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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog