...and on 07.06.2003 Ariel said:
"Love At Large"
Hahahaha! I saw the crappiest movie today [07.06.03, that is] on UPN. More later, I have to go to Walmart.
Okay, now I have time. So, this movie was called Love At Large, "starring" Tom Berenger and Elizabeth Perkins. This was quite possibly the most retarded movie ever...well, next to Spawn.
Now, for your entertainment, some movie reviews courtesy of the internet.
By Richard Natale
As stylist, Alan Rudolph has been playing the same saw for years. But damned if he doesn't still get some sweet licks out of it. Romance is Rudolph's game and he's as smitten as ever in Love At Large. When his stylistic conceits dovetail with his narrative as they do here, Rudolph can be an extremely seductive director. He pulls you into the material and you find yourself capitulating to his eccentric, concentric tales.
Few directors are so enamored of love, the good, the bad, and the bittersweet of it. His heroes--in Love At Large, a frazzled frog-throated gumshoe (Tom Berenger)--are so cynical that you know they're really emotional naifs underneath. His women are every bit as bemused by the muddle-headedness of erotic entanglement. Rudolph's films are about the joyfully tortuous ritual dances these men and women perform, circling around each other, unable to surrender, but incapable of quitting the floor either.
Love At Large is as close as Rudolph has come to a classic romantic farce since Choose Me. He uses the conventions of detective film noir only to deliberately subvert them. As is true of all his films, you know the lovers will end up together. The fun is all in how they get there. Rudolph never takes us in a straight line: Berenger is hired to follow a man. He follows the wrong man and he's being followed by the right woman, Elizabeth Perkins, who has been put on his tail by the wrong woman, Ann Magnuson. With us so far? But the wrong man turns out to be the right man because he has his own dirty secrets. And the right man (Neil Young) turns out to be all wrong for the woman who hired Berenger in the first place (the utterly delightful Anne Archer). Berenger and Perkins expose both men, and, inadvertently, each other. It's a moody, witty ride aided by Rudolph's typical dense, color-saturated compositions and the essential Mark Isham score. Again, the location is some Seattle of the mind in the indeterminate past or future (or present?). The time jumbles don't always work in Rudolph's movies. But here they lend a universality to the theme, which is, after all, the glory of love at its finest and most foolish. Can't get more timeless than that. As a result, the style becomes the content, and the content becomes the style.
Now, for a REAL review of what the movie was REALLY like, w/o all the glorified sugar-coated crap additives.
By Roger Ebert
(from Chicago Sun-Times)
Here is a movie that looks like a parody, sounds like a parody and plays like a parody, but isn't a parody - because the genre it's making fun of doesn't exist. Maybe "Love at Large" is a satire on satire itself. It feels like a movie from another time-space continuum, another world where audiences would understand the jokes and respond to the references. It should play in a theater where the manager is Rod Serling.
Alan Rudolph has made movies like this before. The difference is, I've liked them before. There was "Choose Me," with its radio sex therapist, its escaped killer and its beautiful broad who owned a bar. And "Trouble in Mind," with the refugees from a film noir hanging out in a sleazy downtown bar and grill, while troops from an unknown country occupied the streets.
Now we have "Love at Large," where the private detective meets the dame in the low-cut dress in a nightclub while the band plays sexy ballads and cigarette girls slink past in the background. Is this the 1940s? No, because the characters also drive modern cars and fly in jets, and the households look like real locations.
What's going on here? What's happening, when Anne Archer is trying to hire Tom Berenger to follow a man, and in the middle of talking to him she bursts into a little snatch of song, and then the camera fills the screen with her lush red lips? And why does he talk in such a growl? And what is the plot about, anyway?
The plot. Seen simply in its outlines, it could be the setup for a Hitchcock picture. Archer wants Berenger to follow a man (Ted Levine) who turns out, according to Berenger's investigation, to be married to two wives at the same time. Berenger discovers that another private eye (Elizabeth Perkins) is also on the same case. Who hired her? Is she friend or enemy? Is it safe to fall in love with her?
There is stuff here for a nice, tight mystery, but Rudolph also finds room for long, talky scenes that have no purpose other than to create a smoky, romantic atmosphere in a series of city cocktail lounges and country saloons. People look at each other a lot in this movie and wonder what they're thinking. So do we; there's lots of free time.
Rudolph is an interesting director and in an age of conformists and formula-mongers he is to be valued. "Love at Large" doesn't work, but at least it doesn't fail because it's safe and predictable. It goes drifting off into some kind of moonstruck reverie about private eye pictures and lipstick. It allows Berenger to create a performance so goofy he will probably not want to try the same note again - but seen simply as a performance, it's unusual and entertaining. It has a lot of interesting faces (Kate Capshaw, Annette O'Toole, Ann Magnuson, Kevin O'Connor) in supporting roles that seem completely free-standing (God knows they aren't used to advance or explain the plot). It's the kind of film where you have little idea of what the director was trying to do, but it makes you curious about what he'll try next.
Thank you, Roger Ebert! Hats off to ye!!!
Replies: 2 outbursts
Add A Comment
[prev] [main] [next]