trpdean
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).This is all just ridiculous.I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.
wrhs_71-1
Subject matter: Worthwhile Acting: Fair (some of it) Plot: Ridiculous Details: Sound goes from screechingly high to nearly inaudible; music is not altogether awful (but mostly is); dialog and characterization are laughable; the main character's process of discovery is blindingly obvious to everyone but himself (and the writer, apparently); animal scenes are just plain stupid (singing "Moon River" in an off-key, forgotten-lyrics, silly duet to a "herd" of wild boars for hours, as one example). Finally, the "wet t-shirt" contest is so over-the-top silly that it has to be seen to be disbelieved. (Hint: The 'girl' who wins is not a ... well, I'm not giving that away.)
Tim Evanson
The most frustrating film in the world is one that has a great cast, great story, and great production values -- but never quite clicks. That's this film.Angus MacFadyen plays Houston, a Coloradan who owns and edits a "Maxim"-like men's magazine that focuses on beer, cigars, breasts and fart-jokes. He's got women coming out his ears -- a hot blonde who is a model, a hot blonde with a son who sees him as husband-material, etc. When Houston's mother -- a woman he hasn't seen in seven years and hasn't even talked to in five -- dies, Houston heads to the funeral. He meets up with Zane (Penelope Ann Miller), his ex-girlfriend from ten years ago. But soon Houston finds out that Zane has been named executor of his mother's estate. Worse, Zane has been his mother's secret lesbian lover for the last three years.The film follows Houston's emotional evolution as he comes to term with his mother, his dead father, his family history, and Zane.In some ways, however, the film cheats just a little too much. Houston is supposedly a ladies' man (although MacFadyen is a little too chubby and too average-looking to be believable in this), an outright misogynist who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant. Houston is set up almost as a caricature: He blames his mother for his parents' divorce, he idolizes his father, he believes his father's tall tale about shooting a grizzly bear six times on the family ranch-land, he is a homophobe, he holds his family's land in the sort of awe only in the way that people who've never cared about land can do.All of Houston's come-uppances are similarly a little too pat. Houston is traumatized by Zane's admission of lesbianism, and yet later Houston sleeps with twins who engage in lesbian sex in front of him -- to his utter horror. Houston hauls the stuffed grizzly bear around -- only to find out that it was fake and made in Mexico. Houston believes his father was a god-fearing, honest, decent man -- only to find out he was a wife-beating adulterer who cheated and lied his way through life.MacFadyen tries valiantly to rescue the character of Houston by humanizing him, making him less of a monster than the script calls for. But he's not a strong enough actor to quite pull it off, and the script fails him time and time again. There is a scene where Houston triumphantly holds a wet t-shirt contest on his family's land, offending Zane and her liberal sensibilities. Houston kisses the winner, a buxom brunette. But of course, "she" is a transsexual, and Houston can't believe he just "kissed a guy." Although somewhat funny, the scene destroys the credibility of the storyline. And MacFadyen simply can't make the character seem believable or honest with such material. The film tries to make Houston more honest by giving him a love of "the land," a love for historic places (he's anti-development), and a powerful feeling for his family history and roots. But against the background of the rest of the character, these feelings come off as specious.Penelope Ann Miller, however, is just outstanding as Zane, the rejected lover who becomes a lesbian. She has just the right amount of gravitas for the character without turning preachy or heavy. In the key scene, where Zane explains why she became the mother's lover, Miller plays the role with such sensitivity and sincerely that you, too, feel the surprise and innocence of Zane's decision -- just as Zane did. Zane is no closeted lesbian or confused college student who sleeps with the mother out of spite or jealousy. This is someone who found a real friend in the mother during the relationship with Houston, continued that after the break-up, and then unwittingly fell in love (to her own surprise).Ann-Margret is largely wasted as Houston's step-mother, Claire, a greedy New Age bitch who can only see land development deals and money as she manipulates Houston into seizing control of the land from Zane. You also get the feeling that a lot of her scenes are missing from the final cut. There are odd references in the dialogue that seem to refer to scenes that aren't in the movie. Much of the legal battle in the final 45 minutes of the film revolves around conversations we've never seen. Indeed, this hurts the development of both the Houston and Claire characters. The exposition and plot development that should have been there is missing, making the characters leap from action to action and emotion to emotion seemingly at random or without much reason.Indeed, this is a problem with the entire film. The little inconsistencies turn what could have been a truly outstanding film into one that has all jets burning -- but never leaves the ground. It has wings, but never flies. An improved soundtrack (it's so nondescript, you would swear there isn't one), better editing, a better writing would have greatly helped.It is pleasant enough. But go to a matinee, not the full-price evening show.
