A release that I had looked forward to for almost a month after seeing the trailer in the theatre, it had finally hatched in October. Tom Perrotta's "satirical" 2004 novel had been released and I was able to finish reading it before the film's impending release. The film stars Kate Winslet (who, along with Guy Pearce, have both mastered the American accent in ennui), Academy Award-winning Jennifer Connelly (who unfortunately does not have enough screen time) and rising newcomer Patrick Wilson (destined to become the next Josh Lucas). The other comeback (and so many reviewers have mentioned him already) is the return of former teen heartthrob Jackie Earle Haley ("Breaking Away," "The Bad News Bears") as a parolee pedophile who is carefully insinuated in the film's climax. A redeeming endeavor on film involving such an un-redeeming character.
The film is about two married suburbanites who are stay-at-home parents that embark on an affair (Winslet and Wilson) while their spouses are bringing home the bacon. Winslet's husband is already a pathetic sap whose addicted to internet porn, so it's not hard to empathize with Kate's endeavors (although the right thing for her would to up and leave him- but then that would be an entirely different movie). Wilson who is married to Connelly is different- because despite of how slightly emasculating she is on her husband, the woman is still likable. At the film's climax, Kate tells Patrick that their sneaking around is weird and she wants closure (which of course a lot of people in her position would want as well). Although in the book, her character never asserted herself like that. I also found myself comparing the film to the novel (which at times seemed over-written). There were subtle changes that were made due to time, budget and cinematic reasons, but the best change was of the ending as opposed to the book's. The book's ending was so contrived and implausible, Field did a superb job with coming up with something less anti-climatic and more shocking. This is one of those rarities in where you can honestly say that the film was better than the book. Another sequence that was excised from the movie that was in the book was the fact that Kathy had not only figured out that Brad was having an affair with Sarah, but she acted as if they were competing athletes and that he received the gold medal and she just got the silver instead, and that it wasn't fair to her. That too, was implausible and I was relieved that that was gone. In the book, Sarah (Winslet) was more needy and Kathy (Connelly) was producing a documentary about WWII vets rather than Desert Storm.
My real complaint about this film (aside from the under-usage of Connelly) was the narrative voice-over that would present itself throughout the picture. Although it was well-written (taken verbatim from the novel at times), it was slightly distracting. It seemed to offer a perspective of the character's innermost feelings at times, but it also seemed as if the narrator was talking to the audience as if they were "children," and it seemed unnecessary. But that is probably the desired effect here: with the narration, the viewer almost feels as if they are watching a psychology film studying infidelity with that borderline-baritone, ominous-sounding voice sequestering the characters and their actions from the audience. The narration did provide some comic relief for the audience though, whereas Todd Field's first film "In the Bedroom" did not. Field probably learned from that and proved with a vengeance that he could make a better film.
I would not be surprised to see this film on the ballot around Oscar season: Kate Winslet truly deserves props for her performance (especially at the end where her character breaks down- you can sense the overall frustration that she has and her epiphany is spliced within her sobs). Jackie Earle Haley without any word said deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I know because of the lack of publicity and the limited number of theatres this film venued at, there is little hope for a little film with "little" in its title that will really score big.
The film is about two married suburbanites who are stay-at-home parents that embark on an affair (Winslet and Wilson) while their spouses are bringing home the bacon. Winslet's husband is already a pathetic sap whose addicted to internet porn, so it's not hard to empathize with Kate's endeavors (although the right thing for her would to up and leave him- but then that would be an entirely different movie). Wilson who is married to Connelly is different- because despite of how slightly emasculating she is on her husband, the woman is still likable. At the film's climax, Kate tells Patrick that their sneaking around is weird and she wants closure (which of course a lot of people in her position would want as well). Although in the book, her character never asserted herself like that. I also found myself comparing the film to the novel (which at times seemed over-written). There were subtle changes that were made due to time, budget and cinematic reasons, but the best change was of the ending as opposed to the book's. The book's ending was so contrived and implausible, Field did a superb job with coming up with something less anti-climatic and more shocking. This is one of those rarities in where you can honestly say that the film was better than the book. Another sequence that was excised from the movie that was in the book was the fact that Kathy had not only figured out that Brad was having an affair with Sarah, but she acted as if they were competing athletes and that he received the gold medal and she just got the silver instead, and that it wasn't fair to her. That too, was implausible and I was relieved that that was gone. In the book, Sarah (Winslet) was more needy and Kathy (Connelly) was producing a documentary about WWII vets rather than Desert Storm.
My real complaint about this film (aside from the under-usage of Connelly) was the narrative voice-over that would present itself throughout the picture. Although it was well-written (taken verbatim from the novel at times), it was slightly distracting. It seemed to offer a perspective of the character's innermost feelings at times, but it also seemed as if the narrator was talking to the audience as if they were "children," and it seemed unnecessary. But that is probably the desired effect here: with the narration, the viewer almost feels as if they are watching a psychology film studying infidelity with that borderline-baritone, ominous-sounding voice sequestering the characters and their actions from the audience. The narration did provide some comic relief for the audience though, whereas Todd Field's first film "In the Bedroom" did not. Field probably learned from that and proved with a vengeance that he could make a better film.
I would not be surprised to see this film on the ballot around Oscar season: Kate Winslet truly deserves props for her performance (especially at the end where her character breaks down- you can sense the overall frustration that she has and her epiphany is spliced within her sobs). Jackie Earle Haley without any word said deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I know because of the lack of publicity and the limited number of theatres this film venued at, there is little hope for a little film with "little" in its title that will really score big.