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.
Add a Review
-
bkus17 November 2005
-
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. -
cuz4 August 1998There'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.
-
SSand27 January 1999I 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!
-
bsmith555230 May 2020"To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday" is yet another of "life among the elite" movies. It's about a distraught affluent teacher David Lewis (Peter Gallagher) who continues to mourn the loss of his wife Gillian (Michele Pfeiffer) two years after the fact. She had been killed in an accident aboard their yacht.
David walks the beach in front of his beach house apparently talking to the ghost of his wife much to the fears of their teen aged daughter Rachel (Clare Danes), On the anniversary of Gillian's death and her birthday, a fun in the sun weekend at David's island beach house is planned. Sister in law Esther Wheeler (Kathy Bates) and her husband Paul (Bruce Altman) have brought along a friend Kevin (Kevin?) Dollof Wendy Crewson) for David unbeknownst to her. also along is Rachel's friend Cindy Bayles (Laurie Fortier).
Esther is concerned over David's continuing walks on the beach and wants to have Rachel come live with them. Kevin is embarrassed over the attempted match making and informs David that he is not her type. Rachel is having problems dealing with her father's grief.
Rachel accepts a date with Joey Bost (Freddie Prinze Jr.) a ring through the nose/ear ring teen. He takes her to a beach party and gets her drunk. David is not impressed yet still continues to meet his wife from beyond the sea. Esther threatens court action to gain custody of Rachel. Davis begins to see how is actions are affecting his family.
Cindy with whom Paul has been flirting, calls his bluff. This causes Paul to take a second look at his own marriage. At the end of the weekend Rachel decides to go to the main land with the wheelers. David is then forced to make a life changing decision and.......................
A bit of a tear jerker with Danes standing out. -
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. -
Zalman66614 January 2007When I discovered that David E. Kelley wrote the script for Gillian, it's flaws seem to have made a bit more sense for while I've rarely been privy to such notable TV shows like The Practice, Boston Legal, and Chicago Hope, it became clear that writing dramas that don't pertain to law or medicine isn't his forte and the result is a film in which no elements really work.
Of the seven primary characters in Gillian, only three really matter: David (Peter Gallagher), a man who, after two years, still isn't over the death of his wife Gillian (Michelle Pfieffer); Rachel (Clare Danes), his daughter, whose relationship with her father isn't too estranged; and Esther (Kathy Baker), David's sister-in-law, who's determined to remove Rachel from David's care for fear it is unhealthy for the girl. The remaining characters bring little substance to the film. Paul (Bruce Altman), Esther's husband, is aware of his wife's intentions and quietly tolerates his them despite objections while simultaneously voicing his sexual frustrations in the presence of young beautiful women such as Cindy (Laurie Fortier), Rachel's friend, who's equally frustrated and so bored that she uses her sex appeal to taunt men for fun. Kevin (Wendy Crewson), is an acquaintance of Esther and Paul's who was brought by them (unbeknownst to her and David) to the family's gathering for no other reason than to take David's mind off Gillian. Upon this realization, Kevin learns that her presence is unneeded despite being amiably tolerated (at best) by everyone else, especially Esther, who spends much of the first half of the film using Kevin as her pawn to convince David to get over Gillian. Fortunately, Kevin's knowledge that she's unneeded dissuades her from doing anything more than just being present throughout the film. Finally, there's Gillian who appears as an apparition just to remind us of how un-over her David really is and that "Rachel comes first,".
The basic conflict of the story lies in Esther's belief that David's perpetual grief has made him an unsuitable parent for Rachel, which she bases solely on a slip in Rachel's grades. Rachel doesn't think so, which is why she defends her father. But the conflict for viewers revolves around Esther, who cannot sympathize at all with David's grief which pertains entirely to the death of her sister! What is wrong with this woman that she's adamant about about speeding up his grief process by threatening to take his daughter away from him despite proclaiming to care for him and not sparing a moment of heartache for the loss of her sister? We never find out and after a night during which Rachel goes to bed drunk and has a nightmare featuring Gillian, the conflict is resolved when Rachel decides to go live with Esther and Paul and "let her mother be dead,". Further (and most predictable) resolution occurs during the final 10 minutes when David decides to get over Gillian, move in the Paul and Esther, and start putting Rachel first. It's far too little too late.
