A young man, his wife, and his incompetent case worker travel across country to find his birth parents.A young man, his wife, and his incompetent case worker travel across country to find his birth parents.A young man, his wife, and his incompetent case worker travel across country to find his birth parents.
- Awards
- 1 win & 10 nominations total
Beth Stern
- Jane
- (as Beth Ostrosky)
Cynthia LaMontagne
- Sandra
- (as Cynthia Lamontagne)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
6.720.7K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Why or why not is `Flirting with Disaster' a typical Hollywood movie?
`Flirting with Disaster' is definitely a typical Hollywood movie in many aspects but not in all of them. It fits the form of classical cinema or classical paradigm in that the director, David O. Russell, does not get distracted from telling the story with filmmaking techniques. It is a clear and precise comedy that never leaves the characters in action, and is done so in a way that works unlike many other films of this genre released today. The film is structured narratively, with a clearly defined conflict from the very beginning. Ben Stiller shines in his performance as a neurotic new father who is trying desperately to find his biological parents in order to name his newborn son. At one point in the film the viewer begins to become anxious and wonder if the same problem for the protagonist, Stiller, is going to continue on in the same form as it has in the past half of the movie, but luckily Russell then changes the flow of the film and brings it to a much more comedic finish than the first half.
The photography is shot in full and long shots throughout most of the movie. Russell must have used deep-focus shots when filming because the surrounding background is clear around the characters, using a wide-angle or short lens. The characters are never off of the screen except for a few instances when we see a plane flying or a car driving and then we have voice-overs. The dialogue is always continuous- there is never a break in the script which works well because the screenplay is well written and clever on its insights on the little inconveniences of everyday life. Although all of these events are too unbelievable too happen all at once, they are all real life comedic situations that could happen to anyone. When compiled together with this plot line, we have this film before us.
Although this is a typical movie in the sense that it does not break any barriers or do anything creatively in its techniques in telling the story, the plot and screenplay do enough justice in making the film entertaining for the audience and one of those films you can just sit down, relax, and have fun viewing because it makes sense and fits together. This aspect is not like many Hollywood films released today, with their gaping holes that leave the viewer feeling unfulfilled. Altogether this was a good film, even though it did fit many of the typical Hollywood stereotypes.
The photography is shot in full and long shots throughout most of the movie. Russell must have used deep-focus shots when filming because the surrounding background is clear around the characters, using a wide-angle or short lens. The characters are never off of the screen except for a few instances when we see a plane flying or a car driving and then we have voice-overs. The dialogue is always continuous- there is never a break in the script which works well because the screenplay is well written and clever on its insights on the little inconveniences of everyday life. Although all of these events are too unbelievable too happen all at once, they are all real life comedic situations that could happen to anyone. When compiled together with this plot line, we have this film before us.
Although this is a typical movie in the sense that it does not break any barriers or do anything creatively in its techniques in telling the story, the plot and screenplay do enough justice in making the film entertaining for the audience and one of those films you can just sit down, relax, and have fun viewing because it makes sense and fits together. This aspect is not like many Hollywood films released today, with their gaping holes that leave the viewer feeling unfulfilled. Altogether this was a good film, even though it did fit many of the typical Hollywood stereotypes.
Proper hearty belly laughs
Did not expect to laugh so much i have to say for a film that i had no idea existed and was made 24 years ago.
What got me interested was it being a David O Russell film i had not seen and his stuff i had seen was consistenly very good.
Dysfunction brought to the extreme. The line that best sums up this film would be "you come in here and lick my wife's armpit"
Excellent, cheered me right up it has!
What got me interested was it being a David O Russell film i had not seen and his stuff i had seen was consistenly very good.
Dysfunction brought to the extreme. The line that best sums up this film would be "you come in here and lick my wife's armpit"
Excellent, cheered me right up it has!
Hilarious!
This is one of the few movies I find seriously funny. Stiller, Leoni, Moore, everyone does a killer job, and humor emerges from a variety of silly-crazy and intellectual sources, so you can respect yourself when you laugh. Human neuroses give rise to a lot of sympathetic laughter. Most of it is human frailty and absurdity. Tea Leoni is hilarious, and does a great job of getting on your nerves, and trying to get into Stiller's pants behind his wife's back while still being completely neurotic and self-absorbed. Her psycho-babble is highly effective. Stiller plays the usual awkward introspective man who lacks self confidence. His parents are magnificent, and so are his 'real' parents. I loved it. highly recommended. What else are you going to watch?
a surprising delight !
I came on this 1996 comedy by chance, and it exceeded all my expectations. An unpromising premise - an adopted man (Ben Stiller), to resolve some "issues", sets out in search of his birth parents with wife (Patricia Arquette), new child, & representative from the adoption agency (Tea Leoni) in tow - provides rich fodder for hilarity as this Freudian odyssey careens from one disaster to another, turning into a psycho-sexual catastrophe. A very funny script is aided by the stellar work of Mary Tyler Moore and George Segal as the adoptive parents - none too thrilled with this quest - and Lily Tomlin and Alan Alda as the post-Woodstock birth parents. A laugh riot which is well worth seeing !
Obnoxiously unfunny
Why is it that people think grating, annoying, OBNOXIOUS characters are funny ? It's hard to laugh when you just want someone, ANYONE to smack those people up the back of the head as hard as they can. The dialogue goes nowhere, the scenes go nowhere and all in all you feel like you wasted 2 hours of your life watching something that might have worked as a Saturday Night Live skit. Avoid at all costs. I'm the type of person that can always find something redeeming in a film and there is NONE to be found here.
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to Lily Tomlin, Ben Stiller and David O. Russell did not get along and had many heated arguments.
- GoofsCameraman visible in mirror in detectives office.
- Quotes
Mr. Coplin: San Diego has a big carjacking problem. They bump you, and when you stop, they mutilate you and take your car.
- Alternate versionsThe VHS and laserdisc versions (but not the DVD release) feature additional scenes during the end credits, not included in the original theatrical cut, showing the whereabouts of Tina and Tony and Paul.
- How long is Flirting with Disaster?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Біда біду тягне
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $7,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $14,702,438
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $164,458
- Mar 24, 1996
- Gross worldwide
- $14,702,438
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






