This was an obstreperous film, it took almost no responsibility for itself and was extremely predictable and transparent.
The plot is formulaic: Douglas and Archer (his wife) are at a party, he accidentally meets an attractive and icy young professional (Close) and there is instant chemistry. Why is there this chemistry? Quite simply, the two find something about one another physically irresistible. Douglas simply thinks with his organ, nothing else appears to enter his mind. He appears to love his wife very much and one would think they have been enjoying a good marriage. He has a daughter, a good career he appears to enjoy, he is attractive and healthy. So what went wrong? Apparently nothing other than an arrogant chauvinism on his part. He made a mistake, a simple mistake in his mind, then things get ugly.
Close is a loose canon and deeply disturbed. Why? Well, in a rather flaky moment this film attempts to address this question by showing Douglas breaking into her apartment and discovering the death of her father in a newspaper clipping. He died fairly young of a heart ailment, a fact alluded to (if allusion is even proper considering how obvious it was as a technique) earlier in the film when Douglas and Close are in Central Park with his dog. She is carrying some type of emotional baggage. OK. But to become a murderous, unscrupulous kidnapper, stalker, hell-bent, obsessive, suicidal manipulator? Did I miss something? And furthermore, what happened to that flourishing career of hers we briefly, ever so briefly, get a glimpse of at the beginning of the film? Does she simply forsake her entire successful career, a career that must have taken years to build and mould in order to flourish, (as it apparently has been doing), in order to stalk Douglas? That is almost nonsensical. Why would a woman, whose apartment they meticulously filled with books and manuscripts, become so vapid and wounded and prepared to ignore all of her intelligence and spiritual/emotional reserves, which ostensibly enabled her to rise to success, in order to do such damage? How could she have come so far with this type of vapidity and singular weakness? And one should also ask, why does she find Douglas so important? Has she never experienced rejection before? If so, then why is she single and wary of men at 36? Obviously she has some experience with loss, mistakes and disappointment. If not, then she is a spoiled executive and success who always succeeds. But then, why would she forsake her career so easily? Do you see how many holes this story possesses?
And by the way, how is it that a magnificent controversy did not erupt over this film considering that Anne Archer and Douglas manage to kill the "pregnant" Close? Can you even imagine trying to get by with that today, with all of the arguing over abortion, stem-cell research and litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees? I am puzzled, if the "Last Temptation of Christ" could literally be crucified for its questions over the divinity of Jesus, how could killing an unborn child so cavalierly escape scrutiny? And what is worse is that the film simply ends there! The police come, everything is okay, Archer and Douglas have their arms around one another, there is no spiritual guilt, everything is discrete and tidy. Well, congratulations! How much more obstreperous and fantastic can we get? This script is unintelligent and cliche. Every action taken is predictable but what is worse is that it is predictably illogical. There is no character development in this film. None whatsoever. In fact, these characters are about as unidimensional as one could imagine. I don't understand all of the hype, the film did not even offer any surprises. It not only doesn't work as a story, but as a suspense film it lacks any suspense. We know immediately that Close is psychotic. We don't know why, the nuances of her personage don't exist, but that doesn't matter. She is simply psychotic and somehow that is all the explanation we need.
Don't waste your time. The best film Adriane Lyne ever made was "Jacob's Ladder." Don't miss it! Forget this film, it is not worth consideration.
The plot is formulaic: Douglas and Archer (his wife) are at a party, he accidentally meets an attractive and icy young professional (Close) and there is instant chemistry. Why is there this chemistry? Quite simply, the two find something about one another physically irresistible. Douglas simply thinks with his organ, nothing else appears to enter his mind. He appears to love his wife very much and one would think they have been enjoying a good marriage. He has a daughter, a good career he appears to enjoy, he is attractive and healthy. So what went wrong? Apparently nothing other than an arrogant chauvinism on his part. He made a mistake, a simple mistake in his mind, then things get ugly.
Close is a loose canon and deeply disturbed. Why? Well, in a rather flaky moment this film attempts to address this question by showing Douglas breaking into her apartment and discovering the death of her father in a newspaper clipping. He died fairly young of a heart ailment, a fact alluded to (if allusion is even proper considering how obvious it was as a technique) earlier in the film when Douglas and Close are in Central Park with his dog. She is carrying some type of emotional baggage. OK. But to become a murderous, unscrupulous kidnapper, stalker, hell-bent, obsessive, suicidal manipulator? Did I miss something? And furthermore, what happened to that flourishing career of hers we briefly, ever so briefly, get a glimpse of at the beginning of the film? Does she simply forsake her entire successful career, a career that must have taken years to build and mould in order to flourish, (as it apparently has been doing), in order to stalk Douglas? That is almost nonsensical. Why would a woman, whose apartment they meticulously filled with books and manuscripts, become so vapid and wounded and prepared to ignore all of her intelligence and spiritual/emotional reserves, which ostensibly enabled her to rise to success, in order to do such damage? How could she have come so far with this type of vapidity and singular weakness? And one should also ask, why does she find Douglas so important? Has she never experienced rejection before? If so, then why is she single and wary of men at 36? Obviously she has some experience with loss, mistakes and disappointment. If not, then she is a spoiled executive and success who always succeeds. But then, why would she forsake her career so easily? Do you see how many holes this story possesses?
And by the way, how is it that a magnificent controversy did not erupt over this film considering that Anne Archer and Douglas manage to kill the "pregnant" Close? Can you even imagine trying to get by with that today, with all of the arguing over abortion, stem-cell research and litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees? I am puzzled, if the "Last Temptation of Christ" could literally be crucified for its questions over the divinity of Jesus, how could killing an unborn child so cavalierly escape scrutiny? And what is worse is that the film simply ends there! The police come, everything is okay, Archer and Douglas have their arms around one another, there is no spiritual guilt, everything is discrete and tidy. Well, congratulations! How much more obstreperous and fantastic can we get? This script is unintelligent and cliche. Every action taken is predictable but what is worse is that it is predictably illogical. There is no character development in this film. None whatsoever. In fact, these characters are about as unidimensional as one could imagine. I don't understand all of the hype, the film did not even offer any surprises. It not only doesn't work as a story, but as a suspense film it lacks any suspense. We know immediately that Close is psychotic. We don't know why, the nuances of her personage don't exist, but that doesn't matter. She is simply psychotic and somehow that is all the explanation we need.
Don't waste your time. The best film Adriane Lyne ever made was "Jacob's Ladder." Don't miss it! Forget this film, it is not worth consideration.