The most fascinating part of this movie is the brilliant scene in which Frankie performs the song "Baby Baby" on stage as recounted by Little Richard. This entire scene is done with one shot and NO cuts. It begins outside the theater as the camera follows the theater patrons inside. As we enter the theater the music of the Platters swells as they are in the final strains of "The Great Pretender." As the camera goes down the aisle it does a 360 pan of the audience and then goes on-stage and circles around the Platters as they finish their song, take a bow and exit stage right. Frankie kisses Zola Taylor and then gets slapped. He and the Teenagers then rush on stage and perform their number to thunderous applause. Everything just described happens on film without a single cut, everyone performing flawlessly, including the camera man. Absolutely brilliant work!

An 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...

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.

Why 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.