She's So Lovely

None of the major characters in this movie is particularly redeemable, yet it remains a fascinating film. Eddie (Sean Penn) is a hard-drinking working guy, devoted to his friends and passionate about his wife Maureen (Robin Wright Penn). Eddie's mentally unstable; he has a very weak grasp on the concepts of time and space, and thus often vanishes for days at a time without realising how long he's been gone (and without understanding why Maureen worries about him). Maureen is equally passionate about Eddie; but he's been gone for three days at the start of the film, and their neighbour Kiefer is pleasant and more importantly -there-, and she accepts his offer of drinks and later of dancing. Kiefer pushes it too far, however, and though Maureen tries to keep the truth from him, Eddie finds out. His tenuous grasp on mental stability snaps at this point, and this is really the climax of the film.

As has been mentioned before, this is not an Oscar-winning film. Not because it's not excellent -- with a script by John Cassavetes and command performances by both Penns (spectacular, really, both of them, in roles that would have been poorly played by clumsier actors) and John Travolta, and excellent supporting roles all around -- but because it isn't a Hollywood movie about Good versus Bad, with Good ultimately triumphing. People don't make good choices. People aren't particularly "good" parents. What ultimately happens isn't supposed to happen in the movies. But it does, and it's true to the characters, and it lifts this film up above the usual sugar-coated drabble we're so often fed by the cookie-cutter that is Hollywood.

Maureen is a bit strung out and pregnant from her low-life husband Eddie. Their lives are an unpredictable mix of actions that mostly involve drinking and scamming round on the fringe of society. When Eddie is "away" for a few days, Marueen falls in drinking with neighbour Kiefer, who tries to rape her but then just beats her. She explains this away to Eddie so as to keep him from going crazy at her or anyone else but when he does start to flip she calls the paramedics to take him into care for his own safety. However when he shoots one of them, Eddie is sentenced to a mental institution. When he comes out he finds that Maureen has divorced him and has moved onto a much more stable and reliable man in the form of Joey, with whom she has had more children.

Almost halfway in it becomes evident that this film isn't going to work out that well because, before the "10 years later" jump, the love between the two leads hasn't been established to a convincing degree. Given that the narrative is using this mutual attraction (despite all the negatives) as its lynchpin this is a bit of a problem. Other than establishing that both are unstable and using each other for meaning, the film doesn't do that much for all the time it takes up. The second half isn't that much better as Eddie comes out as a sort of watered down Rainman and disrupts Maureen's new relationship with Joey. The script then asks us to swallow that she still loves Eddie to the point where the mere news that he is released sees her flush the last ten years down the toilet.

I can sort of understand what the script was trying to do but it didn't manage to produce anything interest in the aggressive relationships that it paints in the gutter. The characters are where the main failing is. Maureen's character is poorly defined and Wright-Penn doesn't appear to understand what motivates her character and thus turns in a really mixed performance that pushes emotional buttons in each scene but is never consistent. Eddie is OK in the first half of the film as he just seems like a drunk unstable loser but in the second half he is unconvincingly soft. Likewise Penn is strong in the first half but he is unconvincing in the second. Their performances aren't helped by a weird mix of tones – at times a dark love story, at other times a cringingly awful "comedy" complete with "jaunty" music being played over a fight on the front lawn or that horrible scene at Joey's bar. Travolta is a bit better and Stanton is a reasonably nice addition in a small role.

Overall this is a shocking mess of a film that spirals downhill from the mid-point onwards. The first half shows potential but doesn't manage to pull off the formative stages of the central relationship and thus fails to set up the second half. However the second half isn't helped by poor development and a terrible mishmash of "comic" moments that simply feel crass and out of place – I suspect even if the first half had been a stormer, this second half would have been poor enough to drag it all under. Even the acting talent seems all at sea and unsure of where they stand or who they are. A load of rubbish with little or no value.

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!

Nick follows in the footsteps of his old man, John Cassavetes, who supplied the screenplay and you can tell because the down and out characters walk about with cigarette in one hand and a glass of booze in the other. This is a very simple tale of manic love told with care.

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.