She's So Lovely (1997) User Reviews

Unbelievable plot line seriously undermines well performed flick.

[mrcaw12 · 5/10 · 15 October 2006]

Was very disappointed in this film.

Where to start? Well first of all, most of the movie is really just set-up for the last 1/4 of the movie yet nothing really much happens in all this time so I found myself just wondering when John Travolta would enter the picture.

I guess the major problem with the movie is that Robin Wright Penn's character doesn't progress at all. Though there's supposed to be this time span of ten years between the first 3/4 of the movie and the last.

So in the last 1/4 of the movie we find Robin Wright Penn's character in this home in the suburbs, married with kids and all, yet it's played as if she just stepped out of the gutter of the proceeding portion of the movie. Really makes no sense at all.

It's a fairy tale and totally unbelievable.

***SPOILERS AHEAD**** And to accept the fact that she would just run off with Sean Penn's character (who's been in the nut house for 10 years) even though she hasn't kept in touch with him in all those years and has a new husband (Travolta) and kids and a whole life, yet she just leaves it all behind is just so silly.

A similar scenario was played out much better in the end of the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks & Helen Hunt. In that movie he returns from the dead after having been stranded on an island for years. When he returns, he finds Hunt married with kids. Though they profess their love for each other, she of course, says she simply can't run off with him and leave her kids and her present husband. THAT folks is reality.

What we have presented in this movie is just so much silliness. Shame too, because the acting's not bad.

But basically what you have is a movie where the first 3/4 of it is one long boring set-up followed by a quick totally unbelievable last 1/4.

Just like his old man.

[DukeEman · 7/10 · 3 January 2002]

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.

Beyond Promises, But Not Beyond Hope

[secondtake · 7/10 · 26 May 2009]

She's So Lovely

Beyond Promises, But Not Beyond Hope

Cassavetes the younger's She's So Lovely is proof there's a culture gap or a perception gap or something out there. Few films get such starkly opposing reactions from ordinary viewers. Worst movie they've ever seen? Wow, I don't agree at all...but the movie is a litmus test, a continental divide, a knife's edge. Sometimes, one aspect to a movie, a single quality, can set off a viewer so they just hate (or more rarely, love) a movie.

I'm guilty of tilting against a movie like that--Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was so horrible to me I had to shut my eyes through half of it (and so I can't review it). I really hated it. But I know that there were aspects to the movie that were remarkable. If I did venture a review (I can't imagine trying to see it again for any reason, but let's pretend I did), I would try my best to find those things that did work, and to rise above the gut level repulsion I had for it. Because, in the end, I need to be able to find balance, to appreciate the best in a troubling movie--the filming of Triumph of the Will, for one obvious example.

Can She's So Lovely, a movie that has stellar acting, good filming, a plot that holds water (and rain, lots of rain), and strong emotional content, really be terrible? Even if the content grates on the viewer so badly they can't stand watching it? People are reacting against the movie, because it's troubling, depressing, and raw. It has characters with flaws so big you can can't always see their virtues.

And that isn't the fault of either of the Cassavetes men, the dad John who wrote the script or the son Nick who retrieved it after his father's death. In family tradition, real life wife and mother Gena Rowlands has an affecting role as a release counselor, and this is curious because John Cassavetes used Rowlands long ago to scuff up stereotypes of mental illness in the difficult and penetrating A Woman under the Influence, among other films. I wonder if people who had trouble watching She's So Lovely would have trouble with the earlier movie?

There is another side to seeing a movie that is unbearably emotional or depressing. And that is learning what it is that makes it so for the viewer. For me, why exactly did I find the violence so impossible to watch in The Passion? Was it the violence itself, or the fact that the violence seemed so wrong, or inaccurate, or gratuitous? Would I watch a movie where someone horrible was being tortured that way, say Hitler? (The short answer: no.) The point being, a movie that is so affecting might have something to teach me.

And what is it in this Cassavetes film that works the viewer over, for good and bad (there are as many positive reviews as negative ones)? Maybe it is the entry into a very real world that isn't so extreme or unusual--though we are shown an especially awful and pivotal moment in that world--a milieu present in every small city, and common in a big one. We can really feel that scene, and the players inside, and that alone makes the movie compelling. Give us five or so great performances, from the two Penns in love in the first half to John Travolta in the sunny (and shorter) second half, and you have something that really gets under your skin. Isn't that what makes a movie valid? Don't we want intensity over entertainment? Sometimes?

