She's So Lovely

The beginning credits were difficult for me to read, thus I was not cognizant of the writer or director. Sometime into the film, I pondered the striking resemblance of numerous scenes to the work of John Cassavetes. Later, I impressed myself with the discovery of his name on the video package. Cassavetes wrote and directed some excellent cinema, but this film is more akin to his dismal "Big Trouble". The script is fragmentary and lacked character motivation. The story introduces Penn and Wright as urban lovers, then suddenly switches pace when Penn has a mental episode and is institutionalized. Resuming ten years later, Penn is released only to find Wright married to another loser. As her husband, Travolta reminded me of his "Pulp Fiction" character constantly cursing and chain smoking. Unfortunately, the scenes between Penn and him are flat. I don't understand Travolta's emotional reactions to his unrealistic predicament, while Penn remains mentally incapacitated like De Niro in "The Awakenings". Wright is fine, but her role is ill-defined. It was good to see Harry Stanton with a sizable part, and Debi Mazar is alluring with her Betty Page looks. I would recommend skipping this film and seeing "Husbands", "Faces", or "A Woman under the Influence". 2 out of 4 stars.

Let's go back in the past;1975:"a woman under the influence",John Cassavetes.Gena Rowlands plays a misfit,we follow her through two phases of her life:before and after the confinement in a mental hospital.The "treatment" she underwent had disastrous results because she tried to commit suicide soon after her release.

Now 1997 "she's so lovely":Gena Rowlands plays -fleetingly- either a shrink or a social worker,I cannot make up my mind.Sean Penn plays a misfit,we follow him through two phases of his life;before and after..well you get the picture.Her,against all odds,the treatment made wonders for Penn's mental health;if we consider the end of the movie.

Alas,Nick Cassavetes is not his father,and we do not find here the overlong,sometimes infuriating scenes ,devoid of any dramatization,close to improvisation ,John Cassavetes' trademark. All what remains is ,save for the bizarre and far-fetched ending , simply mundane.John Travolta is miscast.

The main reason to see this movie :Sean Penn.One of the best actors of his generation,he runs the whole gamut of emotions,and definitely demonstrates how an actor can single-handedly save a movie from mediocrity.He makes us believe in his unbelievable character.

I wish Penn could have his dream come true:Portraying the late Phil Ochs!

I suppose that the point of this movie is that love, and people in love, are not necessarily very "proper" and jasmine-smelling. Fine, I agree, but by the time the movie ended I was not sure it was love this movie was about. Quinn and Mrs. Quinn amply deserve each other that there was hardly any point in making a long movie to demonstrate that. The pity is, that the movie was well done, well directed, with some nice touches; the actors were also good, but the script, or rather, the characters are a mess. In any case you might even tolerate the failures of script and characters but it is impossible to get past the inanity of the protagonist Mrs. Quinn: she just doesn't make sense. In the second part of the movie Mrs. Quinn is as messed-up as in the first part, only ten years, a new marriage, three children and a change in her social standing are supposed to have happened in between; nevertheless, only her clothes and her makeup have changed. How can that be? I am not the same as ten years ago, and not so many things have happened to me. Also, she's supposed to be the pivot of the whole conflict, but she's not solid enough to justify that.

I found my initial disturbance of these characters living way too close to the gutter, amazingly moved to an affection and an eyeopening awareness. The deep emotional pains of these characters are obvious, and yet presented in such a tender way, one can bear and become intrigued to look into this side of life and be moved, touched and understand. The result an enriching trip.

Sean Penn's scenes are always amazing, but there are at least 3 that make the movie worth seeing alone. One scene where he speaks for the first time to his unknown 9year old daughter, one where he speaks of love being SO difficult and one when he has been confined to a straight jacket. This character's portrayal is so beautiful and unforgettable.

John Travota too portrays an unforgettable character and performance.

I cant help wondering what was the childhood to produce these people as they are, a young 9year gives a hint.

I think this is a good movie. The characters are fresh enough, the plot avoids Hollywood cliches quite successfully. The movie says that crazy people have the right to love, too, and it shows how they realize this right. It is another answer to the questions: what is love and do love and morality have a lot in common. The weakest point is the ending scene. First, it made me feel that something needs to be added - a cue, a situation, anything - and, second, it resembles "The Graduate" too much. The last scenes of the "10 years ago" part are very good, Nick and Sean!