist cant about men in general and Frankie in particular.It doesn't bother the filmakers that Lymon's real life family has to watch him being dragged thru the mud and embarrassed and that they have to have him and themselves disgraced in this fashion. The three women got thankfully very little after in the end and the viewers of this film receive the same,very little.Frankie Lymon was not perfect,he was no saint.But this film disgraces him ,just like Bird did to Charlie Parker.In the end of the film we see the real Lymon singing "Goody-Goody" on a TV show.It is the only glimpse of the real Lymon in the movie.But after this film Frankie Lymon shall be looked at in one way and one way only,as a tragic disgrace.
-
warrenslist1 April 2020REVIEW WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE?
If you just came in from Outer Space and wondered what all the fuss was about at the dawn of Rock & Roll.....this is the movie that should begin your journey.
It's not, merely a Biography of singer Frankie Lyman. Rather it's a wonderful recreation of an era where, for the first time, Teenagers could say 'this is our music'.
Rock & Roll was supposed to be a 'fad'. It became an Art Form.
It also, most importantly, brought young people of many racial backgrounds together.
As the Production Manager of Radio Documentaries on The Beatles, Elvis Presley and the 64 hour Evolution of Rock (the music that made the world turn 'round) I would argue that Why Do Fools Fall in Love 'opens the door' to The Rock & Roll Era at least as well and, arguably, better than any other movie.
That 'door' closed as Elvis went into The Army and The U.S. Government began The Payola Hearings to, hopefully, wipe it out.
They failed.
That's why 'Why Do Fools Fall in Love' is such and important Movie. In effect, it depicts both The Beginning and The End of The Innocence of Rock & Roll.
Frankie Lyman and most of The Rock & Roll Pioneers, who could not or would not adjust, were left behind. They were replaced by Symphonies for The Kids by Phil Spector and Black Music for White Kids by Berry Gordy's Motown. It would be England that would 'light the fire' again, led not just by The Beatles but by American Shel Talmy. But that's Another Story and, perhaps one day, Another Movie.
Why Do Fools Fall in Love was, clearly, a Labor of Love for all involved. From a Production standpoint I can't image how it could be better. The Atmosphere, the Costuming, the Production Numbers, The Singing and, most importantly, The Spirit are spot on.
Find it and enjoy. -
nicholls_les12 November 2018Larenz Tate does a reasonable job as the lead character Frankie Lymon, although he looks nothing like him. Halle Berry was brilliant as Zola Taylor of 'The Platters' Vivica A. Fox and Lela Rochon as the other wives were also very good. Probably not 100% accurate but there is some great music and a surprise appearance as himself. The movie is worth watching just for the music and the actors playing 'The Platters' looked really good, Those playing 'The Kinks' not so good. There was a good mixture of drama and humor, but this is a sad story that shows how corrupt the music industry is and how talented musicians and singers were ripped off by the companies they signed with. Sadly not much has changed today. Although the film ends with a settlement, history shows the judgement was later overturned and Morris Levy kept the royalties for Frankie's most successful song from whcih the title of this movie comes.
-
broadfoot27 September 2003"Why Do Fools Fall In Love" is really just another average rock star biography. Larenz Tate is great as Frankie Lymon, as are Halle Berry, Vivica Fox and Lela Rochon as the three "wives" locked in a battle over his estate, but the film is way overlong. The title is certainly appropriate. For most of his career, Lymon was a habitual drug user and was at times abusive to many of the women who loved him. It seemed nobody who stood in his way was safe, especially that poor little dog he accidentally dropped out of an apartment window. When he died in 1968, many of his fans and friends were shocked at first, but then later they probably realized that he had paid the expected price for his lifestyle.
I bought this one in a previously-viewed movie bin at my local video store, but now I think I will return it. I don't think it's worth watching more than once.
Rating: **