frankwiener And do remarkably well? She was Annie Sullivan in her Oscar winning performance of "The Miracle Worker". She played a suicidal housewife in "The Slender Thread". She was none other than the iconic Mrs. Robinson, a cold, intimidating Class A "witch" (note the "w" only to beat the censor) in "The Graduate". She portrayed a kindly, compassionate stage diva as grotesquely deformed John Merrick's unflappable, socially connected patron in "The Elephant Man". In "The Prisoner of Second Avenue", Ms. Bancroft comes full circle, this time not only as Edna Edison, a name oddly void of ethnicity, but as close as ever to Anna Maria Italiano, the daughter of a dress cutter from the Bronx. She is as authentic as a 100% born and bred New Yorker and very, very funny.Having just seen the film, I was doing my usual swimming laps today and thought that I would drown when I suddenly started thinking of Edna (Bancroft) trying to explain to her distracted husband (Jack Lemmon) that they had been robbed. Being robbed in real life is a very serious and even traumatic experience, but watching Bancroft explain the situation to a preoccupied Mel in the midst of a destroyed apartment is just plain hilarious, "What does robbed mean? They come in, they take things out. You had 'em, now they got 'em. They used to be yours, now they're theirs. We've been robbed!" Now, that is funny! While Neil Simon could write the lines, who could deliver them as well as Anne Bancroft, who wasn't even widely celebrated for comedy as she was for her much more serious , dramatic roles.Jack Lemmon is also excellent, but we've seen him before as a sympathetic, lovable schlemiel (or is it schlmazel?). Once again, he fulfills our high expectations and never, ever disappoints.I lived through 1975 as a young adult, but I thought that the reporter's periodic voiceover was absolutely terrible to the point of embarrassment. I can't imagine why that nonsense ever survived the cutting room. This film would have been much better without that hogwash, which I didn't find to be funny at all. Bancroft, on the other hand, had me in stitches as a naturally brilliant comedian. Who knew?

Arcturus1980 Very fond though I am of Jack Lemmon and Anne Bancroft, I could not have known how lucky I was to find a VHS copy of this movie (yes, I still use a VCR). Any big fan of theirs should prioritize it. It is jam-packed with humor and Lemmon's endearingly characteristic pathos. It was another tailor-made role for him, and Bancroft played her part to perfection. It is also very much a New York City movie in that Manhattan is not simply the backdrop, but is experienced as such. It has been my observation that spiraling into madness is always funnier than madness itself. The movie is after all based on "a serious play that's very funny" to quote the playwright and adapter Neil Simon. Although it soars as a comedy and certainly does not go awry as a drama, I give it nine stars instead of ten because it is considerably more amusing to me than it is emotive. It is great comedy and good drama, as apparently intended.Sylvester Stallone's memorable cameo is a much appreciated bonus!

vincentlynch-moonoi I contrast this film with "The Out Of Towners". Both films were starring Jack Lemmon. Both were about a frustrated man battling New York City. But, "The Out Of Towners" ("TOOT") was strangely uplifting and I enjoyed it immensely, while this film is downright depressing.It's not Jack Lemmon's fault. His acting is downright perfect. And let's face it, there was and remains no actor who could play frustration better than Jack Lemmon. But in "TOOT", Lemmon's character was likable...you were rooting for him in his quest to overcome the forces against him. Here, however, Lemmon's character wallows in his troubles.A problem I have with this film is that it is often listed as a comedy-drama. I don't eve think it's a black comedy. There's nothing funny about a man going through a nervous breakdown. Yes, there is humor here and there, but this is not a funny film. That's a general gripe I have -- too many review entities think that any film that has some humor in it is a comedy. That's wrong.The best acting here, however, is that of Anne Bancroft as the wife. Gene Daks is good as the brother.I think what's sad here is that as Lemmon begins to recover, the pressure that has been on his wife begins to destroy her life.Maybe I'm also just a little tired of Neil Simon. Did he ever do anything really different? Bottom line: Okay, I watched it once, I would not want to watch it again. And I don't usually say that about films with Jack Lemmon.

dougdoepke The movie really is a tightrope walk. One false move and the comedy about a nervous breakdown turns into really bad taste. Fortunately, screenwriter Simon and actor Lemmon appear made for each other, their balancing act superbly carried out. Plus, Bancroft makes a likable foil for the dyspeptic Mel. The two reside in a Manhattan tower apartment. Trouble is they rub up against big city frustrations daily. So emotions begin to build, and when Mel is fired from his job, he goes into a slow-motion breakdown. Doesn't sound amusing, but the way it's brought off, it is, and we don't even feel guilty for laughing. For instance, there's the promiscuous stewardesses next door whose excesses cause a wall-banging contest with an annoyed (jealous?) Mel. Or the outdoor stoop where Mel goes to let off steam and get soaked by a combative upfloor neighbor. Then there's the array of exchanges between Mel, Edna, and brother Harry that are both revealing and, at times, poignant. Add the unexpected role reversals at movie's end, and we know writer Simon is reflecting on not just on one man's frustrations, but on life in the city and family life, as well. I'm still not clear, however, on the reasons for Mel's turnaround, but maybe I missed something.All in all, it's a beautifully executed turn with really tricky material that might be likened to 1944's Arsenic And Old Lace, minus the comedic body count.