This is a movie that operates on more than one level, most of which is so subtle as to be nearly imperceptible --or at least seems to be imperceptible, dwarfed as everything else is by the manifest opprobrium of the main character.<br /><br />Superficially what we all clearly see is a dark comedy about a despicable cad, Lenny, who is not just despicable, but despicable with oblivious aplomb, a role played masterfully by Charles Grodin, the aforementioned opprobrious main character and star of the movie. That factoid right there sets up a dynamic wherein people are either going to love this movie or hate this movie, based strictly on how Lenny strikes them. Some find humor in this guy, but others do not. Many are off-put. So off-put, in fact, that they can't get past it. In that way I would compare this 1972 film to a more contemporary one, Sideways (2004). In Sideways the main characters, Jack in particular (played by Thomas Haden Church), were so personally offensive, in word, in thought, and in deed, that many people intensely disliked the movie solely on that basis. People say to me, "I hated Sideways." I ask them why and they say, "I couldn't stand Jack." Some perspective is called for here. The viewer is supposed to dislike Jack in Sideways. That was intended. Maybe find him a little entertaining --or not-- but disliking him is the intended effect. Likewise here with Lenny in The Heartbreak Kid. We are supposed to dislike Lenny. We can laugh at him too if we want to, and he is funny, but disapproval and repulsion is the intent.<br /><br />At the very least Lenny's actions make most people just plain awkwardly uncomfortable. The movie thereby evokes certain feelings and emotions in the viewer that aren't often evoked by movies, which, all by itself, makes this movie unique. As a work of art it makes it a success. And that's just the superficiality of it. There's more to it than just that. <br /><br />Bruce Jay Friedman, the writer, and Neil Simon, the director, were actually making some much deeper ethnic observations and social commentary here. Commentary about Jews, about Jews and Jewish culture in modern America, about Gentiles too, and about how Jews and Gentiles interact in that modern America. All that. But mostly the observations and commentary was about the condition of young Jewish men (some of the very same turf that was being plowed by novelist Philip Roth in about the same era as this movie was released). Lenny, the character played by Grodin, is the almost stereo-typical young angst-filled Jewish male, desperate to break out from the box of tradition which was preordained for him, and who rubbishes his very Jewish bride on their honeymoon to lust after a very Gentile blond, Cybil Shepherd as Kelly Corcoran, all as a part of that angst condition. The Corcoran family, meanwhile, presenting themselves as the cold, aloof uptight WASPs.<br /><br />Friedman had a lot to say here. Simon executed it well. Probably among Simon's best work, although not ever really recognized as such. A remake with Ben Stiller in the Lenny role is now in the works, soon in the offing. We'll have to see if they improve upon the original. I have my doubts that they can even come close. While not perfect, the original is a good movie. But perhaps the time for this story has passed. It was relevant, pertinent, and apropos for 1972. Not so sure about that in 2007. Not to disparage Ben Stiller, but the underlying themes of this movie wouldn't mean as much today as it did 35 years ago.<br /><br />Grodin and Shepherd give good performances. Eddie Albert did too. I heard Cybil say in an interview not all that long ago that she always wished they'd done a sequel to it, and that she was still open to the possibility. <br /><br />Very much worth seeing before one sees any remaking of it.