|Page 10 of 17:||            |
|Index||162 reviews in total|
The beginning of the film (before the credits) primed the viewer for some
promise. How does one deal with betrayal on national television? A good
subject, really, to explore the cancer of the age - talk show
But the movie doesn't address this. It concentrates instead on the woman, her feelings etc. I nearly fell asleep a number of times but had to see if it would improve. I should have allowed myself the sleep.
Woman and man split has been done before and a lot better. Save your time and money.
A love comedy with a lot of potenial to be interesting but instead stagnates in its own sappiness. The chemistry between Harry Connick Jr. and Sandra Bullock sparkled. but it wasn't enough to save the movie.
Sandra Bullock, Gene Rowlands, and Mae Whitman were totally wasted talents
in this badly scripted and edited movie..
I keep wondering what might have been, what could have been, what SHOULD
have been given the premise: Former small Southern town beauty queen returns
home after national dumping by her philandering husband and her "best
friend" on cheesy TV talk show..No wonder Rosanna Arquette didn't want her
name in the credits as the homewrecker Connie!
Being from a small Southern town, I found the gossip and lasciviousness to be pretty true to form (if Birdie(Sandra) developed any nudies in the photo shop, she was to make an extra copy for the old geezer that owned the place). Other than a few acid-dripping remarks that were on target, the rest of the movie was a horrible disappointment.
Sandra's character is accused of drinking several times in the film, and although no alcohol consumption is seen or hinted at except for one bar scene, it certainly would have explained the zombie-like shadows of characters.
We are left hanging with a bare bones plot, husband and his lover humiliate wife on T.V., she packs up small daughter and heads for the comforts of home with mother. Comforts?? I didn't see any. Gene Rowlands was funny, in an eccentric way, but the eccentricities seemed to be pulled from a bag of bad writer's tricks. We are supposed to believe that Birdie fell in love again with the High School sweetheart that she dumped for the no-good Bill, but all I could think was, "If this man's house was on fire, would he move fast enough to get out, and would he even have the emotional fortitude to care?" The love interest had no sparks, no believability, and very little on the beam. I can see why he didn't make it in California as an architect. Heck, he can't even find steady employment in Smithville (too slow, they rightfully say).
The only bright spot was little Mae Whitman, the small daughter, whom many will recognize as Casey from "When A Man Loves A Woman" (GREAT MOVIE!), Sara from "Chicago Hope", and Patricia from "Independence Day". I hope to see Mae again soon in a good movie..it's a sad day when the only actress in a star-filled cast doing much acting is knee high to a grasshopper.
I am a woman, and usually like touchy, feely, humanistic stories about everyday life, but there was very little life here. I am extremely disappointed when I mentally compare what could have been and what was. IF I had paid full theater ticket prices to see this, I would have felt ripped off in the extreme. "Places In The Heart" is an example of a similar movie that WORKS!
Rented out this stinker when I had "Lethal Weapon 4" in my hand. Wife wanted to see it, so I chose to watch about 2 hours of almost pure boredom. The "hope" in this movie was wishing when it would end. I found no character to which I could identify with, except her father. Her mother lamented about wiping out a hill of ants when she had stupid stuffed cats on the stairway. And what kind of a role model can she be if she lets that annoying kid Travis dress and act like a dog,lizard,Charlie Chaplin,etc. He is not a character that any normal child should strive to be like. Think the wrong kid got beat up at school. And his mother never came to her mother's funeral when the mother cared for him all these years? Come on Sandra!!!! I could probably find a person at a bar during closing time to write a more believable story.
I heard Sandra Bullock in an interview say she was tired of picking stinkers
like "Speed 2" but felt vindicated with her latest movie titled, "Hope
Floats." On her own recommendation, I purchased the movie and shared it with
my relatives at Christmas. Well, that had to be one of the seven deadly
The story plots were horribly tied together. Many questions were left untied and most of the characters were hopelessly undeveloped. Why would a husband, who seemingly was happily married be so willing to embarrass his wife on national television? Why would a best friend be so willing an accomplice to such a hateful event? And, why would she sit there and take it? Mom's sudden death was not developed nor explained. It was as if it were placed there to give life to a hopelessly boring movie.
The daughter was the only redeeming character of the film. She deserves an Oscar for her performance. The mother could have been a redeeming character, if they had taken the time to develop her. Bullock played a dead-panned character - devoid of any endearing qualities. Connick's role wasn't much better. She really didn't care to have a relationship with him. She knew him from before and didn't show an interest in him. Suddenly, she changes her mind? I don't think so.
I prayed for a swift conclusion to the movie. I wasn't rooting for any of the characters from the beginning of the movie to the end of the movie. I only hoped that all of my relatives had passed out from a worthy Christmas cheer, but that to was to no avail. I will probably be ribbed over this movie for years to come.
I think that if I wanted to get even with my wife, rather than embarrassing her on national TV, I would force her to watch this movie.
As for Sandra Bullock, I preferred "Speed 2" to this stinker.
Not trying to impress anyone, but I used to be a script doctor. Something
awful must have happened between story conception and final cut of "Hope
I have rarely seen this many loose ends in a high profile screen romance. Too many issues are addressed, only to go essentially unresolved.
The opening, in which Sandra Bullock's character has her marriage wrecked in a national talk show sets the tone for this trite film.
I can only imagine that it was conceived by people who have explored their emotions only on a surface level.
What I hated the most was the way trite music video symbolism was used every time the story floundered dramatically, which was about every ten minutes.
Every performer was wasted on this project, except for Sandra Bullock, whose talent seems to be on about this film's level.
An observation I had while watching this sub-par movie is that "Hope Floats" is VERY similar to the romantic comedy "Something To Talk About" (starring Julia Roberts & Dennis Quaid). Both films leading actress have a cheating husband. Both of those actresses leave their husband to go live with their mother. Both actresses resist involvement with another man (i.e. Connick Jr.) while being on a date with him, and finally, both films are set in Texas. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the writer of "Hope Floats" watched "Something To Talk About," shortly before he started to write this "masterpiece." It's too bad that he couldn't have at least equaled the quality of that film, because it was MUCH better!
This wheeze of a story, about a humiliated young wife and mother "finding herself", is enhanced by lots of camera tricks and a fine leading lady, but the script and characters needed a good overhaul and the details are screwy. For instance, just WHY is that photo-developing machine continually mangling the pictures--and why does Sandra Bullock get docked for it when it's clearly the machine's fault? A scene in a bar, with Bullock drunk and babbling, makes no sense--and later in the bathroom, hanging over the toilet, her mother comes in with no words of wisdom and drops the ball. Gena Rowlands as Sandra's mom really infuriated me (is she a down-home, earthy soul or just an eccentric pain in the neck? Just after Sandra arrives, Rowlands offers nothing but awful put-downs). I don't know how women might feel, but Harry Connick, Jr. seems a staid and sorry excuse for a prince charming (he has no scenes where he shows us any charisma or self-worth). Sandra's kid, played by Mae Whitman, probably gives the best performance, but she has a small range and is around too much (I did love her little glasses though). As for Bullock, she's just right in some scenes (like the one where she asks an old acquaintance for a job) and over-the-top in others. A good director would be able to scale her stridency down, but Forest Whitaker seems a novice who's not really into this story. I wasn't either. ** from ****
The five of us -- four girls and one guy -- rented hope floats and everyone
agreed it was awful. No plot. Bad acting. Some random plot holes. Whiny
bratty annoying daughter. This movie had it all... in a bad way. We came
very close to not watching it all the way through, thinking it would
improve. It didn't. Don't waste your time. Harry Connick Jr. should stick
"Hope Floats" is another Sandra Bullock film where she is the only real asset. Once again she tries hard with a sorry screenplay and poor direction, but cannot save this one. The film deals with a young woman who goes back to her home-town in Texas after she learns that her husband is having an affair with her best friend. She falls in love, of course, and all the stuff that you would think would happen does. A very ho-hum film. 2 stars out of 5.
|Page 10 of 17:||            |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|