Cita de amor

Mike Gambril (Warren Beatty) is a playboy former NFL quarterback. His agent Kip DeMay (Garry Shandling) is overjoyed that he's engaged to talk show host Lynn Weaver worth $100 million. He's on a flight sitting next to singer Terry McKay (Annette Bening) to Sydney. The plane is forced to land on Cook Island in a storm. They take a cruise ship to Tahiti where they visit his elderly aunt Ginny (Katharine Hepburn). They agree to meet on top of Empire State Building upon returning. She breaks up with her fiancé Ken Allen (Pierce Brosnan) and he breaks up with Lynn but the meeting does not go off as planned.

This is a remake of the 1939 classic. There is something odd about a remake of a classic that is ringing so many of the same bells. It feels like a checklist. As for the romance, that too feels familiar. Bugsy was three years prior. None of this movie feels fresh. It's a faded copy of an icon.

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.

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.

It was very difficult to decide how to rate this movie. I'd not seen the Cary Grant / Deborah Kerr version (except for the little snippets that appear in "Sleepless in Seattle"), so my opinion was not colored by the inevitable comparisons... It's just that the first half of the movie struck me as being incredibly *bad* : it was poorly written in particular. Once Katherine Hepburn appeared on the scene, the film began to improve quite noticeably, and the last half was considerably better, with superb performances, especially from the two principals. I've never been a big Warren Beatty fan, but Annette Bening is WONDERFUL! (I think I've fallen in love!!!) -- To sum up, the first half of the movie rates a 3 in my book, the second half an 8 -- hence my overall grade of 5.

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.