I would have done some things differently: I would have given Michael a more dynamic character. He seems flagellated and neutralized by the social forces around him, never coming to a dynamic stance.
I would have made the relationship between Michael and "Granny" the prime and motivating focus for the second half of the film. What should have happened was that Michael falls head-over-heels in love with "Granny", in a way that obliterates any desire he had for "Gabby" and her two sisters. At the end of the movie, Michael comments that his theories about women had all been bunk (I cleaned up the language). This was not convincingly demonstrated in the movie, even with his sparse, though sometimes intense interaction with "Granny".
Together, they could have inhabited a world of both fantasy and true caring. Their secret world would have proved a vital contrast to the frenetic eccentricism around them.
The relationship between Michael and "Granny" should have remained a secret between the two, as Michael is forced to pretend that everything is normal and that he still cares about schizophrenic "Gabby". In the end, Michael and "Granny" (does she have a name?) should have left, together. She should not have died, and the inclusion of her being committed to a (psychiatric?) hospital was in bad taste.
If I were her, I would have escaped multiple times and risked freezing to death in the woods, too: There are different ways to freeze to death. One way is to continue associating with a family (or friends) who do not care about you, nor respect your dreams and fantasies.
Michael is so clueless and impotent throughout most of the movie, however, that his feelings of love for "Granny" fall short of the transformation that could have been displayed. Dempsey's character actually reminded me, somewhat, of Shemp Howard.
Michael's passive character and the missed opportunity to focus on his and "Granny's" relationship meant the difference, for me, between issuing this film a 7 score, rather than an 8 or 9.
I would have made the relationship between Michael and "Granny" the prime and motivating focus for the second half of the film. What should have happened was that Michael falls head-over-heels in love with "Granny", in a way that obliterates any desire he had for "Gabby" and her two sisters. At the end of the movie, Michael comments that his theories about women had all been bunk (I cleaned up the language). This was not convincingly demonstrated in the movie, even with his sparse, though sometimes intense interaction with "Granny".
Together, they could have inhabited a world of both fantasy and true caring. Their secret world would have proved a vital contrast to the frenetic eccentricism around them.
The relationship between Michael and "Granny" should have remained a secret between the two, as Michael is forced to pretend that everything is normal and that he still cares about schizophrenic "Gabby". In the end, Michael and "Granny" (does she have a name?) should have left, together. She should not have died, and the inclusion of her being committed to a (psychiatric?) hospital was in bad taste.
If I were her, I would have escaped multiple times and risked freezing to death in the woods, too: There are different ways to freeze to death. One way is to continue associating with a family (or friends) who do not care about you, nor respect your dreams and fantasies.
Michael is so clueless and impotent throughout most of the movie, however, that his feelings of love for "Granny" fall short of the transformation that could have been displayed. Dempsey's character actually reminded me, somewhat, of Shemp Howard.
Michael's passive character and the missed opportunity to focus on his and "Granny's" relationship meant the difference, for me, between issuing this film a 7 score, rather than an 8 or 9.