Without question, Gene Hackman is one of the most gifted actors who ever lived when it comes to playing flawed characters whom one still longs to root for...even his sometimes brutal portrayal of "Little Bill" as Sheriff of Big Whisky, Wyoming in "Unforgiven" has the redeeming quality of a lawman who must kick-ass from time to time in order to keep the peace in an era when armed bandits threatened small frontier towns--and therefore, we understand, to some degree, what made him tough...but in Bud Yorkin's "Twice in a Lifetime", one feels mostly disconnected from not only it's leading man, but the rest of a talented cast, as well...Scant time is given for any emotional bond to develop with the story's main subjects...and what time IS given to such mundane necessities as plot development are really unbelievably short. Hackman turns 50, gets a couple of dowdy birthday gifts from his worn-out wife and loud-mouth grown children in a claustrophobic house that seems so small and cluttered that it would make The Waltons want to commit suicide--even AFTER surviving The Great Depression; then he walks out the door and escapes down to his favorite watering hole where his friends throw him a real birthday party and shower him with real gifts that are more to a blue collar man's liking. In the process, he sees Ann-Margaret working behind the bar and suddenly discovers that he's having a mid-life crisis and definitely needs to have an affair . What is stunning about what happens next is that Ms. Margaret's barmaid falls in love, too--and goes from 0-120 mph in a time span of about 5 minutes--demanding a kiss and apparently being in love with Hackman's aging steel mill worker despite the fact that he seems to be going nowhere now that he's lived a full half-century forging hot metal in a sweltering factory. Amazing what a bow-tie combined with a Seattle Seahawks jacket can do..!!! And here I've been wasting money on the latest cologne all these years! Despite Hackman's and Margaret's likability, there is just something that moves a little too quick and things that seem a little too easy and all out of place. A story-line that moves this fast needs to have central characters with more in common....but, despite everything, that's a destination that apparently gets reached only after the end credits roll. Ann-Margaret--despite her blue collar barmaid profession--winds up seeming a little too glamorous during her off hours to be immediately in love with Hackman's "big lunch box" persona...but suddenly, we see that she's meeting him in his 10 year old, 4 door Chevrolet for secret afternoons of sneaking around. This is not to say that this story couldn't have worked a whole lot better--the realm of fiction is full of wonderful tales where characters from different backgrounds get thrown together and wind up falling in love...but sadly, we never really discover who any of these people really are until the film is almost over...up until that time, everything seems glossed over with quick, banal dialogue which winds up wasting the talents of an all-star cast. Amy Madigan dials in her standard perky performance, but takes it too far with a character resigned to permanent bitterness...and then winds up with an Oscar nomination to boot--despite the fact that the boots in the shoe repair shop can't be found! In the end, it was hard to give this film 7 out of 10 stars, but also, hard not to---what saves it is the likability of Hackman and Ann-Margaret, whose characters we wind up rooting for despite everything. On the late show with nothing else to watch, you won't feel totally ripped off...but rather, longing for deeper dialogue, more passion, more plot development and more of a connection with characters that one only begins to bond with way too late...
Add a Review
-
headhunter464 March 2010My spoilers are mild and not too revealing of events in the movie. They are scattered throughout my review.
I gave it 7 of 10 and wish all reviewers would notice the rating system here is from 1-10 not X out of 5 stars. That is a good rating from me. It takes a "Gone with the wind" to get a 10 from me so 7 is high.
I have seen all of the actors and actresses in movies that were more flattering to them but this movie was about imperfect people making mistakes and how they dealt with it. And, how their decisions affected those around them. I feel it was a well executed movie. It was rather bittersweet in that it didn't have the usual, glowing, happy ending where everything was made perfect.
This movie did a good job of showing what life can be like for a husband and wife team that isn't talking about their marriage. The husband shows signs of falling out of love but the devoted wife does not see it. She isn't giving something he needs. Whether it be fun in the bedroom or fun in life in general something is missing. She is blind to it and he isn't committed enough to address it. I use the word committed because that is what it takes to have strong, happy marriage.
Some competent counseling might have saved this marriage but this movie is not about counseling, it is about people slogging through life, trying to make do with what they have and it reveals that all is not rosy and wonderful for REAL people. Not everyone has a huge expensive house and brand new cars. Some of them are unemployed and worried about the future. The bored father figure meets a spirited fun loving woman and is attracted to that spirit suggesting to me that's what was missing from his life. After his abandoned wife comes out of her slump she goes out with friends and begins to develop some actual enthusiasm for life. How sad it took their breakup to help her wake up. (Gee I made a rhyme.)
Now if she had shown some of that enthusiasm BEFORE he met the very attractive Ann Margret, maybe he would have stayed with her "till death do us part".
I didn't feel the movie took a side in this breakup. I was left with the impression the movie merely portrayed it as it unfolded. Neither husband or wife came off as the true villain, they were just flawed people trying to make their way through life.
This is a good example of how differently people in the same family can react to the same situation. The wife, the daughters, the son, the friends on both sides have very opposing reactions to the impending breakup of a marriage that appears to have lasted about 30 years.
The movie is realistic, bittersweet and well acted.
I can recommend this movie with clear conscience. -
jckruize14 January 2002Gene Hackman plays a guy in midlife crisis: he's been married to boring Ellen Burstyn for like, forever, and he's just met hottie Ann-Margret in the local bar he frequents. What's a man to do?
This thin Colin Welland script (British screenwriter of the overrated CHARIOTS OF FIRE) is enlivened considerably by Hackman's convincing portrayal of a blue-collar Everyman who's mortgaged his life for work and family to the exclusion of any dreams for himself. The decidedly unmelodramatic arc of his life change and its consequences is relatively rare in American films and is more interesting for it. Look for newcomer Amy Madigan lighting up the screen as Hackman's PO'd but devoted daughter. A wistful Pat Metheny score and Nick McLean's cinematography of unglamorous Seattle locations -- back before it became America's trendiest city -- enhance the authentic feel. Bud Yorkin, Norman Lear's former producing partner, directs to good low-key effect. Worth a look for Hackman/Burstyn/Margret fans. -
I came home from work one day in Seattle to see Ann Margaret and Gene Hackman sitting on the steps of the apartment building next to my newer one. It was the set for Gene's crappy apt in the movie. I rushed upstairs and got a whte Tee and marker hnd got both to sign it. They could not have been any nicer. Most people were kept well back but since I lived there they had to let me through. I so hoped the movie was going to be a great movie but alas no. All the actors are at the very top of their games and if not for that this movie would have never been released as it isnt that good. I did appreciate that they tried to show a modern (at the time) divorce where daddy DIDNT come home and Mommy and daddy didnt become best friends. Ann was gorgeous and does some fine acting but Hackman and Burstyn are amazing. They both live their parts of a once happy marriage that has petrified and already dead. Ms Burstyn's portrayal of a woman who is afraid to live finally opening herself to a different life is truely beautiful. The script is just too thin with too many shortcuts where there should be none.
-
mossgrymk8 May 2021It's as if scenarist Colin Welland realized, about halfway through writing this rather standard account of a husband and wife breaking up and then readjusting to their new lives, that he didn't have much of a story going on and went "Blimey! Better start padding things out". How else to account for the none too interesting forays into the lives of the couple's two daughters and their spouses? To mention nothing of lots of picture postcards of Seattle on rare sunny days. (Wonder how long the shooting sched had to be to dodge this gloomy burg's pervasive rain and overcast?) That the viewer sticks with it (well, this viewer) without putting a dent in the fast forward is mostly due to the plethora of fine acting by Hackman, Burstyn, Margret, Madigan, Sheedy, Lang and Dennehy. And when the acting is all first rate, even when delivered by the above pros, the director, in this case TV vet Bud Yorkin, must be given some recognition even though Yorkin's visual sense is strictly small screen, and thus totally at the service of Welland.
-
preppy-32 September 2008Harry MacKenzie (Gene Hackman) leaves wife Kate (Ellen Burstyn) for waitress Audrey Minelli (Ann-Margret). This causes huge complications with his adult children Sunny (Amy Madigan) and Helen (Ally Sheedy). Stephen Lang and Brian Dennehy throw in strong supporting performances.
This is well made and everything...but this has been done to death before and this adds nothing new. Aside from some swearing (the R rating for this is not deserved) this plays like a made for TV movie. I knew what was coming constantly all through the movie and quickly tired of it. It doesn't even have a conclusion! It just sort of stops. (One of my friends said, "I can't say if I like it or not until I see the end!") All the acting was great--especially Burstyn, Ann-Margret and Madigan (she was Oscar nominated for this one) but all the great acting in the world can't overcome the predictable storyline. If you're a sucker for Lifetime movies or predictable family dramas this is right up your alley. This came and went quickly in 1985 and is now (rightfully) forgotten. I believe Ann-Margret was asked about this a few years back in an interview and she couldn't remember doing it! That should tell you something. I give it a 6. -
kenjha17 November 2009On his 50th birthday, a Seattle factor worker meets an attractive bar maid and falls in lust with her, leaving his family for her. The acting is excellent, particularly Hackman as the man having a middle-age crisis, Burstyn as his devoted wife, and Madigan as their angry daughter. Unfortunately, the film feels stale, a tiresome rehash of a theme that has been covered too often. With a clichéd script and plodding direction, it feels like a TV movie. The first half is particularly bad, as it tries too hard to establish Hackman as a good guy in a dead-end marriage. It gets better after that, but is ultimately less than satisfying.
-
moonspinner5518 November 2001At the beginning of "Twice in a Lifetime", when the McKenzie family is sitting around the dining room table celebrating, Ellen Burstyn gives long-time husband Gene Hackman a kiss, but nobody notices how he recoils a bit from her affection or how shaky his smile appears. Here is a well-made dramatic piece for a group of terrific actors, asking us to look at all sides of a divorce, offering only a few pat answers but mostly moving sequences. Hackman quickly falls into a loving relationship--which can be seen as possibly too convenient--but the woman in question is Ann-Margret at her most vivacious, so we can forgive the formula. Burstyn's character goes through the standard changes of the jilted wife, yet the talents of this wonderful actress helps transcend the clichés of such a role (she even gives it subtext and meaning; a movie about her character alone would be worth-watching). Amy Madigan's angry daughter is an overwrought creation, a one-note role, and the way she's written and directed we don't see any nuances--just her irritation. Still, many fine ingredients are included here, and the supporting players are wonderful (particularly Brian Dennehy, always good, and Ally Sheedy). Alternately tough and tender, the emotions played out at the finale are concrete--they make sense--giving this film the edge over similar pictures such as "Smash Palace" and "Shoot The Moon". *** from ****
-
I remember seeing Twice In A Lifetime back in 1985 during it's theatrical run ,I enjoyed the movie but did not really analyze it .
I recently got a chance to rewatch it and really noticed how bad the screenplay was especially for Ellen Burstyn's character.
Her role of the wife Kate McKenzie is so badly underwritten , in one scene Gene Hackman's character Harry McKenzie is telling her why he is leaving her for another woman , it's so painful not because of just him dumping on her but because he feels that this other woman can give him a fresh start since he feels that Kate treats him like wallpaper. I mean in the beginning scenes of the movie you know they are not in a good marriage but she never treats him like that and actually tries to reach out to him. It's a shame that her character was not fleshed out more , all we get is a few scenes of a tired woman who probably hasn't been treated fairly and is driven down by her neglectful husband.
The impression that I got was that Harry had driven his wife down so far , that she basically stopped trying to make her appearance any better, I mean warranted Kate was not a pretty woman but she didn't bother to wear make up or better clothes. She was portrayed very drab and seemed to care more about the kids and game shows. So Harry selfishly goes to a bar and flirts with barmaid Audrey played by Ann Margret who in my opinion drags this movie down with her gross come ons and wooden empathy . In one scene she practically attacks Harry in bed , panting like a dog in heat . Yuck. Their whole dynamic just doesn't work, I just find it very unrealistic that a man like Harry would turn any woman on with his looks and behavior.
Harry also tells Kate in the scene where he is leaving ,that Audrey is not younger than she is but in reality Ann Margret was 9 years younger than Ellen Burstyn ,44 compared to 53 is a big gap for a woman. That and the fact they have Ann Margret all dolled up compared to Ellen Burstyns old maid drabness, she finally has a beauty makeover during the last 3rd of the movie but lets be honest, even in full makeup and a blond dye job ,Ellen Burstyn is no match for Ann Margret in the looks dept.
The saving grace to the movie are the roles of Harry's 2 daughters played by Amy Madigan and Ally Sheedy. Sunny played by Madigan is this headstrong tough woman who thinks that marriage should last forever no matter what and really lays into her father about his infidelity while Helen played by Sheedy is more kind hearted and is about to get married - the scene with her dad on the porch at night is the best in the movie. Overall I rate it 6/10 because the talented cast gets wasted in a bad screenplay that basically tells the story of a philanderer who justifies his behavior just because he can and also doesn't care about his family's feelings ,blaming it on his wife more than himself ,if anything he and Audrey will end up splitting once he gets tired of her in 5 years. -
Where in the world do people celebrate birthdays - 50th or otherwise - like they do down at Mo's Tavern. Hackman walks in and the place goes nuts as if all the barflies were just waiting for him to walk in. And then they stop the dancing so his buddy can give him a Seahawks jacket to the wild applause of the other patrons, followed by a big smooch from Ann-Margret working her first night at the bar.
Not a believable moment in that entire scene.
The home scenes are much more believable, with Ellen Burstyn showing a quiet dignity as the shop-worn wife. And to be fair during the quiet scenes, Hackman and Ann-Margret do very well together. For my money, Hackman can do no wrong as an actor.
The story doesn't really break any new ground, unfortunately. More like a Middle-Age Crisis Movie of the Week.
Nevertheless I want to get on record that if Ellen Burstyn were my wife, there's no way I'd be wandering off with a barmaid, regardless of whether that barmaid is Ann-Margret. It made me lose sympathy for Hackman. There, I said it. -
tavm19 December 2015After 30 years of only reading about this movie, I finally watched this with my mom on Netflix disc. Gene Hackman plays a middle-aged man who feels his life is just routine. When he celebrates his 50th birthday, he does so at a bar without his family members-they had done so earlier-and meets Ann-Margret-a new barmaid there. Their affair is eventually revealed by someone who knows both. His wife-Ellen Burstyn-doesn't take it well, of course, but it's one of his daughters-Amy Madigan-who really flies off the handle when she finds out. I'll stop there and just say there's no false note here, it's portrayed quite honestly mostly from beginning to end. Ally Sheedy and Brian Dennehy round out the fine cast with good help from producer-director Bud Yorkin. This was a mostly fine drama. So on that note, Mom and me highly recommend Twice in a Lifetime. P.S. This review is dedicated in memory of Yorkin. Also, this was shot in Seattle where one of my sisters currently lives with her family.
-
bigwhiskers-1217028 February 2023Here is an example of a movie that has a terrific cast but even they cannot overcome the poorly written material. Hackman stars as Harry Mckenzie - a man turning 50 who is obviously bored with his married life to his wife Kate played by Ellen Burstyn. Its so obvious they are just plodding along and somethings gotta give ,at his birthday part in their house with the kids and grandkids- they look so depressed and hardly want to look at each other let alone talk. So Harry goes to his local bar to celebrate his 50th birthday after this home party and even though their daughter Sunny prods Kate to go with him, Harry subtly dissuades her to which she agrees.
Now lets play the cliche game. Lets really lay it on thick by having Ann Margret all bombshelled up as a busty bar maid compared to Burstyn's overly frumpy old maid appearance - its really unfair - even when Burstyn has a makeover- she is still a very plain unattractive woman.
And sorry but I just dont find a woman like Ann Margret being attracted to Hackman for more than just a one nighter.
Her character of Audrey is a tease and regardless of her monologue about her life, she is still a homewrecker. We never see a justification on Harrys part when he at first treats it as a fling until Audrey forces his hand to dump his wife. I dont buy it. Harry is written as a no good cheat who doesnt seem to care about his wife or care about anyone else ,alienating his family and friends . His explanation of wanting a 2nd chance by dumping Kate rings false, while Kate obviously is bored with him , his reasoning sounds more like the same tired cliche of a man wanting a hotter piece of backside and lieing to get it
Kates character is badly underwritten too.
Burstyn is never given the chance to flesh out Kate- she is automatically frumped up, wearing an old maids apron and has little to do. She cant defend herself and its hard to see why anyone could put up with her. Well,at least she didnt treat him as bad as he did her.
In the end, I really hated Harry - his character was so badly written and he came across as this uncaring selfish jerk. And Audrey was no more than a selfish homewrecker herself.
Id give them a year tops before Audrey dumped him when she realizes she can go find a younger ,wealthier guy.
The only characters who make this movie watchable are Sunny and Helen( harry and kates daughters)- played by Amy Madigan and Ally Sheedy respectively. Madigans angry portrayal hits home in the scene where she confronts Harry in a bar and Sheedy shines in probably the best scene of the movie when she has a serious talk with Harry the night before her wedding. 6/10. -
RealScience3 June 2003When the mopey Gene Hackman reaches the point where he has to choose between two whiny, irritating women-- his wife played by Ellen Burstyn, and his mistress played by Ann-Margaret-- you'll wish he'd just dump both of them and run away.
Add to this Amy Madigan's grating, one-note, Oscar-nominated (!) performance and you have a movie you'll want to turn off halfway through. My recommendation? Do it. Turn it off. There must be an kitchen-gadget infomercial on TV or SOMETHING better to watch. -
asc8523 September 2005"Twice in a Lifetime" is one of only two films I have ever seen that is successful in showing lead characters who are both likable and unlikeable at different points in the movie...that is, showing the full range of what makes us "human." The other movie, by the way, was "Shoot the Moon," and I was surprised to see that someone else on this board also found similarities between the two.
I see some thought that Amy Madigan's "Sunny" character was too over-the-top, but I found her riveting and compelling. Others obviously did too, as I believe she was the most nominated actor/actress from this film. -
Wizard-828 May 2011Normally I watch a lot of schlock, but I make sure to watch a more thoughtful movie every so often to put some variety in my movie-going diet. "Twice In A Lifetime" fit the bill perfectly, dealing with a serious subject in a thoughtful and engaging way. What I really liked about the movie was that the movie gives every side a chance a chance to speak its opinion, whether it be the situation or a character. While you can see what Hackman decides to do about his marriage may be hurtful for others, for example, you also get to see things from his perspective. Credit has to also go to the actors for making their multi-dimensional written characters come alive as their writing makes them.
Overall, this is a very good movie, well worth watching. Did I have any problems with it? Well, there was one part that I thought could have been better handled. It's when Hackman's wife confronts him about the affair she has just learned he's having. Instead of showing Hackman forced to come clean and explain himself, as well as showing his wife's reaction to the news, the movie suddenly cuts to a scene taking place much later. This could have been a very powerful and honest scene, so it's a mystery why it was never developed. -
JasparLamarCrabb14 June 2007An extremely well-acted but ultimately dull soap opera featuring Gene Hackman as middle class man who leaves devoted wife Ellen Burstyn for aging sexpot Ann-Margret. Director Bud Yorkin, who once had a sense of humor, has made such a didactic film that it quickly bores when it should intrigue. Nevertheless, the acting is the thing here and it's uniformally first rate. Hackman, then appearing in virtually every film released, is great and so are Burstyn and Ann-Margret. Amy Madigan steals the film as Hackman's bitter daughter...she lets loose with the anger that Burstyn bottles up. Unfortunately, for them (and us), the film is little more than TV-movie level stuff...it would be easy to picture the film being made with Barry Bostwick, Meredith Baxter, and Donna Mills.
-
Isaac58558 February 2007TWICE IN A LIFETIME is an emotionally-charged family drama that, despite a somewhat muddled screenplay, still works thanks to some solid gold performances. Gene Hackman plays a Seattle steelworker who loves the Seahawks and seems content with his life as he prepares for the wedding of his younger daughter (Ally Sheedy), but still feels something missing in his life. His private mid-life crises move him to leave his devoted wife (Ellen Burstyn) and begin a relationship with a local barmaid (Ann-Margret). His wife resigns herself to his decision but his elder daughter (Amy Madigan) does not and refuses to let Dad off the hook. The screenplay is safe and predictable, but what makes this film worth watching is the powerhouse performances. Hackman's quiet and powerful turn as a man dealing with being at a crossroad he doesn't know how to handle' Burstyn's beautifully-realized vulnerability as the woman who is at a loss as to what went wrong in her marriage and Madigan, in a performance that earned her an Oscar nomination, icy and gripping as the daughter who refuses to accept her parents' divorce. Watching these wonderful actors take you through the roller-coaster of emotions involved in the rending apart of a family, make this movie something very special.
-
In the cast list there is a Ken Clark as "the flower man". That is not the KEN CLARK that made Many Euro-Spy and Sword & Sandal movies in the 1960s. I rented the movie and can confirm that this is a grave mistake. IMDB won't correct this error.
-
AlsExGal10 September 2016This played extensively on Showtime about 30 years ago and then dropped off of the face of the earth. This is a great role for Gene Hackman, because he gets to play a normal guy, not somebody listening to taped conversations, not a cop doggedly chasing drug dealers, not some society outcast, not a blind hermit in a comedy about Frankenstein. He plays steelworker Harry MacKenzie, who is turning 50. He's got a solid middle class house, some great grown kids, a devoted wife. And he is drowning and doesn't know it. He has forgotten WHY he comes home every night. He looks at pictures of himself as a young man and, without saying a thing, you can see he is thinking "what happened to that guy?". He wears a 20 year old jacket from his days in the Army, one because he is proud of his service, and two because it is a habit.
And then he goes out to the local tavern on his 50th birthday - ironically it is his wife who tells him to go on without her. There he meets Audrey Minelli (Anne Margret). She is a bartender, she is beautiful and vivacious, and amazingly, she doesn't have a husband or boyfriend. She and Harry click, begin to have an affair, and passion comes back into Harry's life.
Now yes, Harry DOES leave his wife for this new woman and move to a new town and a new job. But it takes somebody ratting out the situation to push Harry forward. I have real doubts that such a creature of habit as Harry would ever have moved on the situation if not pushed to make a "take her or leave her" decision.
After Harry leaves, his wife of 30 years goes through the bitterness expected of somebody who has faithfully given her best years to a man who has dumped her in her late middle age. Let me tell you Ellen Burstyn as Kate, the abandoned wife, is excellent. She goes through all of the stages of grieving her marriage, and that includes deciding - for awhile - that maybe the institution of marriage is just so much hooey. Her older daughter, the ironically named Sunny (Amy Madigan) is right there with her, using the opportunity to examine her own marriage, to note that she is 28 years old, married with kids, and doesn't even own her own home.
Into this "marriage doubters club" comes the not so welcome news of the youngest daughter (Ally Sheedy as Helen) deciding to marry her long time boyfriend . And that means dad will be coming back to town to give the bride away. A scene out of Spencer Tracy's "Father of the Bride" this is not going to be. How does this all work out? Watch and find out. I recommend this not because of a particularly unique script, but because of some really great acting that makes all of the little scenes special. It will definitely hold your attention. -
This review contains SPOILERS.
Here's the plot in a nutshell: workin' stiff Gene Hackman is a blue-collar warrior who spends his days (or whatever shift he's assigned) in a rough-and-tumble Seattle steel mill. (I didn't even know Seattle HAD steel mills, but whatever). In his off hours, he heads to the Shamrock tavern to hoist a few with his similarly blue-collar buddies, Brian Dennehy among them. The Shamrock is presided over by Micole Mercurio, who seems to shine in these Harley Mama roles (she even played one in "Mask.") As the movie begins, Micole's hired a new waitress, Ann-Margret.