Since Gillian does contain a good cast with a notable performance from Danes, I gave it four out of ten stars but the talents of these people are ultimately lost in this poorly written melodrama that might elicit some tears and sighs from the audience, but is mostly a film about a rivalry between in-laws that is devoid of the compassion usually felt after the death of a loved one.
P.S. By the way, David E. Kelley, stick to televised legal and medical dramas. Your talents and know-how as a writer and producer are most obvious and bankable in those fields. -
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. -
RightOnDaddio2 September 2023I 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. -
mrcaw127 March 2024I 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. -
anaconda-4065815 December 2015To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday (1996): Dir: Michael Pressman / Cast: Michelle Pfeiffer, Peter Gallagher, Claire Danes, Kathy Baker, Bruce Altman: Confusing film starring Peter Gallagher whose wife, played by Michelle Pfeiffer dies in a sailing accident. After a year he begins to see her image leaving those around him to voice concerns on his parental rights. Pfeiffer appears numerous times including a confusing dream sequence. Miserable screenplay with an uninspiring ending. Directing by Michael Pressman is dreadful with Pfeiffer completely wasted in a role of no given goal. What is she attempting to prove here? Perhaps messing with her widowed husband is some sort of kick. Why not do something positive, like leave the film and find somebody elses birthday to screw up? Gallagher is the one sensible casting seeing that he plays a guy struggling with the death of his wife. The downfall is that he is screwed over by his greedy pig-headed so- called friends. Claire Danes has nightmares and does other weird sh*t that involves appearing in this film. Kathy Baker plays one of those friends that you do not invite back again. She desires to take child custody away from Gallagher because he is grieving. What kind of selfish tyrant does that? Theme regards dealing with death. Someone should send Gillian a decent screenplay for her 38th birthday. Score: 2 ½ / 10
-
merrill22220 September 2000Many 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!
-
praz3 April 2003I was in a community theater production of Gillian, and my comments echo another review here.
(Contains spoilers)
David E. Kelley's screenplay used almost none of playwright Michael Brady's dialogue, the characters were obnoxious, and they made Cindy into sleazy little tramp instead of a complex character who uses attitude to cover real growing pains. Esther was just a vicious harpy and Kevin had no substance to her. Rachel gets drunk at a party, and SHE saw Gillian? He also basically scrapped the whole anthropologist angle, and the abortion vignette, which was so key to David realizing that he had indeed constructed an icon divorced from reality. And of course, Paul, my character, was just a tool! -
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.
-
dave fitz13 June 2000David 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. -
adorable-323 August 1999This 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. -
babychicken10 April 2004Michael 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.
-
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. -
Allen-3119 November 2004I 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. -
WonderBroad1 December 2002This 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. -
DVD from my public library. Claire Danes really was a 16-year-old that she plays, and all the adults were really about 37 to 40 that they play.
Peter Gallagher is David Lewis, BU literature professor who claims he is hanging out at the Nantucket summer home to write a novel. But there isn't any novel. Exactly two years earlier, on her 35th birthday, his wife died in a tragic accident while sailing. He has not gotten over it by any means, and still meets her on the beach at night, they talk, they embrace, it all looks very real. But she is dead.
His wife is Michelle Pfeiffer as Gillian Lewis. His daughter is Claire Danes as Rachel Lewis.
Per tradition, family comes over to celebrate Gillian's birthday, and the annual sand castle competition. Kathy Baker is Esther Wheeler, Gillian's sister, David's sister-in-law, Rachel's aunt. They want David to let go, they bring along a surprise, a single 40-ish lady, Wendy Crewson as Kevin Dollof. (He was told 'Kevin' was coming, he thought it was a man.) This surprise adds a layer of drama that may not have been necessary.
The core issue in the story is whether David is fit as a parent, with his reclusive lifestyle and inability to move past his wife's death, Esther thinks Rachel would be better off living with them, and she is prepared to take the issue before a judge if it comes to that.
Freddie Prinze Jr., still a teen, has a small role as Joey Bost, who takes Rachel out on a date.
I enjoyed the movie. The actors were well-chosen and most of the situations believable.
SPOILERS: Near the end David comes to the realization that Esther is right, and Rachel confirms that, she would be better off living with the aunt. But as they are boarding the ferry to go back to the mainland, David comes to his own realization, he decides to board up the house, move back and get his old job back at BU. -
rhynieguy27 October 2001To 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). -
Zen-2-Zen30 August 2011This 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. -
buddytwindog23 March 2002No 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.