Le baiser empoisonné

This film was not as bad as some of the downright cynical reviewers said it was, but, well...but nothing! It was good, I enjoyed it, and found it thoroughly engrossing and intriguing,and it was also,well,enchanting I suppose,I didn't really get the story line,but after I read the summary of the plot, it all made sense. plum.

"For better or for worse." Cliché but seldom are we tested. This is a very unusual story. You think you're watching a romantic comedy at first, albeit one with ominous overtones. It then veers into a very mystical love story. In my opinion, both Alec Baldwin and Meg Ryan give the best performances of their careers - and are both absolutely stunning-looking and charismatic. The tone is somewhat "Witches of Eastwick" - though not quite as supernatural - and a little bit "Death Becomes Her" - but less absurdist. The supporting players are all excellent, albeit in very lean roles. A few things to keep in mind: the movie is adapted from a 1990 play and can seem a bit stagey at times. Alec Baldwin recreates the role he had created on Broadway. (Mary Louise Parker had created the role on Broadway but the studio insisted on Ryan - Ryan was restrained and very good but her participation gave the impression to audiences that they were in rom-com territory: expectations were set - then dashed - as this is not a rom-com and is at times is very disturbing. Although she was not well-known at the time, MLP may have made this film remembered more fondly.) The writer/director team is also the same as the Broadway play and the writer and director had previously collaborated on Longtime Companion. That is important because deep- down Prelude to a Kiss is a metaphor for loving someone whose clock is ticking - loving someone despite the illness and decay. About true love - and its limits - and appreciating what we have while we have it - it's a little gem of a movie although you need to suspend your disbelief and focus on the three (yes, three) lead performances.

Prelude to a Kiss was a pretty poor film. Ryan played a role which seemed similar to other films she's been in while Baldwin's effort was nothing to write home about. The weird storyline was never going to work. Admittedly this genre of film is not my favourite anyway but it seems to me it didn't take much to realise the problems and therefore I was disappointed.

I dismissed this movie as yet another romantic comedy when it came out in '92 and never gave it much thought until catching it recently on cable. It was quite surprisingly a very enjoyable film, for me mostly because of the chemistry between Meg Ryan and Alec Baldwin; I thought they captured the blissful uncertainty of falling in love and thought the subtext was an interesting commentary on love and marriage and what we see in others. It's no great work of art, but it is moving and sweet. I really enjoyed watching the two leading stars. Of course they're beautiful and all that, but they managed to seem human and flawed at the same time (as did the parents) and I didn't feel this movie was overly sappy at all. They seemed to talk to each other the way people do, and less like your typical Hollywood snappy dialogue. There were some interesting and touching moments, such as the contrast between what the old man thought a married couple should act and how Alec Baldwin thought they should, as he looked longingly at the couple kissing in the pool while his new wife (possessed by the old man) chatted away with an older couple.

Oscar winner Kathy Bates was totally wasted here though. I wonder if her part had been bigger and then got cut later.

I agree with another reviewer this could have been a much more interesting film. As it is, it's a silly, slightly icky fantasy with marvelous acting by the two principals and Sydney Walker. Some very poignant moments with Alec Baldwin, and Meg Ryan is irresistible as always. What a waste of Stanley Tucci! Definitely worth seeing.