Now to the best part: humor. It arrives in small ways throughout, but at the end there is that chaotic comic nonsense in the front yard? It's the worst of all possible situations, a mother willfully walking away from her three kids and decent if goofy husband, but it gets violent in silly spurts as they tussle on the grass. Is that supposed to soften the facts so we don't melt down totally? Or is it saying that the whole film is a little, just a little, tongue and cheek? Surely the excesses earlier might be excessive. I mean, how many dance hall ticket takers are so nice they not only let the couple in for free but loan them money on top of it? Or just after that, does the couple really arrive at an old friend's flat in the middle of the night and have a beautiful family meal prepared for them, an idealized cliché of the Italian mother feeding everyone?

Is this movie really about true love or about something mistaken for it, an obsessive attachment, almost an animal bonding where the two of them need each other, even when it's bad for them. Blame the drugs, blame the bad brain chemistry, blame the poverty, they do cling together when they shouldn't. They cling even ten years later, leaving her new husband out of her heart, that convincing suburban dad (Travolta), imperfect and yet successful, who has given his life to her. Would you really prefer stability and superficial happiness over depth of feeling? And true love?

I bought the whole package. The direction was flawed, maybe a result of inexperience more than anything. But what really works, really works. For me. I don't want to be them, I'm not jealous in any way, even of their attachments, but I like these for their best parts. And I like the movie for its best parts, too.

It's that good

[beautiful_oblivion2001 · 12 November 2003]

Movies that will never have an Oscar do not possess the following: 1. Extensive gripping plot of historical nature, or about a famous personality (read `The English patient,' `Braveheart,' `Titanic,' `Beautiful Mind') 2. Unreal or almost unreal plot twists (read `Lord of the Rings') 3. Clearly morally defined characters (read Billy Zane character in `Titanic;' Mel Gibson's character in any movie he is in). You either love them or hate them. 4. Long viewing time. 5. Sense of the plotline ending at the end of the movie (you pretty much can picture the life of Forrest Gump after the movie end, and you know what's going to happen to Rose from `Titanic', at least key things) The movie `She's so lovely' is a tale of Eddie (Sean Penn), a drunk with a mental problem, and Maureen (Robin Wright Penn), a drunk with lots of other problems. They are in love, he goes to mental institution, she is pregnant, but marries another, Joey (Travolta is for once in a movie he really belongs in, and does a terrific job). Ten years later, Eddie comes out and comes back for Maureen. All of these characters are semi-crazy, semi-abusive, semi-kind, semi-dumb. How can you love someone who hit his wife then tells her he loves her? And how can you not love that same person for being a dad to 3 little girls, one of them not his own? How can you forgive a woman for divorcing her husband while he is sick, and then not sympathize with her when she paid for it by 10 years of being separated from the man she loves? And what to think of a man who comes to take a woman from a family she made without him because he clearly sees her love for him? Penn's performance is as always vulnerable and smart. Wright Penn is the most under-appreciated actress of our time; I still cannot forgive the aforementioned academy for not even nodding her way with her brilliant performance in `Forrest Gump.' These two actors can act with their eyes alone, seems fitting that they are together also in real life.

Having said all that, `She's so Lovely' is clearly not an Oscar material. It's too real. It's too good.

Phenomenal Acting and A Splendid Story With Poor Executions.

[Movie-ManDan · 6/10 · 21 April 2015]

She's So Lovely is one of the many great flicks to come out in 1997. The movie received lukewarm reviews with the acting being praised and the plot being criticized as wasted potential. The iconic John Cassavetes was about halfway done the script before he died, leaving his son Nick to finish and direct. Nick's take-over could have been better and the ending could have been so much better by anybody else.

The first half of the movie is about Eddie and Maureen Quinn (Penn, Wright) who live in the ghetto part of town. Maureen is pregnant but still smokes and drinks. Both her and Eddie are stupid trashy people, which is kinda funny to see. Despite living in the slums, they both try their hardest to make and satisfy their love lives. When Eddie goes missing for 3 days and Maureen is raped by their neighbour (Gandolfini) Eddie suspects Maureen is lying about falling and he goes on an insane rampage to destroy him. The backstory that's given on their lives is good and just enough time for the movie to really take off. After nearly killing people on his way, he is taken to a mental institution where he remains for the next ten years. In that time Maureen divorced Eddie, married Joey Germoni (Travolta), had two more daughters and moved to a big house in a nice neighbourhood. When Eddie gets released, Maureen must choose between Eddie who loves her to the extreme and is overcoming mental problems and Joey who also loves her and their daughters and nice home.

Sean Penn gives his most underrated performance and was cheated out of a potential win. He did better in this than most of the Oscar nods that year. But given his screen time and position in the film, it is kind of hard to see if he is really the main character. Robin Wright is arguably the protagonist. Either way, Penn's performance is nothing short of spectacular. Anybody with a vast knowledge of acting can vouch for this. Penn's transition from psychotic lowlife to a reformed hermit is great in the eyes of all, but it is the way he does it that goes unrecognized. A lot of the great acting performances feature people with tons of energy just belting out screams and cries. Yeah this is great to see--don't get me wrong--but it is even harder to try to hold it in. Crying and screaming often feels good, but trying to contain it is much harder and is often painful which makes it even that much harder. Sean Penn does exactly this in several scenes. I was blown away at his restraint. Robin Wright also gives restraint, but less often as Penn. Travolta may not have restraint, but he is the energy factor that carried the rest of the movie when Penn gets better.

She's So Lovely doesn't quite seem to find its place in what kind of movie it wants to be. It seems like it tries to be a drama, romance, romantic-comedy, and dark comedy all at once. If John Cassavetes finished the script then gone back over and edited it himself, he would have been able to figure out where he went wrong and what could have been strengthened. The story is great and original, just what genre is it? The movie is about two totally opposite men trying viewing for the same woman; with a story like that and acting this good, it can affect anybody that sees it. Aside from the style of the movie being unclear, the ending is a complete fail that can ruin people's experience. I bet that most people that did not like this movie was overwhelmed by how bad the ending is. A great story with a fuzzy style poorly executed. We all know that Maureen will end up with Eddie again once he gets released, but after seeing her family we change our minds. When Maureen winds up with Eddie at the end, Cassavetes tries to say that love is eternal and true love can conquer all (or something like that). There are two reasons why this doesn't work. First, we don't get a good look at Maureen contemplating who she she wants. More of this would have strengthened the story. But she is so stupid for leaving her three daughters for an unstable man she hasn't seen in ten years! That just shows that she loves her first spouse more than her own children. I've seen this movie a few times and the ending always angers me. All parents that I know would die for their children. If she didn't have kids, this would not be that big a deal. She should have either stayed with Joey and her daughters and talked it over with Eddie, or have a scene after she leaves with the kids at her's and Eddie's apartment.

I do recommend this. Just be prepared for the second half to plummet.

2.5/4

Edgy tale about messed up souls, though it doesn't always hold up

[BadRoosevelt · 7/10 · 14 December 2020]

This is the kind of film I enjoyed more when I was younger. Once you get past the gritty atmosphere, the vivid performances all around and the audacious storytelling, this is a summary of a toxic relationship that simply will not die. It's also a compelling depiction of how hopeless people might be stuck with each other for life. The good news is, the acting is exceptional. The bad news is, the film's conclusion strains credibility.

When I first saw this, it captured my imagination. Many years later, I'm no longer wowed by this film because it mostly reminds me of all the wackadoo people I've come across in my life (this is especially true with Sean Penn's character), the kind of people who seemed amiable enough on the surface but deep down had too many loose screws for anything other than a superficial interaction. Robin Wright's character is a mixed bag in this film. One could initially admire her transformation in the middle of the film but her subsequent back-sliding is something you'll either be in awe of or irritated by. John Travolta might be the only real bright spot in all of this, as he is only adult who refuses to buy into the film's anarchy and unscrupulousness.

I wish I could still run with this film as easily as when I first saw it, but instead having gotten to know human nature as well as I have, this film reminds me too much of human nature's dark underbelly. I have seen enough reality that I don't need to see it on screen anymore. Recommended only to devout Cassavettes fans.

Meaning of 'true love'?

[xzaapryca · 1/10 · 30 November 1999]

This was just about the worst movie I've ever seen. All I could think about during the "early days" part of the film was how terrible some children must have it when they are born to mentally and emotionally unstable parents. I did think Sean played his role well, but the story sucked me into a pit of despair and made my stomach churn at stupidity of Mrs Quinn. I noticed the accent mutilations as well. So true love is ditching your current husband and three young children for a guy you haven't seen ONCE in the last ten years? Sounds like those two should have shared that cell at the sanitarium.

Many of the character interactions didn't make sense, the story had ample amounts of LAME, and the funniest part was the very very end where we see the 'happy couple' and their two loser buddies DRINKING and DRIVING down the road in that stylish 1968 Buick Riviera. Classy.

a very different sort of movie.

[triple8 · 7/10 · 11 June 2006]

SPOILERS THROUGH:

I didn't love it or hate it. I was intrigued definitely and look at the acting! For film buffs who dig the performance driven piece, this is a dream come true. The Penns star as the married couple, Eddie & Maureen and both give performances that are stunning.

There's a dark intensity about the movie that can hook one in but there's no denying this is not a pleasant film to watch and for those who like a bit of sweet escapism to their films, they should run like the wind if they put this on, because that isn't what their going to get.

For those however, who like their films dark, character driven, edgy, capped off with a bit of despair look no further, it's all here. I happen to like a bit of both of the above mentioned types of movies. In terms of this film, I neither liked it or didn't like it. I appreciated it and was awed by the performances. And the relationship between Eddie & Mo, yeah, it is definitely more realistic then the characters of "Pretty Woman" to put it mildly!. In fact the EESENSE of the relationship is captured so deeply that it is genuinely surprising as a film. I have not seen that many relationships, both the love and the toxic aspect captured that compellingly.

The choice that Mo makes at the end didn't surprise me that much because by then one could see the ties that bind this couple were stronger for Mo, then anything else. There was NOT just love between this couple but need and an almost desperate addiction. At the end, the connection these two had, is captured in that one look between them in the last scene which was done flawlessly and didn't need any dialog. This movie reminded me of "Sid & Nancy". It's a painful movie to watch at times but well done, very much so, on the character study and the cinematography and atmosphere were also perfect.

But in spite of the positives I wouldn't give it higher then a 7. In fact I almost gave it a 6. This is due mainly to the second part of the film. John Travolta was very good but the way his character suddenly changes from a sensitive hardworking guy to a screechy scowling gun toting bully was baffling. There's also the change of attitude toward the little girl. The whole gun storyline did not strike me as even necessary and I guess I felt, honestly, that the themes explored here-insanity, rape, codependency,child neglect-were way to serious to make into a black comedy which starts happening in the second half of the movie. I haven't seen that many movies this serious go into black comedy territory that unexpectedly and I will admit I didn't like that. There was a lot I didn't like toward the end of the film.

Everyone has their own rating system when it comes to movies. For me a 6 is about average or slightly above and is also reserved for those "guilty pleasure" type movies. A 7 is anywhere from OK to good and an 8 and above are those movies that are really very good to excellent. I'd give this a 7, not because I loved it but for the reasons mentioned above and will freely admit this movie stayed with me after longer then I would have thought it would. 7 of 10.

Dear Lord, this was dire...

[thesnowleopard · 1/10 · 15 December 2003]

Sean Penn does method, John Travolta chews scenery, the kids are cute enough to make one diabetic and Robin Wright Penn's performance keeps banging away at the same note over and over and over again. The characters were so unsympathetic I didn't care the least bit what happened to them. There is no plot to speak of. The cinematography ranges from grunge to bland and I don't understand where the romantic comedy angle comes in. What's so funny (or romantic) about abuse and codependency taken to sociopathic levels on all fronts? And I would definitely wave off anybody who has ever suffered from mental illness, because they would find the flick downright insulting.

Of course there are real people like this out there, but so what? If I don't waste any of my precious time on this earth watching the denizens of Jerry Springer, why would I want to watch their fictional counterparts? You want a movie about an irredeemable person that is worth seeing? Go rent Citizen Ruth. It is infinitely better than this horrorshow.

This might have worked as a ten-minute indie movie, but as an hour and a half Hollywood flick, it's a complete waste of celluloid. I watched it (sporadically) on tv for free, and I still regretted it. Whatever you do, if you must watch this piece of crap, use a free video store coupon to do so. Chances are, you would regret spending any money on it.

great performances

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 24 May 2015]

Maureen (Robin Wright) is a mess. She's pregnant and desperate to find her husband Eddie Quinn (Sean Penn). Her neighbor Kiefer (James Gandolfini) comforts her and then violently rapes her. Eddie takes it badly and attacks somebody landing him in a psychiatric hospital. He is released 10 years later although he keeps thinking it's only 3 months. Maureen had divorced him and remarried to Joey Germoni (John Travolta) with three kids. The oldest girl Jeanie is Eddie's.

These are not sweet people. They are all a mess in the first part. The first part has great grimy gutter feel. Robin Wright brings so much to her character. Everybody does great performances. The second half is grasping a bit. It would be helpful to show where Joey is coming from. I think it's more dramatic to have Joey be normal but it's still compelling to have Travolta act a bit crazy.

So this is a COMEDY?!!

[rfbslb-2 · 1/10 · 20 August 2000]

Some people consider it necessary that I warn you that Crucial Plot Elements are exposed in my review. I feel it is more Crucial that I Warn You to not see this movie. Here's why:

Never before have I felt so misled by reviews from you-know-who (2 Thumbs Up?!) and this site's resident reviewer (3 stars?!), not to mention the jacket cover, all claiming this be to be a Fun Comedy. Well if your idea of a comedy is watching a woman get drunk, get beat up, almost raped, live with a psychopath, turn him in to protect him from himself and others, give birth to their child alone, re-marry a guy who's filled with as much rage as the 1st hubby, and then, when the 1st hubby returns, leaves her 3 kids and 2nd hubby without so much as a "I'm gonna miss you" - then this is your kinda a comedy. So pop some corn, cuddle up, and prepare to laugh your head off???

If I had known this was an edgy drama I would have been better prepared to properly judge this movie, but I kept wondering when was it going to get funny, even if only in a black comedy kind-of-way, like War of the Roses. It never did, save for 4 lines (Yes, I counted them all. There was little else to do.) And one of those involved swearing at a 9 year old and telling her to shut up and drink her beer. (Oh, and it was so endearing when the 9 year old gave the adults permission to swear because after all she has heard worse.)

What really gets me is that all the reviews described this movie like this: Hip Comedy about a woman who remarries after her 1st hubby goes to jail, and then 10 years later when he is released must choose between the 2.

Well that part about the 1st hubby going to jail doesn't happen until more than an hour into the story, and by then you have figured out that it is a no-brainer - she will always go with this guy, no matter who else she marries - even if it's John Travolta.

And don't bother watching this for John Travolta. He doesn't make his entrance until the last 30 minutes and is in only 3 major scenes.

So I guess the point of this movie was more of a social commentary on the irrational thinking involved with love (She's de-lovely. Ha Ha! Now I get it?! Oh palease!) and dealing with life's difficulties in general? Well I guess I am now Officially Un-Hip, because even in retrospect - No, I don't get it.

Wanna See Sean Penn In A John Cassavetes Film? Here it is.

[Niro · 10/10 · 20 January 2000]

Some of the people who "review" flicks here continually amaze me with their complete lack of film knowledge.

When I heard an interview with the always-extraordinary Sean Penn, in which he said he was upset that so few people had seen what he considers to be his best work: this film and the excellent "At Close Range," I knew that I had to catch this.

Then, finding that it was based on an unproduced John Cassavetes script, I was all the more eager.

That final statement should scare off anyone who expected a happy, romantic Hollywood film, as they clearly haven't seen any of the late writer/director's stark, realistic films. Cassavetes' work relied heavily on tortured, unlikable or unredeemable characters who can act their brains out te often portrayed by his wife/widow, Gena Rowlands].

We're talking serious fare, folks ~ required viewing such as "Husbands," "Woman Under The Influence," "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" and "Gloria" [the brilliant Rowlands original, not the adequate Sharon Stone remake].

Now comes his former B-movie star & son, Nick, who dusts off papa's script and enlists the type of actors who are eminently qualified to play a group of true undesirables: Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, James Gandolfini, Harry Dean Stanton, Debi Mazar and the newly-retalented John Travolta, who appears in the last reel.

Even Mom [Rowlands, of course] gets a small but important role.

And the adorable Kelsey Mulrooney, playing Penn & Penn's nine-year-old daughter is terrific without stooping to precociousness.

Is this a brutally honest film? Yep. Is it vulgar in nearly every way? Of course. Do the leading characters have any chance of redemption, moral or otherwise? Not likely.

Do I care?

Let's just say that there's more passionate acting in "She's So Lovely" than was evident in nearly every other 1997 film.

And that's certainly good enough for me.

So there.

A strange kind of love

[kathrynatrand · 7/10 · 5 April 2013]

Maureen and Eddie seem like a pair of losers, they live without purpose, to most of us, yet what is amazing is they are in love, a love that is not shared, even with their own child. You wonder how this can be? It is a story about two persons who live life on the edge, yet have a binding, perhaps blinding love. They are two of a kind and both know it.

Before Eddie goes off to the mental institution, where he spends ten years, Maureen enters a secure marriage with a man who she does not really love her the way Eddie had; it is more a marriage of convenience and Joey, played excellent by John Travolta, is a husband who feels his wife owes him for saving her from a life of debauchery.

As hard as it seems imaginable, she never loves him, in fact, she resents him for changing her. Maureen is not a typical woman by any means; she dislikes Middle-Class life and being a housewife, as she is unfit to have a career. Same with Eddie, he may have improved some after ten years in a hospital; however, he is back to his drinking and slumming, which appeals to Maureen.

We find this strange love off-beat, yet it does happen in real life. This film is very strange, yet realistic for a small minority of persons who eschew the value of stability and security. Maureen has always loved Eddie more than Joey, and as hard as it is to imagine, she leaves her children, her home, and stable husband for the love she has only found with Eddie.

It is really a better film than most think, because it shows a side of life that seems so undesirable. It is as sad as it is fulfilling for the two long parted lovers. It funds itself in an unfamiliar territory, yet this does happen and as much as most feel it is a waste of life, it reveals the nature of individuality.

I think Penn went out on a limb making this film, it is much like abstract art, it can only be appreciated by those who see past the social conventions most adhere; they are not ordinary people and may end up broken unhealthy middle-aged alcoholics, but they live for today.

Should have left it at the video store

[dcs4 · 1/10 · 30 November 2001]

It distresses me that anyone who has watched this movie thought that it had any redeeming qualities. From the beginning, with totally unreadable credits, until the outrageous ending, it was a huge waste of great actors and expensive celluloid! If you know anything about film making, you know that entertainment is a larger priority than art. Although, most good films have one or the other. Great films combine both. Unfortunately this is neither entertaining nor is it art. I am disappointed that anyone thought this movie was good. I was especially angry by the good reviews especially the thumbs up. There is nothing remotely entertaining or artistic about this film, not even those adorable kiddos. To exploit those children for the sake of a film is unforgivable. No they did not shock me with any of their actions, they just made me sad. It also saddened me that any one those quality actors, involved in this film, actually allowed it to be released. I encourage anyone thinking about seeing it to pass it by.

An unsuccessfully delivered narrative with confused actors and a terrible mix of dark relationship drama and comic moments produces a roundly poor film

[bob the moo · 25 October 2006]

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.

Only John Cassavetes can make a John Cassavetes movie

[zooeyglass70 · 7/10 · 9 September 2023]

I saw this in the 1990s before I'd ever seen a John Cassavetes written/directed film. I vaguely recall being underwhelmed, not sure why I should care about these people.

I just watched it again in 2023, now a definite Cassavetes devotee, and sigh for what was surely meant to be an homage by his son but just proved only John Cassavetes could make this movie something truly worthwhile.

Would it have mattered if his son had stuck with his script as is and not rewrote parts? Perhaps, but his son clearly didn't have his father's vision, he treated it like mainstream movie making and corrupted it by making it fit those parameters.

Ultimately John's magic was his alone and couldn't be replicated by anyone, this movie proves that.

De lovely, de-pendent

[=G= · 6/10 · 8 September 2003]

"She's So Lovely" is a serious drama about a man (Penn) and a woman (Penn) who are interminably locked in a symbiotic co-dependent relationship. What is supposed to make the film interesting is that -he- is a whack job and -she- is a loser. Unfortunately, Cassavetes has created a character-driven nonstory with characters who are so far out there they appear only as excuses ginned up for dramatic purposes giving the film a hollow feel...lots of sizzle but no steak. I would toss a kudo at Sean Penn who garnered a "best" at Cannes for his performance, but one gets the feeling this wasn't much of a stretch for him. Recommended for fans of John Cassavetes, the Penns, or the film "Barflys". (B-)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[mgvolpe1 · 1/10 · 27 January 2006]

This movie has so many holes in the story I can't believe John Cassavetes wrote it and Nick Cassavetes directed this utter garbage. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, even John travolta's character was supposed to be the rock solid 'marriage & family' kind of guy, but with his disgusting foul language around the 3 daughters and the appalling disregard for any sense of discipline and wholesomeness for them was shocking. I know, this is real! This is the way it is out in the world! If this be so I truly see the dumbing down of America. These people didn't even have the common sense to come in out of the rain. Hustlers, thieves, not an ounce of compassion. Where do they get the money to produce these things?? I can understand the actors want to make a buck doing whatever. But I can't believe this movie made a return on anybody's investment.

Less plot than a bad porno movie

[uzi4u · 1/10 · 18 March 2000]

We could only stick this one out for about 45 mins. Travolta should buy the rights and burn it. The owner of the movie rental store said she couldn't watch it either. The characters were all right off the Jerry Springer show.

She's So Lame

[BUDDY-19 · 3/10 · 14 April 1999]

This movie was a big disappointment. It went from having potential to becoming and absurd piece of Hollywood crap. The acting was mediocre at best (with the exception of Travolta)- I counted a half dozen times where Robin Wright's accent changed during the course of the film.

What makes this movie so uncomfortable to watch is that all of the leads are considered fine actors, but they are hopelessly trapped in a boring, ridiculous, confounding movie.

Great, crazy movie! Nick is following in his fathers footsteps.

[ebsbel · 8/10 · 22 March 2005]

Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn fall in love, but their lives are everything but stable. Sean Penn is sent to jail for a number of years and when he is released he returns to his love Robin Wright Penn. She is now married to John Travolta and they have several kids. Normally this kind of family business would take months or even years to solve, but these crazy people and kids settle everything in one day. This means emotions, actions and dialog concentrated to the very essence of these peoples lives. Quite fascinating to watch and reminding of the way director Nick Cassavetes' father John Cassavetes used to make movies. Sean Penn always puts his soul into his work and the other actors do a great job. This movie is great fun. Watch it!!!

What was she thinking

[mbr515 · 1/10 · 8 January 2004]

How can she just leave her children for some loser who was in jail for 10 years! the movie would have been a lot better if at the end she didn't abandon her children. That just ruined the whole movie for me. It wasted 2 hours of my time. I love John Travolta, but I wouldn't recommend it even the the biggest fans of John Travolta, or Sean Penn

She's not all that lovely...

[samarand · 19 May 2000]

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.

She's So Horrible!

[bibi-3 · 1/10 · 15 February 1999]

One of the worst movies I've ever rented. Sorry it had one of my favorite actors on it (Travolta) in a nonsense role. In fact, anything made sense in this movie.

Who can say there was true love between Eddy and Maureen? Don't you remember the beginning of the movie ?

Is she so lovely? Ask her daughters. I don't think so.

Love is often not a kind thing.

[michaelRokeefe · 2/10 · 19 April 2002]

This romantic and somewhat humorous drama fails to arouse much interest. I really enjoyed the rain scenes, otherwise it seems the effort was put together at the last minute. A hard luck woman(Robin Wright Penn)tries to make for a better life while her volatile husband(Sean Penn)spends ten years in the 'looney bin'.

There is a lot of wasted talent assembled here:James Gandolfini, Harry Dean Stanton and John Travolta. This movie seems to take too long to deliver its message. Not a very attractive story and the strong language needed for realism gets old very quick.