Saturday, March 22, 2008



Chris Cooper: middle-aged executive Harry Allen
Pierce Brosnan: his best friend Richard Langley
Rachel McAdams: Harry’s friend Kay Nesbitt
Patricia Clarkson: Harry’s wife Pat

All four leads turn in excellent performances and the story about relationships (in and out of marriage) has enough nuances to keep you engaged. Consistent with the movie making style of the period, the film editing generally comprises long takes which slows down the pace a tad. Certainly entertaining enough, it is probably not one you would chose to see a second time.

for some thematic elements and a scene of sexuality.

1. While Harry and Pat are sitting on the couch in the living room the camera is on Pat while idly stoking a dog by her side. She asks Harry a question and the camera position is now further back so we can see his response but no dog…it has vanished.
2. Pat keeps a blue bottle of Digestive Powder on the bedside table. From one shot to the next when Harry first comes in the bedroom it moves about the tray, although no one touches it.
3. The two male leads show their cultured upbringing by standing when a woman arrives at their table and their table manners are impeccable. So these two gentlemen would know it is considered proper for a man to remove his hat while on an elevator yet they fail to do so. Character flaw or nitpick? You know how I would vote.
4. Harry calls the telephone operator to report a problem with his home phone and tells her the number is 432 92. This can’t be right because the telephone number of Mrs. Walsh, his neighbour, is Radisson XXXX so you would dial 7XX XX not 4XX XX.
5. Also that telephone exchange was for the Duluth Minnesota area and not used in New York City where these events take place.

When they give out awards for Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design this one has to be a contender. The “look” about the film is absolutely exquisite. And they have gone to great length to make it historically correct, even to the props. Upon seeing the big 20” television screen I thought I had a nitpick because the size of most TV screens back in 1949 was so small it could be entirely hidden with the current edition of Reader’s Digest magazine. But it turns out big screens were available, just not everyone could afford one.

No comments: