Allen Bauer (Tom Hanks) crawls across a rocky beach in a soaked suit
Film review

Splash

1984 · Directed by Ron Howard · 1h 50m

In a sentenceA mermaid gets the romance, John Candy gets the laughs, and Tom Hanks looks grateful for both

Allen Bauer (Tom Hanks) finds the woman of his dreams in Madison (Daryl Hannah), but her fins complicate the prospect of an ordinary romance. He wants to be with her; the difficulty is that he is human and she is a mermaid. Freddie Bauer (John Candy) and Walter Kornbluth (Eugene Levy) also figure in a courtship where attraction brings practical problems of its own. Allen and Madison have to consider what being together means when the differences between them extend beyond anything a human couple normally faces.

Fi1m review

Ron Howard’s mermaid romance works because Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah make the attraction worth believing in. John Candy supplies welcome mischief; an uneven screenplay is the price of an otherwise warm, funny evening.

Splash is a warm, funny romance that survives some untidy writing because its lovers are worth spending time with. Ron Howard takes the attraction between a man and a mermaid seriously enough for the comedy to have something at stake. There is plenty of room for foolishness, but little appetite for making affection itself look foolish. The central relationship is persuasive enough to carry a plot that does not always withstand much scrutiny.

Tom Hanks gives Allen Bauer the right mixture of eagerness and uncertainty. An ordinary man in a fantastic romance can become a dull spectator, forever waiting for the more interesting person to do something peculiar. Here his reactions are part of the pleasure: the attraction makes him vulnerable without making him tiresome. We believe he wants to be with Madison, and that simple conviction does more useful work than another explanation of how a mermaid romance is supposed to function.

Daryl Hannah is just as important, since Madison could easily have been reduced to a collection of attractive peculiarities. She gives the comedy an openness that makes the desire feel mutual, rather than something Allen has invented for himself. We were more moved than we expected by how readily the two performers let affection show through their comic exchanges. The film earns that response through their ease together, without requiring us to stop noticing the absurdity of the situation.

John Candy, as Freddie Bauer, supplies a welcome change of emphasis. He gets a generous share of the laughs, and his comic confidence keeps the romance from becoming too pleased with its own sweetness. There is a slight imbalance here: the supporting comedy can be more immediately satisfying than the business of sustaining the central story. The film benefits from giving him room.

Donald Peterman’s cinematography keeps the attention on the performers, which is where it belongs. Jack T. Collis’s production design is useful in the same unobtrusive way; the surroundings never become the chief attraction. Lee Holdridge’s music helps the romantic warmth, though the actors need little assistance in making us care. Editors Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill preserve the liveliness of the comic exchanges, even when the storytelling grows less assured. The craft is most effective when it gives a joke or a look between the leads time to register.

The weaker passages belong to the screenplay by Babaloo Mandel, Bruce Jay Friedman and Lowell Ganz. Its unevenness is noticeable because the best comic exchanges feel so relaxed, while the less persuasive plotting asks for rather more goodwill. Some developments need firmer explanations than the script provides, and affection for the characters cannot excuse every gap. At 110 minutes, there is room for that unevenness to become a mild irritation.

Among romantic fantasies, this one understands the value of allowing desire to be funny without treating the people feeling it as a joke. That is why the central pairing remains appealing even when the script needs tidying. Watch it for Tom Hanks, Daryl Hannah and John Candy, and leave the questions about interspecies domestic arrangements until afterwards.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

79
Positive
4
Mixed
0
Negative
0
Empire
22 September 2006 · Ian Freer
85*

Freer calls the film a delightful, warm-hearted comedy and romance. He especially praises the performances of Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, which give the story its comic and emotional centre.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · John Ferguson
80

The critic calls it a charming, good-natured romantic comedy that largely avoids becoming soppy. He praises the charismatic leads and singles out John Candy for getting many of the best gags.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· CPea
75*

The review is positive about the film’s love story. It praises the handling of the carnal complications of falling for a mermaid.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1983 · Variety Staff
75*

Variety finds the film charming despite some unevenness and screenplay loopholes. It praises Daryl Hannah’s performance and the lively by-play between her and Tom Hanks.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Splash worth watching?
Splash is worth watching for its warm, funny mermaid romance, and we score it 80 out of 100. Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah make the attraction persuasive, while John Candy supplies welcome mischief; we recommend it for the performances, with the caveat that the uneven plotting asks for some goodwill across 110 minutes.
How long is Splash, and what is it rated?
Splash runs 1h 50m. It is a comedy and romance film.
Where can I watch Splash in Peru?
Splash is streaming on Disney+ in Peru. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How does Splash compare to The Ghost and Mrs. Muir?
Splash is the better choice for laughs, while we recommend The Ghost and Mrs. Muir for a tender supernatural romance that rewards patience with its leisurely pace. Both make an improbable pairing persuasive, but Splash gets extra comic energy from John Candy, even when its plotting is less convincing than its lovers.
What should I watch after Splash?
After Splash, try The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947, Fi1m 84): A mortal woman and a ghost make an unexpectedly practical romantic pairing. Then Wings of Desire (1987, Fi1m 88): For a slower, more searching fantasy about wanting to share ordinary human life; and Amélie (2001, Fi1m 82): A fanciful courtship that finds its humour in awkward approaches and small kindnesses.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1985

Nominated
Best Writing, Original Screenplay

Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay, 1985

Nominated
Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay

Golden Globes, 1984

Nominated
Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy

National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Screenplay, 1984

Won
National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Screenplay

Saturn Awards, 1984

Nominated
Best Director
Nominated
Best Fantasy Film
Nominated
Best Make-up
Nominated
Best Supporting Actor
Won
Best Actress

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947, Fi1m 84)A mortal woman and a ghost make an unexpectedly practical romantic pairing.

  2. Starman (1984) · not reviewed yetAnother unlikely visitor makes human courtship seem peculiar, with tenderness beneath the comedy.

  3. Wings of Desire (1987, Fi1m 88)For a slower, more searching fantasy about wanting to share ordinary human life.

  4. Amélie (2001, Fi1m 82)A fanciful courtship that finds its humour in awkward approaches and small kindnesses.

  5. The Shape of Water (2017, Fi1m 83)Another romance across species, with a darker temper and more explicit desire.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever