On Thin Ice

It was very well done, all around. Keaton gives a stirring performance. And yes, a risky performance that ultimately pays off. It was very well directed. I would highly recommend this film to anyone interested in the serious subject of drug addiction. There's alot of lessons here to be had. As well as a lot of truth.

Diane Keaton has played a few "heavy" parts in her many years on the big screen but she's mostly known for the "light and fluffy" stuff with Woody Allen, such as Annie Hall. She deserves an Oscar for best actress in a drama for this effort and it doesn't really matter what the competition was the year it was first shown. Try and find a scene in which she doesn't appear. And it was all heavy drama, exhausting in its pace and retakes, action, all at full speed. The make-up made her as young as possible and she fit the 30s age category even in close-ups, but she was playing half her age and at a very fast pace. The movie, overall was fairly well done, staged and shot well with a strong supporting cast but Keaton carried the load.

Keaton is absolutely not believable. Her over the top acting style doesn't not work in a drama like this. It feels like she is mocking. She looks more like she just left a book reading for wives of professors than a world weary, poor mom so broke she's forced to turn to drug dealing. And frankly she is just to old for this role, at time of filming she was 56, an old looking 56.

There's just nothing that feels authentic, from the characters,the vocabulary, to the wardrobe. This movie feels like what rich Hollywood people think poor people look and act like. It's just one cliché after another. Laughable.

On Thin Ice (2003)

1/2 (out of 4)

Made for TV flick about the true story of Patsy McCartle (Diane Keaton), a single mother who can't pay her bills so she starts selling Meth for a ruthless drug dealer (Michael Rooker). This is without question one of the worst films I've ever seen that deals with drugs, revenge or redemption. The only reason I watched this film was because I'm a big fan of Keaton and Rooker but neither are given much to do. Keaton puts out an effort but she's at least twenty years too old for this role. The screenplay just puts her in one stupid situation after another and each of these situations are so over-dramatic that I often found myself either laughing or wishing she would have an overdose. If it weren't for the talent of the two stars then I'd call this a worst film than Reefer Madness. In fact, the final ten minutes here are worst than anything in that film.

Diane Keaton plays a widowed mother of two young boys (one of whom has serious asthma) working odd jobs but falling behind on the bills; after running into an old friend who seems to have lots of money on hand, Keaton goes on her first drug-run. Dealing Crystal Meth seems like a good solution for awhile, until the local drug lord has Keaton become a partaker to prove her worth. Serious subject matter is pitched too high, with jittery Keaton flaky and flighty, but without her charming edge (she's a walking nervous breakdown). The personalities of her two kids are unconvincing (as is their general dialogue and relationship with their mom), and the supporting characters as well never take shape. TV-movie has such a fuzzy narrative that I wasn't even sure which state it was supposed to take place in (I believe North Carolina, though it was filmed in Canada), and Keaton begins the movie as a cleaning woman but never returns to that job again. The tone of the film shifts jarringly in the second-half from character study to melodrama, a change which doesn't suit anyone here particularly well.