Dr. T & the Women

A fine cast of actors and an interesting story does not always provide a good film. Where did it go wrong? The main characters were amply explored for a comedy; the elements were there for an intrigue sur plus; the pretty people were there for a light romance that would make the coldest heart melt; if one were murdered it could have been a real crime flick. But it just did not happen. The acting is good. The story keeps you going. It might even tear you up, if you are willing. The comedy works at several instances. The drama will question you on human relations. But in the end it comes up short on all cinematographic fields it tries to explore. Bummer! There's a good film hiding in there somewhere.

It's really a shame that such an all-star cast (Richard Gere, Helen Hunt, Farrah Fawcett, etc.) was wasted in this movie. It was muddled and plodding all the way through. I take it that the idea of a gynecologist whose life gets turned upside down by the various women in his life is supposed to be funny? If so, this failed miserably. There were a few chuckles in it, but fundamentally the problem was that this movie just plain lacked any consistent storyline. I found Richard Gere's character (Dr. Travis) entirely unsympathetic. Yeah, his wife was sick, and he must have been lonely, so he betrays his sick wife to fall into bed with Bree Davis (Helen Hunt). I just didn't like the guy from that point on, and found myself desperately rooting for the tornado at the end of the movie! In fact, none of the characters in this movie were particularly likeable.

The long and short of it is that I didn't care much for this effort. The idea had potential but just wasn't well thought out. I'll give it a 4/10, but reluctantly and while holding my nose.

I can think of few directors who have turned out so many quality films in late career as Robert Altman has. "Dr. T and the Women" is Altman's latest, and in telling the story of a popular Dallas gynecologist and the females in his life, Altman has made one of his most enjoyable films yet. Richard Gere gives what has to be his best performance to date as Dr. Sullivan "Sully" Travis. Gere does not get enough credit for being a good actor, and with this performance he shows what enormous range he has. His Dr. T is so engaging and charming, that it is easy to see why he has the following he does. Gere's performance is the centerpiece of a quirky, funny, and hugely entertaining film, one of the best of 2000.

Robert Altman is frustratingly inconsistent, and here is at his worst. His very personal style has three characteristics:

1. Many-threaded storylines and characters, many of which raise questions that are not answered in the play. When done well, you get the impression of moving through the world with a curious voyeurism, dipping into many lives which are intriguing enough to learn more about. Except for the youngest daughter, none of these women are worth digging more into. The misogynism could have been an advantage; here it is cheap.

2. Spontaneous acting. Altman doesn't tell his actors what to do, trusting them to bring something fresh. In the best case, the differing visions of the actors add to the manyhued effect described above. But you need powerful actors like he had in "Cookie's Fortune." These folks, some of whom are fine when given direction, simply can't synthesize.

3. Wonderful tracking shots (which move from character to character so enhance the two effects noted above). Check out the first shot in "The Player." That alone is worth the admission. Here, we have a busily choreographed shot at the beginning and a dizzy pullback at the end, but neither to any useful effect.

Avoid this film. The master was asleep.

... It doesn't so much 'depress' me that people don't like this film, as it does when I find out the REASONS people dislike it. I didn't even feel moved to comment until I realized the staggering lack of depth that's comprised in most people's criticisms here. I figured that I'd just watched a pleasant enough comedic trifle. Apparently not.

People, dislike this film by all means - it's hardly the best I've ever seen - but don't vilify it for the very qualities that were wholly intentional. I mean, how many of the 'naysayers' here have even the SLIGHTEST passing knowledge of Frank Capra???! There were odd moments here and there in this that struck me as being decidedly Capraesque...

Gere is PERFECT as the guy who - without arrogance - is convinced that he can be every woman's knight in shining armour... Trouble is, they don't NEED any 'convincing'! So, what exactly happens when you take a guy like this and show him a woman who is, by the best information available, completely self-sufficient? All I can say is: If this scenario even slightly intrigues you, then watch it and find out... !

I think the ending is very fitting, too... (e-mail or PM me for reasons if you disagree; as I don't wish to spoil too much for the good people that are yet to watch!) Rather 'Buddhist' - so surely appropriate for a man of Mr. Gere's persuasion... ?!

(7/10, or ***/***** in profile ratings system.)