I've always liked this film, but recently purchased it on blu and watched it through for the first time in at least 5 years; and I've only watched it all the way through maybe twice in the last 10-15 years.
Result: wow! I think a good argument could be made that MOONSTRUCK qualifies as one of those "perfect" or nearly perfect films (Casablanca, Ghostbusters, etc.) Despite some of the late 80s fashions looking hysterically awful, the film and performances really hold up, and have aged extremely well. The casting is just fantastic, and while it's not a huge cast, everyone brings their A game and really inhabit the roles. I'm not a fan of Cher, never have been, but here she manages to do what so few stars do: disappear into the role. You forget very quickly that it's "CHER!" and you buy that you're watching Loretta Castorini, widowed NYC bookkeeper. Cage doesn't manage to disappear in the same way, but that's far less the fault of the film or his performance as his career following. He's in full Cage form here, but it's absolutely called for and perfect for the film. His intensity and mannerisms feel of a piece with the story and world established here, and he evokes some empathy and humanity into what could've been a flat character.
The direction seems almost invisible; the writing and characters seem the real stars here, but I'm guessing that making it all come across so naturally was a much more difficult job than it might seem. (The oodles of truly shitty rom-coms in the last two decades bear this out.) IMDB trivia relates that the climactic scene in the kitchen - which plays onscreen seamlessly and wonderfully - was particularly problematic for Norman Jewison.
Somethat struck me as I watched: the film inverts the usual romantic tropes. If we consider cultural norms or stereotypes and examine the film, we find some surprising depictions. Both Loretta Castorini and her mother, Rose, are extremely practical and grounded characters, and almost devoid of romantic sentiment. These two main characters, both women, present a lot of pragmatic wisdom and takes on love and relationships, espousing the idea that "liking" someone (over loving them) makes for a better married life, and not looking for (or perhaps even consciously wanting) a passionate affair or relationship. Both women are shown taking a hard, detached view of their partners and taking the time to analyze their motivations. And while Loretta finally succumbs to sweeping romantic life, it can hardly be argued that she does so at the cost of her individuality or inner, practical strength. In contrast, the two male leads, Ronnie Cammareri (Cage) and Loretta's father, Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia, owning every scene he's in) are both "moonstruck," men constantly seeking the passionate fires and emotional elements of love and life. We hear about Cosmo's early courting of Rose, wherein he stood pining in the moonlight for Rose, and in the present day he's pursuing an affair to stave off the doldrums of middle age (or early old age); it's very clear from the scene in which Cosmo gifts his mistress with a gaudy bracelet that he's relishing the role of a virile, romantic man; I think it's pretty clear the mistress is fairly secondary to the real function of the affair, which is for Cosmo to feel "romantic" again. Ronnie, described in the film as a "wolf," presents a veritable storm of romantic passion, and is a concrete counterpoint to Loretta's practical matchmaking outlook.
I don't think much of this is particularly deep, but I found it interesting that one of the best films of the rom-com genre stood accepted and deeply held tropes on their heads, and I think that is one of the big reasons the film has aged so well, works so well, and has a lot of cross-gender appeal.
(Sub)Text aside, I also love a lot of the supporting characters and moments. From the bakery worker confessing her unrequited love for Ronnie to the Old Man's "Someone tell a joke!," the film adds a lot of great textural humor to scenes.
