This is a movie I really wanted to like. Not only was it filmed in Portland, OR where I live, but I was also an extra in it. So, I went into the movie theater expecting a film that was if at least not award-worthy, was a thought-provoking & well-made picture. Plus, it had Greg Kinnear & Morgan Freeman- both Oscar winners- what could go wrong? Everything.
I have not read the book on which this was based, but I cannot imagine it had the simplistic, contrived, and corny plot that the movie contained. The pacing was so painfully slow and quiet, I could hear our crowded theater straining in their seats to stay awake during the long shots of Greg Kinnear's glossy eyes trying to convey his disbelief at why another woman has left him (dude maybe it IS you!)
Even harder to explain is why the director felt it was necessary to have so many sex scenes. 'Feast of Flesh' would have been a better title. Didn't gratuitous nudity go out of style after 'Basic Instinct'? I like a passionate love scene as much as the next, but when you have EVERY sexual encounter involve the woman grinding away on top of the man (who of course isn't showing any of HIS private parts!) it becomes very tacky and cheap. Okay Rhada Mitchell is HOT, we get it! Can she have a conversation with a bra on at least? Nudity does not convey intimacy- emotions convey intimacy.
So, if you want to bored senseless for long stretches of time, by all means see this movie. You can then decide if this movies suffers from: 1. a lack of music/score (I could have heard a pin drop at times), 2. trying to mish-mash multiple plot lines poorly, 3. not developing characters enough so we don't connect or relate, or 4. theme about the "mystery of love" is a very cliché & tired concept.
This movie does not prove a thing about the wonder of love- just because the girl knew her boyfriend would die but married him anyway- is probably the 100th movie to do this (see 'Love Story', 'Dying Young', or 'My Life'). I got what the director was trying to show us, but it wasn't original, didn't explore anything new, or move me. All this movie proves is that good directors can make bad movies!
I have not read the book on which this was based, but I cannot imagine it had the simplistic, contrived, and corny plot that the movie contained. The pacing was so painfully slow and quiet, I could hear our crowded theater straining in their seats to stay awake during the long shots of Greg Kinnear's glossy eyes trying to convey his disbelief at why another woman has left him (dude maybe it IS you!)
Even harder to explain is why the director felt it was necessary to have so many sex scenes. 'Feast of Flesh' would have been a better title. Didn't gratuitous nudity go out of style after 'Basic Instinct'? I like a passionate love scene as much as the next, but when you have EVERY sexual encounter involve the woman grinding away on top of the man (who of course isn't showing any of HIS private parts!) it becomes very tacky and cheap. Okay Rhada Mitchell is HOT, we get it! Can she have a conversation with a bra on at least? Nudity does not convey intimacy- emotions convey intimacy.
So, if you want to bored senseless for long stretches of time, by all means see this movie. You can then decide if this movies suffers from: 1. a lack of music/score (I could have heard a pin drop at times), 2. trying to mish-mash multiple plot lines poorly, 3. not developing characters enough so we don't connect or relate, or 4. theme about the "mystery of love" is a very cliché & tired concept.
This movie does not prove a thing about the wonder of love- just because the girl knew her boyfriend would die but married him anyway- is probably the 100th movie to do this (see 'Love Story', 'Dying Young', or 'My Life'). I got what the director was trying to show us, but it wasn't original, didn't explore anything new, or move me. All this movie proves is that good directors can make bad movies!