Avaliações de usuários

Nick follows in the footsteps of his old man, John Cassavetes, who supplied the screenplay and you can tell because the down and out characters walk about with cigarette in one hand and a glass of booze in the other. This is a very simple tale of manic love told with care.

Maureen (Robin Wright) is a mess. She's pregnant and desperate to find her husband Eddie Quinn (Sean Penn). Her neighbor Kiefer (James Gandolfini) comforts her and then violently rapes her. Eddie takes it badly and attacks somebody landing him in a psychiatric hospital. He is released 10 years later although he keeps thinking it's only 3 months. Maureen had divorced him and remarried to Joey Germoni (John Travolta) with three kids. The oldest girl Jeanie is Eddie's.

These are not sweet people. They are all a mess in the first part. The first part has great grimy gutter feel. Robin Wright brings so much to her character. Everybody does great performances. The second half is grasping a bit. It would be helpful to show where Joey is coming from. I think it's more dramatic to have Joey be normal but it's still compelling to have Travolta act a bit crazy.

This was just about the worst movie I've ever seen. All I could think about during the "early days" part of the film was how terrible some children must have it when they are born to mentally and emotionally unstable parents. I did think Sean played his role well, but the story sucked me into a pit of despair and made my stomach churn at stupidity of Mrs Quinn. I noticed the accent mutilations as well. So true love is ditching your current husband and three young children for a guy you haven't seen ONCE in the last ten years? Sounds like those two should have shared that cell at the sanitarium.

Many of the character interactions didn't make sense, the story had ample amounts of LAME, and the funniest part was the very very end where we see the 'happy couple' and their two loser buddies DRINKING and DRIVING down the road in that stylish 1968 Buick Riviera. Classy.

Sean Penn does method, John Travolta chews scenery, the kids are cute enough to make one diabetic and Robin Wright Penn's performance keeps banging away at the same note over and over and over again. The characters were so unsympathetic I didn't care the least bit what happened to them. There is no plot to speak of. The cinematography ranges from grunge to bland and I don't understand where the romantic comedy angle comes in. What's so funny (or romantic) about abuse and codependency taken to sociopathic levels on all fronts? And I would definitely wave off anybody who has ever suffered from mental illness, because they would find the flick downright insulting.

Of course there are real people like this out there, but so what? If I don't waste any of my precious time on this earth watching the denizens of Jerry Springer, why would I want to watch their fictional counterparts? You want a movie about an irredeemable person that is worth seeing? Go rent Citizen Ruth. It is infinitely better than this horrorshow.

This might have worked as a ten-minute indie movie, but as an hour and a half Hollywood flick, it's a complete waste of celluloid. I watched it (sporadically) on tv for free, and I still regretted it. Whatever you do, if you must watch this piece of crap, use a free video store coupon to do so. Chances are, you would regret spending any money on it.

"She's So Lovely" is a serious drama about a man (Penn) and a woman (Penn) who are interminably locked in a symbiotic co-dependent relationship. What is supposed to make the film interesting is that -he- is a whack job and -she- is a loser. Unfortunately, Cassavetes has created a character-driven nonstory with characters who are so far out there they appear only as excuses ginned up for dramatic purposes giving the film a hollow feel...lots of sizzle but no steak. I would toss a kudo at Sean Penn who garnered a "best" at Cannes for his performance, but one gets the feeling this wasn't much of a stretch for him. Recommended for fans of John Cassavetes, the Penns, or the film "Barflys". (B-)

Some people consider it necessary that I warn you that Crucial Plot Elements are exposed in my review. I feel it is more Crucial that I Warn You to not see this movie. Here's why:

Never before have I felt so misled by reviews from you-know-who (2 Thumbs Up?!) and this site's resident reviewer (3 stars?!), not to mention the jacket cover, all claiming this be to be a Fun Comedy. Well if your idea of a comedy is watching a woman get drunk, get beat up, almost raped, live with a psychopath, turn him in to protect him from himself and others, give birth to their child alone, re-marry a guy who's filled with as much rage as the 1st hubby, and then, when the 1st hubby returns, leaves her 3 kids and 2nd hubby without so much as a "I'm gonna miss you" - then this is your kinda a comedy. So pop some corn, cuddle up, and prepare to laugh your head off???

If I had known this was an edgy drama I would have been better prepared to properly judge this movie, but I kept wondering when was it going to get funny, even if only in a black comedy kind-of-way, like War of the Roses. It never did, save for 4 lines (Yes, I counted them all. There was little else to do.) And one of those involved swearing at a 9 year old and telling her to shut up and drink her beer. (Oh, and it was so endearing when the 9 year old gave the adults permission to swear because after all she has heard worse.)

What really gets me is that all the reviews described this movie like this: Hip Comedy about a woman who remarries after her 1st hubby goes to jail, and then 10 years later when he is released must choose between the 2.

