BEFORE: Diane Keaton carries over again, and February's got just a little over a week left. The end of the Diane Keaton chain is also the start of another actor's chain, just as February will soon give way to March, the romance chain will give way to other topics, and someday it will cease being Moscow-level cold outside. I have to believe all of that.
THE PLOT: A swinger on the cusp of being a senior citizen with a taste for young women falls in love with an accomplished woman closer to his age.
AFTER: I really expected this one to suck, and it didn't, not totally. At least not when compared with real stinkers like "The Big Wedding" and "Crimes of the Heart", which might be making tonight's film look a little better by comparison. Still, you should probably steer clear of this one if you have any problems with seeing senior citizens in the buff, or if thoughts of people your parents' age being sexually active makes you at all queasy.
I know, I know, sixty is the new forty and all that. I'm solidly in my mid-forties (though on my birthday I just tell the new office crew each year I'm turning 39) and physically, I'm starting to feel it. I went to the doctor this week for my first physical in 3 or 4 years and got the usual blah-blah about losing weight, plus steering clear of salt, alcohol and caffeine - which would be easy if those weren't three of the things that make life worth living. Salt's just hard to avoid if you eat as much restaurant food as I do, and life without the highs and lows of caffeine and alcohol - well, to me that's just flat-lining.
The lead male character here does have a heart attack, and afterwards his main concern is getting back to being sexually active - but for some reason he's not told to cut back on salt or saturated fat or even alcohol. Should we presume that conversation takes place, but off-screen? I guess none of that relates to romance, and this is a romantic film. But one which raises the question - should people only date within their own age bracket?
To be fair, it shows both genders dating young - an older man who dates only younger woman falls for an older woman, but she's also being courted by a younger man. It's a modern twist on the love triangle, which could have easily been a love rectangle since he was originally dating her daughter, but I think that would have been the safe, simple story route, and they took it in a different direction.
That said, once the triangle was established, the film feels like it goes on too long - there are too many reversals, and there should only be so many of those in any particular film. There are also too many scenes with people chatting back and forth with instant messages (this was released in 2003, texting wasn't so popular yet) and worse, at one point the people talking via AIM are in the same house at the same time, proving that the screenwriter and/or director didn't quite understand its purpose.
NITPICK POINT: They WAY overplayed the reaction Jack Nicholson's character had when he bumped into Diane Keaton's character in the buff. If you turn the corner in someone's house and see them walking around naked, there's maybe a second or two of shock, after which the appropriate action would be to cover your eyes with your hand, and if you're feeling rakish, maybe peek between your fingers - total elapsed time, no more than 5 seconds, through which you've gone through mild shock, embarrasment, and perhaps curiosity. The display here is at least 30 seconds of every possible emotion: surprise, fear, disgust, mild shock, great big shock, surprise (again, but bigger), greater disgust, even bigger shock, followed by bumping into the wall with all the picture frames on it. Damn, Nicholson was allowed to do every possible reaction take except for teetering on the edge of a staircase while holding a tray of champagne glasses. It was just much too much - plus it wasn't fair to Diane Keaton, who did not look bad at all. From Nicholson's overblown disgusted reaction, you'd think he was looking at the Cryptkeeper, which she most certainly is not.
NITPICK POINT #1.5: By the way, what's with her walking around her house nekkid, anyway? Is this the only house in the Hamptons where the bedroom doesn't have a door that can be closed? Did she somehow forget that she had a houseguest? Seems unlikely. OK, it's great that she's an older woman who's comfortable in her own skin, but she's also portrayed as an uptight character who wears turtlenecks, so which is it? Is she uptight or not? Is she comfortable being naked or not? I mean, at first she is, then she clearly isn't, so the whole situation is just too darn far-fetched. You can't even say her character is just comfortable living alone, because if you live alone, there's hardly any reason to be that naked in the first place.
NITPICK POINT #2: Now I'm also supposed to believe in Keanu Reeves playing a cardiologist. Nope, no way. Not when he still sounds like Ted "Theodore" Logan - I could barely accept him as an action hero in "The Matrix". Heck, I can barely accept him as Keanu Reeves, so I certainly can't buy him as a doctor.
Also starring Jack Nicholson (last seen in "Ensign Pulver"), Keanu Reeves (last seen in "Hardball"), Amanda Peet (last seen in "Identity Thief"), Frances McDormand (last seen in "Moonrise Kingdom"), Jon Favreau (also last seen in "Identity Thief"), Paul Michael Glaser (last seen in "Butterflies Are Free"), Rachel Ticotin (last seen in "Don Juan DeMarco"),
RATING: 5 out of 10 hospital gowns
No comments:
Post a Comment