26 reviews
In opening up the play Mr. Kelley has lost some of the intimacy which in turn does not allow the fullest expression of grief. Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Danes seem to know this and so are a bit labored in their otherwise good and consistent performances. Michelle Pfiefer (Mrs. Kelley) seems to be mis-cast and appears also not to be giving her all to her performance of the late Gillian. It would be interesting to know how she might of played it with different direction or what another actress may have been able to do with the role. Still it is an excellent portrait of the ways loss and grief influence our lives and become part of who we are. Supporting cast is fine.
There's a pivotal scene in this movie in which a sexy teenager tries to seduce an older, family friend. She says he's the type who always looks but never acts on his impulses. She's right, because he refuses her advances. Too bad. This movie needed some excitement. The characters are so whiny, so self-absorbed that you just want to slap them and say, "get over it." The main character is a widowed man, played by Peter Gallagher. His wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) died in a boating accident, but she appears to him on the beach. Can you say, "Ghost"? Unfortunately, there's no Whoopi Golberg to provide comic relief. There's no whoopi at all. There is Claire Danes. I love Claire. She's going to win a few Oscars over her career, but not if she keeps picking weepy stories like this one. Claire also walks along the beach in a thong bikini, and I'd like to thank her, and the producers for those moments. I think that's why the slo-mo button was invented for VCRs. That's it for the spice. Then everyone starts whining again, and you start checking your watch to see how much longer you have to endure these annoying people.
OK, I know that this movie is based on a play, but still, does the main idea expressed by Peter Gallagher need to directly reflect a line said by John Cage on Ally McBeal 3 years later? Gallagher's character says that while he experiences this "fantasy", he is happy, happier than he is in the real world. John Cage tells Ally that you can't find happiness in the real world, and that is why she is only happy in her imaginary world. Hmmmmmmmm.... This seems a little redundant to me, but as long as we don't see the ghost of Happy Boyle on Ally McBeal, I can forgive DEK.
As for the overall movie, I give this movie an 8 out of 10 stars.
As for the overall movie, I give this movie an 8 out of 10 stars.
- filmluvr-3
- Jun 15, 1999
- Permalink
I can vaguely recall when this movie was released nationwide in 1996. The title struck me as odd and aside from the fact that I wanted to see/hear how James Horner would conduct another exceptional score, I had no desire to see the film. After recently viewing To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday, I am disappointed that I didn't see it in the theater. Peter Gallagher, Claire Daines, and Bruce Altman all deliver marvelous performances. Michelle Pfieffer was a nice surprise (she's always "nice") as she plays her part to perfection! One of the best things about this film is the fact that you're not sure whether or not what you are seeing is real or whether it's just what's in David's (Gallagher) mind. Whichever way you believe, it's an amazingly touching film and at times it's even powerful. Great dialogue, great directing, and a great score from Horner (again), make this a truly GREAT film!
I was hoping to give a 7 or an 8 to this movie, because of the sensitivity and caring that it embodied and illustrated. The acting was good from the entire cast. Everything was going along fine until David's daughter, Rachael, changed her mind and decided to go live with her aunt and uncle. That was an extremely cruel, unexplained and unwarranted twist in the plot that came with no warning.
If the producer of this movie wanted to play that black card at the end of the movie, they needed to supply some context...Some reasons why. We see no real reason for the young woman to make this decision: Leaving her dad all alone at a time when he needed her the most. Indeed, she should have known that her leaving could bring on another suicide attempt by her father.
Her going to go live with that "bee with an itch on the end" was unacceptable to me, and ruined a perfectly good movie and one that could have been great. The young lady should have fought for her dad tooth-and-nail. She should have believed him that he does indeed commune with the spirit of her mother.
The scene that re-inforces the absurdity of the final decision by Rachael is when Wendy Crewson's and Kathy Baker's characters are on the beach one night and The former defends David's behavior and opposes the latter's intrusiveness:
Kevin: Imagine him losing his daughter for taking long walks on the beach.
Esther: It's not just that.
Kevin: Then what is it? Is there something else you're not telling me?
Esther: No
Kevin: Then I don't see his crime.
I have a philosophical objection to the movie, as well: Nowhere in To Gillian is it even suggested or hinted that there is a possibility that David might be perfectly sane and that spirits of loved ones are sometimes able to communicate with us. When his daughter selfishly drop-kicked him like that with no warning or reason (while she was hung-over), I just wonder what could have been.
The movie could have had a great ending with the daughter urging her dad to allow her to go along with him on his beach walks so that the mother's spirit could come through to her, too. The daughter should have fought with the aunt.., physically, and thrown her out of their home. Instead, we get a very black and disturbing ending to a movie that had so much potential.
If the producer of this movie wanted to play that black card at the end of the movie, they needed to supply some context...Some reasons why. We see no real reason for the young woman to make this decision: Leaving her dad all alone at a time when he needed her the most. Indeed, she should have known that her leaving could bring on another suicide attempt by her father.
Her going to go live with that "bee with an itch on the end" was unacceptable to me, and ruined a perfectly good movie and one that could have been great. The young lady should have fought for her dad tooth-and-nail. She should have believed him that he does indeed commune with the spirit of her mother.
The scene that re-inforces the absurdity of the final decision by Rachael is when Wendy Crewson's and Kathy Baker's characters are on the beach one night and The former defends David's behavior and opposes the latter's intrusiveness:
Kevin: Imagine him losing his daughter for taking long walks on the beach.
Esther: It's not just that.
Kevin: Then what is it? Is there something else you're not telling me?
Esther: No
Kevin: Then I don't see his crime.
I have a philosophical objection to the movie, as well: Nowhere in To Gillian is it even suggested or hinted that there is a possibility that David might be perfectly sane and that spirits of loved ones are sometimes able to communicate with us. When his daughter selfishly drop-kicked him like that with no warning or reason (while she was hung-over), I just wonder what could have been.
The movie could have had a great ending with the daughter urging her dad to allow her to go along with him on his beach walks so that the mother's spirit could come through to her, too. The daughter should have fought with the aunt.., physically, and thrown her out of their home. Instead, we get a very black and disturbing ending to a movie that had so much potential.
I forced myself to watch this through to the end.
It COULD have been so much better. So frustrating.
I suppose let me start with the good.
Supporting players:
Kathy Baker, Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer are great. Of course, there's not enough Pfeiffer cuz she's a ghost.
Scenery-
Lovely beach sunny locations and a great beach house. What's not to like about that!
Ok, I'm running short on the good stuff now.
Now the bad.
The worst thing about this movie is PETER GALLAGHER. He just isn't up to this role.
Many times he's having scenes with the aforementioned ladies and I swear I can see in their eyes this look that's saying: "I'm getting nothing from this guy".
It's truly pathetic. He comes across like a mildly talented community theater amateur. He's jus so out of his league.
Now the writing. It's all over the place. This movie totally needed a script doctor.
As I was watching this I thought to myself, 14 year old girls would LOVE this movie.
Or, well, people who really haven't watched A LOT of really good movies that cover this sort of material.
Because the writing is off, the tone of the movie is off too. Things feel very awkward at times.
It's very strange. I haven't watched a movie like this in a long time, where you might get a good moment here and there (usually without Gallagher in it) and then a scene that just seems, well there's no other way to say it, STUPID.
This movie really could have been one of those sweet, tear jerker kind of movies, but there's a reason it's not known very well.
The MOST horrible thing about the movie is definitely GALLAGHER'S acting. A truly talented actor could have raised the quality of the movie from a 6 rating to easily a 7 or 8.
Some of the blame HAS to go to the director. Though who knows, maybe the director DID force Gallagher into multiple takes. At some point you can only use what you've got.
So there it is. An unfortunate miss.
It COULD have been so much better. So frustrating.
I suppose let me start with the good.
Supporting players:
Kathy Baker, Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer are great. Of course, there's not enough Pfeiffer cuz she's a ghost.
Scenery-
Lovely beach sunny locations and a great beach house. What's not to like about that!
Ok, I'm running short on the good stuff now.
Now the bad.
The worst thing about this movie is PETER GALLAGHER. He just isn't up to this role.
Many times he's having scenes with the aforementioned ladies and I swear I can see in their eyes this look that's saying: "I'm getting nothing from this guy".
It's truly pathetic. He comes across like a mildly talented community theater amateur. He's jus so out of his league.
Now the writing. It's all over the place. This movie totally needed a script doctor.
As I was watching this I thought to myself, 14 year old girls would LOVE this movie.
Or, well, people who really haven't watched A LOT of really good movies that cover this sort of material.
Because the writing is off, the tone of the movie is off too. Things feel very awkward at times.
It's very strange. I haven't watched a movie like this in a long time, where you might get a good moment here and there (usually without Gallagher in it) and then a scene that just seems, well there's no other way to say it, STUPID.
This movie really could have been one of those sweet, tear jerker kind of movies, but there's a reason it's not known very well.
The MOST horrible thing about the movie is definitely GALLAGHER'S acting. A truly talented actor could have raised the quality of the movie from a 6 rating to easily a 7 or 8.
Some of the blame HAS to go to the director. Though who knows, maybe the director DID force Gallagher into multiple takes. At some point you can only use what you've got.
So there it is. An unfortunate miss.
David Lewis (Peter Gallagher) lost his wife Gillian (Michelle Pfeiffer) two years ago in a boating accident. He is now angry and won't get over her. It's the traditional weekend Gillian's birthday bash, and they're still carry out the tradition. Her sister Esther Wheeler (Kathy Baker) and her husband Paul (Bruce Altman) wrangle Kevin Dollof (Wendy Crewson) to join them. Meanwhile her daughter Rachel (Claire Danes) brings her sexy friend Cindy (Laurie Fortier) to the beach house, and catches the attention of mystery boy Joey Bost (Freddie Prinze Jr.)
Adapted from a play by David E. Kelley, this has the feel of a talkative play at times. The great thing in this movie is the great actors involved. They bring the characters to life. The only exception may be Wendy Crewson who seems to be overwhelmed and underwhelming.
The weakest part of the movie is actually the conversations with Gillian. They're bland and drags the movie down. It's better to not see the conversations and just imagine them. It would be so much better to see him walking around talking to himself. It would elevate the mental illness angle, and make the danger of losing Rachel even greater.
Adapted from a play by David E. Kelley, this has the feel of a talkative play at times. The great thing in this movie is the great actors involved. They bring the characters to life. The only exception may be Wendy Crewson who seems to be overwhelmed and underwhelming.
The weakest part of the movie is actually the conversations with Gillian. They're bland and drags the movie down. It's better to not see the conversations and just imagine them. It would be so much better to see him walking around talking to himself. It would elevate the mental illness angle, and make the danger of losing Rachel even greater.
- SnoopyStyle
- Jan 19, 2014
- Permalink
I remember when this movie came out, I was a long, long way from 37 myself. Still in my twenties and enjoying that sweet, fun ride that was the 90's. I thought to myself, man 37 is so far from here. Will I even be able to relate to this film?
Same with that tv show, Thirtysomething from back in the day. I was in high school mostly then. Like? Look at all those old people. All worried about their old people problems.
Ha.
And now, here I am at the end of 2023 and I'm long past 37.
Long past. Sadly.
I only bring it up because of both shows focusing on the age of thirties.
Well, this isn't a show but it sure feels like one No surprise given one of the writers is producer David E. Kelley. A longtime tv guy.
And I was wondering how the heck they got Michelle Pfeiffer, in the prime of her career, to play such a silly role in such a silly movie.
Well, she's also Kelley's wife.
This movie has all sorts of problems.
It even starts out all wrong.
There's a road rage incident that could put innocent people in harm's way.
Then there's a nighttime beach scene involving two lovers chasing lustfully after each other.
Is this Jaws?
Is she going in the water?
This is Nantucket.
We're close to Amity.
Okay, I get it. We get it. They're out for a beautiful cruise on the family yacht on Gillian's (Pfeiffer) birthday. Oh, she's such a free spirit. So full of life. So wild, footloose and fancy-free.
But who the heck acts like that?
Who the heck does that?
Really?
Really?
Okay.
And so this movie goes.
The actions and dialogue, the things people do and say in this movie is ridiculous and totally unbelievable.
The brother-in-law?
What a creep! Yuck!
The neighbor girl? How old is she even supposed to be? And she's over there all the time. Like, she never leaves. Her parents just leave her at the beach house, alone for days?
Okay.
The director made The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training, Doctor Detroit and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze.
So, not bad credentials.
But this is a bad time at the beach.
A total summer bummer.
Not even halfway through, I was looking for that great white shark in the water so that I could jump in.
Same with that tv show, Thirtysomething from back in the day. I was in high school mostly then. Like? Look at all those old people. All worried about their old people problems.
Ha.
And now, here I am at the end of 2023 and I'm long past 37.
Long past. Sadly.
I only bring it up because of both shows focusing on the age of thirties.
Well, this isn't a show but it sure feels like one No surprise given one of the writers is producer David E. Kelley. A longtime tv guy.
And I was wondering how the heck they got Michelle Pfeiffer, in the prime of her career, to play such a silly role in such a silly movie.
Well, she's also Kelley's wife.
This movie has all sorts of problems.
It even starts out all wrong.
There's a road rage incident that could put innocent people in harm's way.
Then there's a nighttime beach scene involving two lovers chasing lustfully after each other.
Is this Jaws?
Is she going in the water?
This is Nantucket.
We're close to Amity.
Okay, I get it. We get it. They're out for a beautiful cruise on the family yacht on Gillian's (Pfeiffer) birthday. Oh, she's such a free spirit. So full of life. So wild, footloose and fancy-free.
But who the heck acts like that?
Who the heck does that?
Really?
Really?
Okay.
And so this movie goes.
The actions and dialogue, the things people do and say in this movie is ridiculous and totally unbelievable.
The brother-in-law?
What a creep! Yuck!
The neighbor girl? How old is she even supposed to be? And she's over there all the time. Like, she never leaves. Her parents just leave her at the beach house, alone for days?
Okay.
The director made The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training, Doctor Detroit and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze.
So, not bad credentials.
But this is a bad time at the beach.
A total summer bummer.
Not even halfway through, I was looking for that great white shark in the water so that I could jump in.
- RightOnDaddio
- Sep 1, 2023
- Permalink
- bsmith5552
- May 29, 2020
- Permalink
- anaconda-40658
- Dec 14, 2015
- Permalink
Many people have losses that are very hard to deal with, and they must "Let-Go" on their own time and in their own way after processing. I think this movie was well done. I believe that many of us who have lost either a spouse, parent, sibling, etc ... have kept in contact in some way in our heart, soul and mind. Here is to Dave and Gillian, and a very good screenplay!
- merrill222
- Sep 19, 2000
- Permalink
This was one of my favorite movies ever. I watched it once and was curiously confused by the twists and uncertainties in the plot. Then I watched it again and I cried more than I have ever cried in my life. I quietly bawled, tears flowing, through the entire movie. I have recommended it to many people as a great movie, but I don't know of anyone who has seen it. I think I will go look online and see if I can buy it. It is deep, deep, deep, especially for people with mental illness in their family, or let's say emotional illness in our society. Powerful lessons are taught about love and caring for our children. People need lessons on how to love, value, and treat each other selflessly. Most of us spend so much energy, research and resources on technological and financial advancement and so little on human concerns and relationship development. Commentators are complaining that the husband is fantasizing about an idealized wife, but we actually don't have to settle for poor quality relationships. We can learn to value, nurture, support each other and be real.
David E. Kelley is a brilliant writer. The early episodes of Picket Fences & Chicago Hope, the later episodes of L.A. Law and just about every Practice & Ally McBeal ever made are examples of his great talent. The only problem he has is trying to convert that TV magic to the big screen. His movie scripts are enjoyable, but lack the energy and excitement of his great TV writing.
To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday deals with a man (Peter Gallagher) who loved his wife so much, he just can't let her go. The wife's ghost seems to appear to him on the beach and he spends hours talking to her while neglecting their teenaged daughter (Claire Danes). The dead wife is Michelle Pfieffer, the best-looking ghost I've ever seen in a movie! The tension between father and daughter grows and the arrival of Gillian's sister (Kathy Baker from Picket Fences) and her husband makes things even more tense.
This movie has a good cast who all give strong performances and there is a memorable scene with Claire Danes and Laurie Fortier in thong bikinis, but the movie is hurt by Kelley's weak script, which is not up to the level of quality we've come to expect from him.
To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday deals with a man (Peter Gallagher) who loved his wife so much, he just can't let her go. The wife's ghost seems to appear to him on the beach and he spends hours talking to her while neglecting their teenaged daughter (Claire Danes). The dead wife is Michelle Pfieffer, the best-looking ghost I've ever seen in a movie! The tension between father and daughter grows and the arrival of Gillian's sister (Kathy Baker from Picket Fences) and her husband makes things even more tense.
This movie has a good cast who all give strong performances and there is a memorable scene with Claire Danes and Laurie Fortier in thong bikinis, but the movie is hurt by Kelley's weak script, which is not up to the level of quality we've come to expect from him.
This is one of the movies I'd buy to keep in my collection. Not only does it have a strong cast that meshes well together, but the story lingers on the emotional moments long enough for you to savor them and to enjoy the effect of transporting you into their world.
It's not a sappy movie that's cliched, but rather one that deals with the emotions of letting go of the past and those left behind.
Claire does play this movie well, and if it were another actress in her shoes, it would have a much different flavor and feel. I'd say it's one of her better movies she's starred in after My So Called Life, and worth buying just for her alone. (I'd rate it above Claire's others like Polish Wedding, I Love You, I Love You Not, and Brokedown Palace.)
Overall, it's a well-balanced movie that delivers a surprise that's not expected by the bland title alone, and while not an awesome movie of the highest caliber, it is certainly a movie that deserves a viewing.
It's not a sappy movie that's cliched, but rather one that deals with the emotions of letting go of the past and those left behind.
Claire does play this movie well, and if it were another actress in her shoes, it would have a much different flavor and feel. I'd say it's one of her better movies she's starred in after My So Called Life, and worth buying just for her alone. (I'd rate it above Claire's others like Polish Wedding, I Love You, I Love You Not, and Brokedown Palace.)
Overall, it's a well-balanced movie that delivers a surprise that's not expected by the bland title alone, and while not an awesome movie of the highest caliber, it is certainly a movie that deserves a viewing.
- adorable-3
- Aug 22, 1999
- Permalink
Michael Brady wrote this play, and David Kelley wrote the script for the movie. The original poster of comments went on and on about David Kelley's "weak writing" but we must remember that it is a play, Broadway Play Publishers owns the rights. What is a wonderful play does not trancend to the screen with all the warm fuzziness the script calls for. While you are able to put in on Nantucket and you get the scene feel, it needs to be seen live. The casting is marvelous, and worth it to see Peter Gallagher play someone very lost, and the music could have been more haunting. All in all if you want to see it, do. It's a good story and an ok movie, but if a local theatre is doing Gillian, do go see it. It's better as a play.
- babychicken
- Apr 9, 2004
- Permalink
A movie about a man, David, who lost his wife, the love of his life, Gillian, in an accident. Unable to cope with the loss, David clings on to his memory of her, talking to her at night, as if she is right in front of him, out on the beach, up to and beyond the point that his daughter and friends notice, become aware and worry.
The movie script apparently has been developed from a stage play and the movie somehow preserves the atmosphere of a stage play indeed. I think this is actually welcome: it allows us to watch the scenes, instead of being totally immersed in them. In my experience of this movie, it doesn't make this movie remote; it makes it merciful, given the fact that it actually addresses a struggle with unbearable loss.
The script develops the characters and their interactions. All very well understood and performed by the actors, who together carry the story and its theme.
But transcending all this are the scenes of David and Gillian alone together. The scenes in which Michelle Pfeiffer portrays the mental images of a man's beloved late wife, are true treasures of cinema. Her first appearance in a moonlit scene out on the sandy beach is as ethereal as was her entrance as Isabeau of Anjou, the lady of the night, in 'Lady Hawke'. In 'To Gillean', nearly all Pfeiffer's performances are dialogues, between David and his lively imagined, but passed away, Gillean. And as she does, as an actress, Pfeiffer becomes her character. But in this particular role, this transcends portraying a real human being. Pfeiffer portrays the desperately lively image of a deceased, much loved wife, in a widower's mind. This movie offers unique scenes of hauntingly beautiful moonlit acting, captured on film.
The movie script apparently has been developed from a stage play and the movie somehow preserves the atmosphere of a stage play indeed. I think this is actually welcome: it allows us to watch the scenes, instead of being totally immersed in them. In my experience of this movie, it doesn't make this movie remote; it makes it merciful, given the fact that it actually addresses a struggle with unbearable loss.
The script develops the characters and their interactions. All very well understood and performed by the actors, who together carry the story and its theme.
But transcending all this are the scenes of David and Gillian alone together. The scenes in which Michelle Pfeiffer portrays the mental images of a man's beloved late wife, are true treasures of cinema. Her first appearance in a moonlit scene out on the sandy beach is as ethereal as was her entrance as Isabeau of Anjou, the lady of the night, in 'Lady Hawke'. In 'To Gillean', nearly all Pfeiffer's performances are dialogues, between David and his lively imagined, but passed away, Gillean. And as she does, as an actress, Pfeiffer becomes her character. But in this particular role, this transcends portraying a real human being. Pfeiffer portrays the desperately lively image of a deceased, much loved wife, in a widower's mind. This movie offers unique scenes of hauntingly beautiful moonlit acting, captured on film.
- venividimovi
- Mar 4, 2021
- Permalink
I watched this film a number of years ago. And how could I resist? This is the film version of the play I directed at the Walla Walla Little Theater for my senior project in theater back in 1990.
Suffice to say, this movie really does away with the cozy script and the well-rounded characters to present something much more "TV-slick" and less than emotionally satisfying. Virtually no character is the same, and many have been given personality lobotomies for no apparent reason.
If you get a chance to see "Gillian" at your local theater, go. It's works well in a more intimate, live setting. Here, the changed story is so much wasted potential.
Suffice to say, this movie really does away with the cozy script and the well-rounded characters to present something much more "TV-slick" and less than emotionally satisfying. Virtually no character is the same, and many have been given personality lobotomies for no apparent reason.
If you get a chance to see "Gillian" at your local theater, go. It's works well in a more intimate, live setting. Here, the changed story is so much wasted potential.
This is one of the worst play-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Of course, that's because it's a terrible hack job of one of my favorite stage plays, so I'm biased.
It does my heart good to see David E. Kelley completely bombing out every time he tries to make a feature film. The guy is so overrated (in my opinion.) And he really, REALLY blew it with this movie, considering how excellent, how genuinely moving the source material is.
When I went to see the film (with well-founded trepidation), I noticed that the only laughs generated out of the dialogue were for jokes that are found in the original play. Unfortunately, Kelley has done great violence to the original story in his filmic massacre...I mean "adaptation"...and the movie falls flat, flat, flat. It utterly misses the deeper points of the stage drama.
In fact, except for the basics of plot, it barely resembles the award-winning play at all. Esther, instead of being a professional psychologist, becomes in the movie version a busybody nag who has taken a couple of psychology classes, which somehow qualifies her to analyze the main character David. Pretty lame.
David E. Kelley (not the main character, thank God), in his infinite wisdom, turns Cindy into a horny little slut who tries to seduce Paul, instead of keeping her the teenage girl next door who has the sweet, and somehow sad, schoolgirl crush on David. Gillian's depth and complexity of character completely disappears. In the film she's merely an ethereal beauty who hangs around to inanely chat with David. The point of the play is that she's both saint and sinner -- something Esther wants David to remember, before he idealizes her into a fantasy that drives him literally crazy.
Ugh! I could go on, but it will simply make me angrier and angrier. This movie stinks. Read the play. It's only a hundred thousand times better than the movie, that's all.
It does my heart good to see David E. Kelley completely bombing out every time he tries to make a feature film. The guy is so overrated (in my opinion.) And he really, REALLY blew it with this movie, considering how excellent, how genuinely moving the source material is.
When I went to see the film (with well-founded trepidation), I noticed that the only laughs generated out of the dialogue were for jokes that are found in the original play. Unfortunately, Kelley has done great violence to the original story in his filmic massacre...I mean "adaptation"...and the movie falls flat, flat, flat. It utterly misses the deeper points of the stage drama.
In fact, except for the basics of plot, it barely resembles the award-winning play at all. Esther, instead of being a professional psychologist, becomes in the movie version a busybody nag who has taken a couple of psychology classes, which somehow qualifies her to analyze the main character David. Pretty lame.
David E. Kelley (not the main character, thank God), in his infinite wisdom, turns Cindy into a horny little slut who tries to seduce Paul, instead of keeping her the teenage girl next door who has the sweet, and somehow sad, schoolgirl crush on David. Gillian's depth and complexity of character completely disappears. In the film she's merely an ethereal beauty who hangs around to inanely chat with David. The point of the play is that she's both saint and sinner -- something Esther wants David to remember, before he idealizes her into a fantasy that drives him literally crazy.
Ugh! I could go on, but it will simply make me angrier and angrier. This movie stinks. Read the play. It's only a hundred thousand times better than the movie, that's all.
- WonderBroad
- Nov 30, 2002
- Permalink
To Gillian is a movie that defines the word uneven. The casting and performances were perfect, but not enough to save the writing. Overall, it wasn't bad, but then again, the fact that it was overlooked at awards shows wasn't about politics (this time). The only thing that makes this movie worthwhile (and yes, it is worthwhile) is Claire Danes. She plays the part of angst-filled, emotion-driven, hormone/peer-influenced teenager to perfection. Also, Michelle Pfeiffer is very good, but unfortunately only for ten minutes. Peter Gallagher was more than adequate, as was the supporting cast. The main problem was that they had no on-screen chemistry, which is often reflective of the writing and/or directing.
David Fincher wrote this one. He should stick to TV. Overall, this film is better than should be expected from a team whose credits include Lake Placid (Fincher) and Ninja Turtles 2 (Pressman-director).
David Fincher wrote this one. He should stick to TV. Overall, this film is better than should be expected from a team whose credits include Lake Placid (Fincher) and Ninja Turtles 2 (Pressman-director).
This is actually a good case study for people to see everything that could be done wrong being done in one place :-) Not kidding at all. If you can realize how and why is this movie ridiculous and at least a few things that should have been changed pop up at you you'll learn something from Kelley's failure - and Brady's, since the play is not exactly stellar on it's own.
Like the lack of a real antagonist (Esther could have been that but that requires some writing spine and ideas), the lack of a real dramatic reversal, watering down left and right (starting with long "karaoke" sequences), making all characters lukewarm and mediocre to the point that there are no clear leads, a "ghost" talking about her own non- reality akin to a spineless, self-doubting pseudo-intellectual and loosing even a trace of a mythical etc. etc.
The audience for live theater plays may tolerate some of these things for all kinds of reasons and theatrical directors sometimes do have more spine and artistic bravery to tear a mediocre play apart and bring out some sharpened characters and stronger tension and emotion. In general, theatrical talking heads require some brave intervention in order not to be plain boring.
So this is a rare confluence of a mediocre play, completely spineless adaptation and equally spineless direction. The sole mystery is whether Michelle Pfeiffer did this to make her husband happy of whether he was writing lukewarm to make her happy :-) One of them has to be the principal culprit.
Like the lack of a real antagonist (Esther could have been that but that requires some writing spine and ideas), the lack of a real dramatic reversal, watering down left and right (starting with long "karaoke" sequences), making all characters lukewarm and mediocre to the point that there are no clear leads, a "ghost" talking about her own non- reality akin to a spineless, self-doubting pseudo-intellectual and loosing even a trace of a mythical etc. etc.
The audience for live theater plays may tolerate some of these things for all kinds of reasons and theatrical directors sometimes do have more spine and artistic bravery to tear a mediocre play apart and bring out some sharpened characters and stronger tension and emotion. In general, theatrical talking heads require some brave intervention in order not to be plain boring.
So this is a rare confluence of a mediocre play, completely spineless adaptation and equally spineless direction. The sole mystery is whether Michelle Pfeiffer did this to make her husband happy of whether he was writing lukewarm to make her happy :-) One of them has to be the principal culprit.
No it means I loved it I would have made no comments at all except for my firm rejection of the other reviews on the site it was excellent and tapped in to many of our feelings from a lot of levels. don't over analyze it plus how can you go wrong with white tux's and singing.
- buddytwindog
- Mar 22, 2002
- Permalink