It's Gene Hackman's fiftieth birthday, and his wife of thirty-plus years, Ellen Burstyn, has gathered two of their three children, daughters Amy Madigan (in a role so marinated in anger that it makes your teeth ache, plus she's got the worst haircut in the free world) and Ally Sheedy, for a family celebration at home. Amy's 28, married young to a workin' stiff like Dear Old Dad, but things are unraveling -- we all recall how the Reagan administration loved steelworkers. So hubby's mostly laid off, and that means Amy is already pissed off. What happens during this movie doesn't put her in any better of a mood.
Ally Sheedy is seven or eight years younger, has a boyfriend who's about to become a fiancé, and has decided rather than trying to go through the traditional college route, to marry and go to night school, much to her older sister's vexation. There is a son who lives in San Diego and isn't seen until about halfway through the movie, first on a visit to be there for his mother when Dad leaves her and then for his kid sister's wedding.
Ellen Burstyn works in a beauty shop during the day, and we get the impression that hers is one of those old-fashioned marriages where her husband spends a lot of time out with the boys while she socializes with her grown daughters and other women from work or church. Yet it appears that she and her husband have a sort of contentedness to their union, and until Ann-Margret punches in for her first night at the Shamrock, all seems to be well. Ellen begs off for the evening at the Shamrock, so Gene goes alone. It appears the scriptwriters see Ellen's action as some symbolic "I'm sending my husband out alone so if he cheats I deserve it" message.
Down at the tavern, Gene Hackman and Brian Dennehy flirt good-naturedly with Ann-Margret for a bit, then Micole asks the birthday boy for a dance (inexplicably, since the song is almost over, but whatever). Then Gene asks Ann-Margret to dance, to which she replies, "I'd rather have a kiss," which he is only too eager to bestow. Next morning, he's meeting her in a shopping mall parking lot to spend one of those "new romance" days together, walking around the park, eating ice cream cones, etc.
A previous reviewer really savaged Ellen Burstyn's character, alleging that anyone as boring and homebodyish as her should just about EXPECT to get dumped. While I agree with him that Ellen's character was insufficiently developed, I can't agree that Gene Hackman was portrayed as a rat. The whole movie seemed to take it for granted that the affair "just happened," and that therefore Gene and Ann-Margret were blameless. Not in my book. One of the most hilarious moments is when, three or four days into the affair, a friend of Ellen's sees Gene and Ann-Margret in his car and tells Ellen about it. When Ellen confronts Gene, he goes to Ann-Margret, saying he told Ellen that the affair was "separate" from the marriage. (Well, duh, partner. That's why it's wrong. Whatever ...) Anyhoo, Ann-Margret reacts with proper outrage, but it's not because Gene is screwing around on his wife. Oh, no, it's because Gene won't dump his wife for her. "If we're to make it, it's got to be JUST YOU AND ME, and no one else," she huffs. Gee, I'll bet his wife thinks the same thing.
In short order, Gene leaves Ellen and moves into a rathole apartment downtown. Ellen is catatonic with grief for a time, then after a triumphant night at the bingo hall, she goes back to work at the beauty shop, gets a makeover, and goes to her first Chippendales bar. The plot puts her to work sewing dresses for Ally's wedding, and that's pretty much it for Ellen's character until the very last scene when she finally speaks up for herself (it's one of the finest moments in the movie). I would have found it a lot more interesting if the movie had focused on Ellen's putting her life back together, rather than throwing a rosy spotlight on the affair between Gene and Ann-Margret.
Perhaps one reason I was so critical of Amy Madigan's character is that her anger was so understandable. At the end of the movie, when Gene attempts to speak to her on the sidewalk in front of the church where Ally just got married, Amy tells him "This isn't the time and it isn't the place," and stalks off. Gene watches everyone leave, then intercepts the florist who's carrying out flowers to grab a few for Ann-Margret. Not only a cheater, but a cheap cheater at that. Doesn't it make you get all misty? -
buonoart27 March 2023Seriously ... and thankfully they are not. Maybe some of us know a guy like Harry, a regular schmo with an attentive if somewhat mousy and tired wife, nice kinds, grandkids and no mortgage. One day he spies Ann-Margaret, incongruously cast as a lightly used (no previous owner/demonstrator model) and completely unattached barmaid in her first day on the job at Harry's corner bar, just ready to give him an extended, great big wet kiss, because, you know, it's his birthday and also because there has to be an extramarital affair to set this film in motion. The mutual attraction is facile and convenient, and the film does move from one predictable plot point to another: distraught wife, angry daughter, another daughter making a life-changing decision, etc. It's all life-changing but without resolution or any real change: life goes on and perhaps that is the one nod to reality.
