A
man and woman have a meet-cute then [sort of] leave it up to fate to determine
if they'll ever see each other again.
It was almost required that I revisit this film eventually. After all, it is the centerpiece example of the most common recurring topic on this blog: my One Big Leap. That's my principle of giving a movie one major leap of faith before I start picking the story apart. Serendipity by its very definition seems to defy this principle - it's nothing but convenient writing. Except, I'm not sure it does violate the One Big Leap. While I was doing some research about the film, I came across reviews that complain that the movie is too contrived. I laughed when I read that. I don't think it's possible to miss the point any more than that. The contrivance is the point. The fact that the movie is one close call or near miss after another is the reason the film exists. Basically, this passes my One Big Leap test because the leap is believing that fate and chance, not John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale are the lead characters of this movie. Almost immediately, the film establishes that contrivance is the currency of the story. Complaining about that would be like complaining about Wookies not existing when watching Star Wars.
OK, now that I've established that, I can talk about the film itself. I didn't like it as much as when I first saw it probably around 2001. It just wasn't as boldly clever as I remembered. I almost wish it was even more contrived. Like, give me that shot of the two leads walking on the same street but in different directions, not aware of the other. Could two-way mirrors be involved? How about that thing where the person is on the TV right behind the other character and she doesn't even realize it? I'm not even kidding. If you are going to be contrived then own it. Leave no room for confusion, except of course, for farce. This could use some farce*.
*Nope. I already take that back. I hate nearly every kind of farce. It has to be done at a ridiculously high level or in a completely benign way for it to not bother the hell out of me.
So, surprisingly, the big strike against this movie wasn't with the story. It's that I didn't fall for the meet-cute. John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale are both incredibly charming actors. I'd watch them in anything*. They were in peak RomCom form when this was released. However, the whole movie relies on their meet-cute being so great that they would want to track each other down years later. Like, they went on a nice date. I'm just not sure it was epic to the point that this movie needed. You could maybe argue that their desire to track each other down was an impulse response to knowing that Bridget Moynahan and John Corbett weren't right for them and that Cusack and Beckinsale became symbols of a life lost, but that wasn't in the text of the film. That would be reading a lot that isn't there.
*Except for any more Underworld movies, Shanghai, Cell, The Disappointments Room...OK, there's a lot of things I wouldn't watch with them in it, but it's never their fault if it's bad.
My meet-cute issue is the kind that would push the film from good to great. I still enjoyed quite a bit of it. I like interconnected stories, even when they have issues. The cast, is full of enjoyable performers who are the platonic ideals for RomCom casting (Beckinsale and Cusack as leads, Jeremy Piven as the best friend, Eugene Levy as an uppity department store employee, etc.). Sometimes, that's all I'm looking for.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment