I really wanted to like this after hearing a lot of good things about it over the years and never got to watch it.
The opening scene raised the first red flags. For example, the voice dubs were too noticeable and the heavy exposition didn't help. Why did Simon need to jam in all that data so quickly? People don't talk like that, i.e. Provide all their plans out in the open at a time when they wouldn't. For example, the information would have been talked about when they planned the trip, and therefore no need to. It felt too much like a TV show/sitcom where everything is so carefully scripted and choreographed.
Then she read the letter and cried, explained what happened to her daughter, but Simon still felt the need to have the daughter read out loud the letter in case we didn't understand what happened. This is just overdoing exposition.
Then the precocious kid didn't help. I am so over having 40 + year old writers create adult dialogue for 8-year-old kids that are way too smart for their own good. Marsha Mason was also just awful. Her hammy performance constantly indicating how we should feel.
Stop writing how you want the characters to speak. Write how they DO speak. There is a big difference. The best example is if when you go for a job interview and you already have everything planned in your head, but when you get there it doesn't come out right. A writer picks the former when the writing should be the latter, which doesn't make it real or believable.
After 15 minutes of arguing and resisting, Mason accepts Dreyfuss' proposal. The whole argument was a total waste and meant nothing in terms principles.
It literally took 10 minutes for characters to be introduced, have a breakup, and introduced the co-lead.
Everything felt way too forced, including their relationship and the repartee banter didn't help. I don't think I believed a single thing I saw in this film.
Based on the foregoing, I recommend you SKIP this.
The opening scene raised the first red flags. For example, the voice dubs were too noticeable and the heavy exposition didn't help. Why did Simon need to jam in all that data so quickly? People don't talk like that, i.e. Provide all their plans out in the open at a time when they wouldn't. For example, the information would have been talked about when they planned the trip, and therefore no need to. It felt too much like a TV show/sitcom where everything is so carefully scripted and choreographed.
Then she read the letter and cried, explained what happened to her daughter, but Simon still felt the need to have the daughter read out loud the letter in case we didn't understand what happened. This is just overdoing exposition.
Then the precocious kid didn't help. I am so over having 40 + year old writers create adult dialogue for 8-year-old kids that are way too smart for their own good. Marsha Mason was also just awful. Her hammy performance constantly indicating how we should feel.
Stop writing how you want the characters to speak. Write how they DO speak. There is a big difference. The best example is if when you go for a job interview and you already have everything planned in your head, but when you get there it doesn't come out right. A writer picks the former when the writing should be the latter, which doesn't make it real or believable.
After 15 minutes of arguing and resisting, Mason accepts Dreyfuss' proposal. The whole argument was a total waste and meant nothing in terms principles.
It literally took 10 minutes for characters to be introduced, have a breakup, and introduced the co-lead.
Everything felt way too forced, including their relationship and the repartee banter didn't help. I don't think I believed a single thing I saw in this film.
Based on the foregoing, I recommend you SKIP this.