As others note this is Lifetime Channel-- (does that still exist?) or Hallmark (maybe sad Hallmark) Channel--level film making, from a TV pro. The cast is first-rate but it's such a predictable and formulaic script, there's really no need to check the spoiler button. This one can't break the five-star threshold to significance. -
JenExxifer30 July 2021While the story is bittersweet with a cast of talented actors who are great in their roles as a blue collar family dealing with the uncomfortable mid-life changes of the father figure who begins an extramarital relationship, what captured my eyes and heart were the nostalgic 1980s scenes around the Seattle/Puget Sound area along with the working-class style of a 1980s family.
From the Kingdome that was demolished in 2000, to a ferry ride on the Spokane ferry built in 1972 by the Todd Shipyards in Seattle, to the city skyline, to the simple street scenes, this movie offers a taste of a time gone by that no longer exists as it once did in the 1980s.
Along with the Seattle scenery is the style within the movie, from the kitchen cupboards in their home, to the dishes on the table, to the television set, to a lowkey heartfelt wedding put together by family and friends.
These are little things I remember from the 1980s and when the Puget Sound area was full of working-class families; the movie captures them beautifully in the background giving the film a touch of nostalgic realism that I appreciate as a GenXer from South Puget Sound. -
Gene Hackman stars in this story of a marriage at a crossroads from 1985. Hackman is an iron worker in the northwest about to celebrate his 50th birthday w/friends & family. When he takes the party to the neighborhood watering hole, a new bartender, played by Ann-Margaret, catches his eye & vice versa. Knowing in his heart his marriage, to Ellen Burstyn, is over (they've been together more for their kids, than for each other), he begins a romance w/Margaret at first using his best friend at work, played the late, great Brian Dennehy, to run interference until a busybody at the salon where Burstyn works at catches them snogging in a car at a traffic stop forcing Hackman's daughter, played by Amy Madigan (Oscar nominated here for Best Supporting Actress) to confront the father when Burstyn seems to be taking the abandonment in stride w/the rest of the family, Ally Sheedy as another daughter & Stephen Lang as Madigan's hubby, buttressing Burstyn's position especially as Sheedy suddenly announces she's going to marry leaving her college attendance furloughed. This has been on my 'to watch' list since the 90's since it never popped up on cable but suddenly it did on TCM & it was well worth the wait. The acting is tops across the board & the subject matter is handled w/frankness & fairness (both sides' arguments have merit) making this a counterpoint to films about break-up (Kramer vs. Kramer, Marriage Story).
-
lee_eisenberg30 September 2023Having produced "All in the Family" and "Sanford and Son", it was probably a surprise when Bud Yorkin directed "Twice in a Lifetime". This drama focuses on the collapse of a steelworker's marriage in the Seattle area. Gene Hackman plays the gruff laborer who, amid his birthday party, leaves and goes to a bar where he strikes up a relationship with a barmaid (Ann-Margret). The movie then branches out into the focuses on these two, plus the response from the steelworker's wife (Ellen Burstyn) and his offspring (Amy Madigan and Ally Sheedy).
The movie doesn't take sides. It simply shows what happens with the characters. Despite the routine plot, the cast's performances turn this into one fine movie, Amy Madigan having received an Academy Award nomination for her performance. Another cast member is Brian Dennehy as the steelworker's friend.
In addition to all this, it's interesting to see the Emerald City as it was in the '80s (I moved to Seattle a few years ago and have seen some movies set here since then). Some of the filming locations were places that I've gone to a few times!
Not a masterpiece, but worth seeing. By this point in time, Ann-Margret had totally broken away from the "cute" roles early in her career. As for Ellen Burstyn, I'll be eager to see her performance in the upcoming Exorcist sequel.
This must've been one of the only movies back then to mention the Serbs directly, as opposed to identifying them as Yugoslavians.