Skip to main content

It's kind of a long distance relationship.


The Lake House
(2006)

How many great screen couples are there in modern cinema? Are there any? Hanks and Ryan worked one time only, but twice was too much. Likewise Roberts and Gere. I’m not sure it’s because audiences don’t want to see stars with chemistry fall for each other all over again. Rather, there doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for reunions. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock don’t, at first glance, seem as if they should be joining the ranks of successful movie partnerships. But they have two (well, one-and-a-half) under their belts, and if they continue to pick offbeat material I’d be quite happy to see a third encounter.

There’s one significant factor mitigating against a liaison viewers can get behind; the mere mention of Reeves’ name is greeted with howls of protest over how he can’t act. It’s an understandable accusation, particularly for anyone who’s seen Dracula. But the secret with Reeves is casting him to his strengths. He isn’t the most comfortable of screen presences. While he is always likeable he carries a slightly aloof air, self-conscious but with a fuddled earnestness. Give him a role such as Neo and it fits like a glove. Or the lead in A Scanner Darkly, where his dazed discordancy reflects that of the audience. During the ‘90s, he progressed from Bill and Ted stoner to intermittent action star (or elements of both in Point Break). His first encounter with Sandy Buttocks was in 1994’s Speed, a monster hit that no one really expected. There was an undeniable spark between Reeves’s cop and Bullock’s plucky bus driver, even if the romance angle was subdued.  

Bullock’s generally been seen as a romcom girl, a contender to Julia Roberts’ crown, but her outright successes in the field have been limited (While You Were Sleeping, The Proposal). She has a generous screen presence, be it in dramas or utilising her gifts as a comedienne. It’s this easygoing openness that has led many to unfairly dismiss her talents, but generally it’s her choice of roles that have let her down.

Reeves is usually a bit to rigid and unresponsive to invite identification in romantic roles. Maybe it’s the warmth that Bullock exudes that enables this one to work. The Lake House uses a similar long distance courtship idea to Sleepless in Settle, but here there is a science fiction twist. Via a magic mailbox, Reeve’s architect in 2004 is able to communicate with Bullock’s doctor in 2006 (both occupy the titular residence during the different periods). It’s a daffy premise, remaking South Korean picture Il Mare and also owing something to Frequency, but Argentine director Alejandro Agresti approaches the whimsicality with uncomplicated matter-of-factness.

That Bullock and Reeves become aware of, and accept, this device in short order is one of the strengths of an economically-told tale. Agresti uses a variety of techniques to have the characters (actually) meet or exchange conversations outside of mere back-and-forth voiceovers. Most of the time logical objections that spring to mind over the set-up are addressed in some shape or form, and the occasional tricksy flourish (the planting of a tree) is sweet rather than sickly. There’s a twist you can see coming, but it doesn’t hamper the enjoyment of the journey (this is the second time I’ve seen the movie, and it still works for me – is it really seven years old already?)

Unless the Back to the Future-type paradoxes it throws up distract you, that is. This is one occasion where such an element doesn’t hugely bother me; tthe thrust of the film is its romance, not the logistics of the reality it creates (a movie such as Looper concerned me much more in retrospect, where it’s premise invites interrogation more overtly). Yes, it falls apart logically (or requires extensive theorising as to how it may actually make sense), but the entire film is built upon a magic wand device. It’s interesting, however, that critics appear to have savaged the integrity of this movie when there are other far more worthy targets of paradox peeves.

 The supporting cast does good work, although Ebon Moss-Bachrach, as Reeves’ brother, has the slightly pained nervousness of his generation’s Andrew McCarthy. Christopher Plummer is an ubiquitous presence lately, but one you’re nevertheless always glad to see. He and Reeves work surprisingly well together as estranged father and son (although some of the lines reek a bit; “He could build a house. But he couldn’t build a home”). Lynne Collins (of John Carter) plays a would-be squeeze. And there’s an endearing hound that is crucial to the plot.

So… I wouldn’t usually give a movie wantonly flourishing time travel paradoxes a free pass. Not when it makes zero attempts to justify the (il) logic of its plot devices. But I find myself doing exactly that with The Lake House. It’s an appealing romance, agreeably performed, and as such your heart will likely win out over your brain. Either that or you’ll throw something at the TV in outrage at its stupidity.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.