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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.