Well that part about the 1st hubby going to jail doesn't happen until more than an hour into the story, and by then you have figured out that it is a no-brainer - she will always go with this guy, no matter who else she marries - even if it's John Travolta.

And don't bother watching this for John Travolta. He doesn't make his entrance until the last 30 minutes and is in only 3 major scenes.

So I guess the point of this movie was more of a social commentary on the irrational thinking involved with love (She's de-lovely. Ha Ha! Now I get it?! Oh palease!) and dealing with life's difficulties in general? Well I guess I am now Officially Un-Hip, because even in retrospect - No, I don't get it.

Some of the people who "review" flicks here continually amaze me with their complete lack of film knowledge.

When I heard an interview with the always-extraordinary Sean Penn, in which he said he was upset that so few people had seen what he considers to be his best work: this film and the excellent "At Close Range," I knew that I had to catch this.

Then, finding that it was based on an unproduced John Cassavetes script, I was all the more eager.

That final statement should scare off anyone who expected a happy, romantic Hollywood film, as they clearly haven't seen any of the late writer/director's stark, realistic films. Cassavetes' work relied heavily on tortured, unlikable or unredeemable characters who can act their brains out [quite often portrayed by his wife/widow, Gena Rowlands].

We're talking serious fare, folks ~ required viewing such as "Husbands," "Woman Under The Influence," "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" and "Gloria" [the brilliant Rowlands original, not the adequate Sharon Stone remake].

Now comes his former B-movie star & son, Nick, who dusts off papa's script and enlists the type of actors who are eminently qualified to play a group of true undesirables: Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, James Gandolfini, Harry Dean Stanton, Debi Mazar and the newly-retalented John Travolta, who appears in the last reel.

Even Mom [Rowlands, of course] gets a small but important role.

And the adorable Kelsey Mulrooney, playing Penn & Penn's nine-year-old daughter is terrific without stooping to precociousness.

Is this a brutally honest film? Yep. Is it vulgar in nearly every way? Of course. Do the leading characters have any chance of redemption, moral or otherwise? Not likely.

Do I care?

Let's just say that there's more passionate acting in "She's So Lovely" than was evident in nearly every other 1997 film.

And that's certainly good enough for me.

So there.

It distresses me that anyone who has watched this movie thought that it had any redeeming qualities. From the beginning, with totally unreadable credits, until the outrageous ending, it was a huge waste of great actors and expensive celluloid! If you know anything about film making, you know that entertainment is a larger priority than art. Although, most good films have one or the other. Great films combine both. Unfortunately this is neither entertaining nor is it art. I am disappointed that anyone thought this movie was good. I was especially angry by the good reviews especially the thumbs up. There is nothing remotely entertaining or artistic about this film, not even those adorable kiddos. To exploit those children for the sake of a film is unforgivable. No they did not shock me with any of their actions, they just made me sad. It also saddened me that any one those quality actors, involved in this film, actually allowed it to be released. I encourage anyone thinking about seeing it to pass it by.

Maureen is a bit strung out and pregnant from her low-life husband Eddie. Their lives are an unpredictable mix of actions that mostly involve drinking and scamming round on the fringe of society. When Eddie is "away" for a few days, Marueen falls in drinking with neighbour Kiefer, who tries to rape her but then just beats her. She explains this away to Eddie so as to keep him from going crazy at her or anyone else but when he does start to flip she calls the paramedics to take him into care for his own safety. However when he shoots one of them, Eddie is sentenced to a mental institution. When he comes out he finds that Maureen has divorced him and has moved onto a much more stable and reliable man in the form of Joey, with whom she has had more children.

Almost halfway in it becomes evident that this film isn't going to work out that well because, before the "10 years later" jump, the love between the two leads hasn't been established to a convincing degree. Given that the narrative is using this mutual attraction (despite all the negatives) as its lynchpin this is a bit of a problem. Other than establishing that both are unstable and using each other for meaning, the film doesn't do that much for all the time it takes up. The second half isn't that much better as Eddie comes out as a sort of watered down Rainman and disrupts Maureen's new relationship with Joey. The script then asks us to swallow that she still loves Eddie to the point where the mere news that he is released sees her flush the last ten years down the toilet.

I can sort of understand what the script was trying to do but it didn't manage to produce anything interest in the aggressive relationships that it paints in the gutter. The characters are where the main failing is. Maureen's character is poorly defined and Wright-Penn doesn't appear to understand what motivates her character and thus turns in a really mixed performance that pushes emotional buttons in each scene but is never consistent. Eddie is OK in the first half of the film as he just seems like a drunk unstable loser but in the second half he is unconvincingly soft. Likewise Penn is strong in the first half but he is unconvincing in the second. Their performances aren't helped by a weird mix of tones – at times a dark love story, at other times a cringingly awful "comedy" complete with "jaunty" music being played over a fight on the front lawn or that horrible scene at Joey's bar. Travolta is a bit better and Stanton is a reasonably nice addition in a small role.

