Um...I don't really know how to go about saying this. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. But you might want to lock the doors, pull the shades, turn out the lights, put the kids to bed early, call in sick, consult a physician, know your cuts of meat, use only as directed, have your pets spayed or neutered, and most important, don't lick the poison frogs. You see, I liked this movie. NO!! WAIT!! I see why people would like this movie. No...dammit...I don't know. I think I liked it, and I don't like thinking that I liked it. But I didn't really like it because it's just an okay movie, and I LOATHE romances. Here's the key to it all: I really enjoyed a certain part of the movie that, while only a little part of the movie in terms of time, was good enough to carry the rest of the movie for me. I'll explain.
The main story, otherwise known as the RHO-mance, is set in the 1940's and involves a blue collar lumberyard worker and the young daughter of a well to do financier/businessman/rich guy. Heard this one before? OF COURSE YOU HAVE. There was nothing really new about the story at all. Guy sees girl, instant attraction met with instant rejection, eventual acceptance after some sort of a irregular behavior, activity or stunt, whirlwind romance, disapproval by the rich kids parental units, eventual fight and separation, years of sadness, longing, and resentment, and then the obligatory "random" re-introduction. Otherwise known as BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. The acting for the main story is well done, as is the directing, and even the dialogue is worth noting because none of it a sappy or over dramatic, even if it is the same old story.
Now, it's the side story involving James Garner and Gena Rowlands that really did it for me. Rowlands plays a woman suffering from dementia and Garner plays a man who keeps her company by reading her a story, which happens to be the main story of the movie. It is an absolutely fascinating relationship that develops itself quite well throughout the entire movie. If it was not for these two characters, I would have cared very little for this movie, but as I said earlier, it was their story that kept me so engaged in the movie that my attention was held during the same old love story. This is significant. It's like watching a bad movie just because there is a hot chick in it, except it's operating on a bit of a different level.
Finally, there is something I have to mention. Some of you know that I strongly dislike people who make a big deal out of simple editing incontinuities. I won't get into it again, but it ups the level of irritation in my body, which is already a little shaky. ANYWAYS, I have a simple note. A slight suggestion if you will. If you are shooting a scene at a carnival set in the 1940's, make sure that the modern day ride where people are riding in SPACESHIPS is NOT in the background. The ferris wheel is fine and quite appropriate. But other than a carousel, there is no ride that I can ride in the present day that should have been seen in that movie, much less one with freakin spaceships on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have yet to see this movie, but from experience, I think Rachel Mac can get me through even the most tedious flick...
Me-owwwww...
And she's particularly cute in this one. Way too good for Young Hercules.
I have yet to see this movie, but I'm sure I'll be a sucker for the RHO-mance parts too :)
This is a perfect example of your experiment going right--you saw a movie that you probably wouldn't have normally seen, and it wasn't painful!
I didn't see it on cable because it wasn't anything I want to watch. And apparently, you forgot about the whole random selection thing. Please, try to get it together.
The reason you are a girl is because you LIKED it...
I get the whole randomness thing myself, but you are a girl because you admit to enjoying the thing.
Score one for Chewy
Post a Comment