MOVIE REVIEW - The Lake House

* As usual, I begin by stating that my only qualifications as a reviewer extend no further than my love of comics, television and film. I'm not an academic, when it comes to this particular topic. I just talk about what I like and what I don't like. *

Any potential spoilers in my reviews must be highlighted to be visible.

Internet Movie Database (IMDB) plot outline: "A lonely doctor (Bullock) who once occupied an unusual lakeside home begins exchanging love letters with its newest resident, a frustrated architect (Reeves). They must try to unravel the mystery behind their extraordinary romance before it's too late."

I'm going to do something rather unusual and add a bit to the IMDB description. If you're already planning on seeing this movie, don't bother highlighting this section. If you're unsure, it's your call. I happen to think that the part of the premise that's missing from the IMDB plot outline is a major point of interest and greatly contributed to my interest in seeing this film.

*Bullock's and Reeves' characters are exchanging letters, but they're in different years. In case that's not clear: Bullock's character lives in 2006 yet she sends letters to and receives them from Reeves' character, who resides in the year 2004. That is "the mystery behind their extraordinary romance."*


Yes, we saw THE LAKE HOUSE, last night. Before I get into the meat of the review, here's a sampling:

The Good -
* the premise/story
* the acting
* the chemistry

The Bad (or just not so good) -
* some of the storytelling short-hand


The Story
Right off the bat, I was fond of the premise.
This is a love story unlike any other (except one, that I recall). I haven't seen its like in... maybe twenty years, if that.

The "mystery behind their extraordinary romance" is engaging and serves to heighten the audience's interest and emotional investment.

Surprisingly, it also both inspires and impedes their romance.

The Acting
Keanu Reeves' acting is breezy, subtle, and effortless, as it tends to be in his best performances and roles. He is well-known, but somehow manages to avoid the common consequence of such fame - persistence of disbelief (for lack of a better phrase).

Often, well-known actors, like Robin Williams, reach a point where their familiarity overpowers the characters' presence and all I see is the actor... acting. As odd as it may sound, most times, I don't go to the theater to see people acting. I go to the theater to see characters' living.

I think that's a very substantive distinction (though I'm sure some will consider it A Question of Semantics ;-p ).

Sandra Bullock showed in the movie, CRASH (recommended by West), that she can do "intense" with the right role and the right motivation. This movie was no exception, although her intensity is deftly rationed-out to the audience. Like her male lead, Ms. Bullock can flex her considerable acting muscle and demonstrate her unestimated range with a surprising amount of subtlety.

Again, I didn't see acting so much as I saw a character, who happened to look like Sandra Bullock, experiencing life's challenges (just this side of the Twilight Zone).

The supporting cast and characters, Shohreh Aghdashloo's, Willeke van Ammelrooy's and Christopher Plummer's roles, in-particular, were well-placed and expertly nuanced. They were largely complementary, without taking anything away from the main characters. In fact, I'd say that each was so well-developed (which is not to say they were too deeply-developed) that they'd probably make good spin-off characters, on their own.

I don't think the filmmakers should do this, but the point is that, if they wanted to, the supporting characters were so well-crafted and -acted that they could stand on their own. As I type this, I realize that there are very few movie characters about whom I can say this and it speaks well of THE LAKE HOUSE's filmmakers and actors.

The Storytelling
It's hard to find anything to gripe about, regarding the storytelling, in this movie.

The lead and supporter characters' personas were well-rendered. The premise, which could easily have been the greatest stumbling-block of the feature, was fleshed-out just enough to be engaging, then left, like the best gifts, it was left, completely entrusted, in the hands of the audience.

As I suggested earlier, there was a storytelling shorthand technique that the filmmakers relied upon, later in the film, which concerned me just a bit. Suffice it to say that narrating written correspondence ought not come across as if the sender and recipient are in the same room.

But I understand why the creators chose this route and I think it was a creative conceit that helped more than it hurt.

Recommended?
Yes.
This was a good movie. I might even say a "very" good movie.
Call it a "chick flick," if you must, but it was a well-told, multi-layered, tale with a premise that dictated, but did not dominate the storytelling landscape.

It doesn't hurt if you've got a sweetie to see it with, either. But if you don't (and aren't bitter about that), I still recommend it.



Your thoughts?


** Warning: Comments section is likely to be spoilerific. Proceed at your own risk. **