Overall this is a shocking mess of a film that spirals downhill from the mid-point onwards. The first half shows potential but doesn't manage to pull off the formative stages of the central relationship and thus fails to set up the second half. However the second half isn't helped by poor development and a terrible mishmash of "comic" moments that simply feel crass and out of place – I suspect even if the first half had been a stormer, this second half would have been poor enough to drag it all under. Even the acting talent seems all at sea and unsure of where they stand or who they are. A load of rubbish with little or no value.

I saw this in the 1990s before I'd ever seen a John Cassavetes written/directed film. I vaguely recall being underwhelmed, not sure why I should care about these people.

I just watched it again in 2023, now a definite Cassavetes devotee, and sigh for what was surely meant to be an homage by his son but just proved only John Cassavetes could make this movie something truly worthwhile.

Would it have mattered if his son had stuck with his script as is and not rewrote parts? Perhaps, but his son clearly didn't have his father's vision, he treated it like mainstream movie making and corrupted it by making it fit those parameters.

Ultimately John's magic was his alone and couldn't be replicated by anyone, this movie proves that.

This movie was a big disappointment. It went from having potential to becoming and absurd piece of Hollywood crap. The acting was mediocre at best (with the exception of Travolta)- I counted a half dozen times where Robin Wright's accent changed during the course of the film.

What makes this movie so uncomfortable to watch is that all of the leads are considered fine actors, but they are hopelessly trapped in a boring, ridiculous, confounding movie.

We could only stick this one out for about 45 mins. Travolta should buy the rights and burn it. The owner of the movie rental store said she couldn't watch it either. The characters were all right off the Jerry Springer show.

I didn't know what to expect from this film, but whatever I got is about ten times better than whatever I was expecting, if that makes sense.

The characters are so likable. And the acting is just phenomenal. There were several scenes I had to back up and watch again just because some of the layers of small gestures and expressions and emotional choices are so genius, I just couldn't believe how thoughtfully turned out it all was.

(Hint: Watch Penn's face when he is asking his tired, pregnant wife to put on heels and a nice dress for going out. Men, that is how you get your woman to say "YES!")

And I love the theme of honesty in this movie. The characters are all more honest with themselves and each other than anyone you'll meet in the world, and they're also more tolerant of other people's honesty than real people are. It's beautiful, and it's not "brutal" honesty. And everything is beautiful until that honesty is taken away (by good intentions).

Yes, I agree they oversimplified the whole missing ten years thing, but I don't mind because this was such a stunningly original, surprising little love story.

Remarkable.

Oh, and extra credit for including Tito Larriva!

A huge disappointment in Siskel & Ebert's rating! The title does not fit the movie at all. This movie was far from a comedy; it was serious and disjointed. I was waiting with expectation for it to get humorous as described but it never did. The script provided little to no motivation for Maureen (Robin Wright) to make the choice she did. The script also failed to explain why Joey(John Travolta) was so enraged he was swearing every other word he spoke. Too much pointless swearing from all the characters. If you find watching an innocent-looking little girl swear & drink beer humorous then you'll probably like the movie.

"When a Man Loves a Woman" with Meg Ryan & Andy Garcia, is similar to this movie. The big difference between the two movies is "She's So Lovely" is a waste of time to watch.

I suppose that the point of this movie is that love, and people in love, are not necessarily very "proper" and jasmine-smelling. Fine, I agree, but by the time the movie ended I was not sure it was love this movie was about. Quinn and Mrs. Quinn amply deserve each other that there was hardly any point in making a long movie to demonstrate that. The pity is, that the movie was well done, well directed, with some nice touches; the actors were also good, but the script, or rather, the characters are a mess. In any case you might even tolerate the failures of script and characters but it is impossible to get past the inanity of the protagonist Mrs. Quinn: she just doesn't make sense. In the second part of the movie Mrs. Quinn is as messed-up as in the first part, only ten years, a new marriage, three children and a change in her social standing are supposed to have happened in between; nevertheless, only her clothes and her makeup have changed. How can that be? I am not the same as ten years ago, and not so many things have happened to me. Also, she's supposed to be the pivot of the whole conflict, but she's not solid enough to justify that.

One of the worst movies I've ever rented. Sorry it had one of my favorite actors on it (Travolta) in a nonsense role. In fact, anything made sense in this movie.

Who can say there was true love between Eddy and Maureen? Don't you remember the beginning of the movie ?

Is she so lovely? Ask her daughters. I don't think so.

How can she just leave her children for some loser who was in jail for 10 years! the movie would have been a lot better if at the end she didn't abandon her children. That just ruined the whole movie for me. It wasted 2 hours of my time. I love John Travolta, but I wouldn't recommend it even the the biggest fans of John Travolta, or Sean Penn