Cita de amor

Without her this movie would be maybe something to watch on a rainy Saturday afternoon when there's not much on cable. But K Hepburn takes this film from "ok" to "something worth spending spending time watching." Even at her age the strength of her character and acting ability brought the few sparks there were into this film. But I've always considered Warren & Annette a perfect match...bland...bland...and more bland. Do they have a personality?? I truly don't understand how they got to where they are today, but I could say the very same thing about some of our re-electeds. If you want to watch a much better version of the story with an entirely different sphere of acting check out the 1957 version "An Affair to Remember" with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. Some scenes are a little outdated, but the acting and chemistry between these two make it timeless. They've made their characters seem so real, they almost jump out of the screen. Then it all comes to a head in this heartbreakingly emotional ending, a story of selfless love, I cry every time. Annette & Warren simply don't have the acting ability or charisma to give these characters that certain kind of trueness in which you would feel any great emotional investment. They strike me as very into themselves sort of selfish people anyway, could they truly characterize selflessness?

Why did Beatty and Bening decide to do a remake of one of the most romantic films of all time? They should have left it alone. There is little chemistry between them (despite the fact they are married in real life). No dramatic tension, no nothing. Katherine Hepburn, in a brief appearance, is the only bright spark in the whole thing.

There are multiple reasons to like this. I'll mention two.

One comes from the fact that it is a remake. Such things have miraculous properties. Storytelling is all about choices, most invisible. Its the goal sometimes. But when you have a remake and you know the original, then all the scaffolding of the thing becomes visible and you can marvel or not at the changes that have been made. The choices.

I do not know the 1939 version, but I do the 57 version with Cary Grant. Its not just mawkish and cheap, its offensive, even vile. The method of presentation depends not on the love, but on the helplessness of the pair. They are quite literally prostitutes, professional paid escorts. He is enchanted by her primarily because she didn't show at the rendezvous and since no one had ever turned him down before he fell in "love" hard, because of the chase. It hit all the negative buttons, even the racist ones.

This redone in such a way that it avoids all those faults. It has almost precisely the same story, but instead of cheap sentimental exploitation, you get rich cinematic romance. You get love embodied in actors, three good ones. You get real love — at least so far as movies have — and not infatuation. You have lovers adjusting lives to fit, not tossing advantage in spite.

For me it worked as a romantic movie. I know it failed to sell many tickets, and can only guess that it was too honest and true, with not enough sweeping violins. We don't like true love in movies.

And that brings me to the other value, the fold with real life. Beatty really was the sort of character he played here, a serial screwer, a man engaged in the chase, someone not to be trusted but who clearly has an image-based artistic side. Benning's reputation was less public, but she was close to being the most desirable woman in Hollywood after "Grifters."

They really did fall in love. At filming, she was already carrying their second child. The chemistry is real and conveyed effectively. I make a special study of films where the director is in love with the main actress. Its rare that such a man has such a love, and produces, writes and stars in such a profession of love. Life folded into film romance done competently and cinematically. Is there anything in film romance that matters more?

The palette is rosey. Its lovely to watch.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I was totally taken aback by this movie. I had no idea it was a remake of An Affair To Remember. Somewhere through what I thought was a trite flick (which I suggested we stop watching on several occasions) I saw the 'parallel'.

Then the end came - the famous scene where the hero sees the heroine's painting... It knocked me out.

This is a remake that speaks to us. Us of today. I've since watched this movie several times a day for a week or more. Can I recommend it? Yes - if you don't know what's going to happen. It's astounding in its effect. Take this review or leave it!

I didn't remember this film being so well made when I first viewed it back in 1994. I think it's aged well 30 years later. Some of that is due to a wonderful cast of actors, (some no longer with us); Many welcomed faces: Garry Shandling, Brenda Vaccaro, Paul Mazursky, Pierce Brosnan, Harold Ramis.

Also the cinematography is much better than I remembered; Katharine Hepburn's brief but key performance is excellent. Young Annette Bening's beauty and grace is matched with her engaging performance.

Warren Beatty is good, but I think he's too old for this role, sad to say. The Warren Beatty of Heaven Can Wait would have been more age appropriate for this character. He doesn't ruin the film--he just doesn't enhance it.

Do I believe this love story? Well yes, 30 years later: it's Bening and Beatty.