"Forever Mine" is a somewhat flawed telling of an interesting and unpredictable love triangle story which is built around a solid core cast of under-rated actors (Fiennes, Mol, and Liotta). The film, which takes place over 17 years during which a Florida cabana boy struggles with an evil politician for possession of his wife, begins as a romantic melodrama and turns into a darkly obsessive war of wills. "Forever Mine" suffers from low budget appurtenances (music, sets, props, etc); an uneven flow which runs in the beginning and crawls through the middle; and an unnecessary murder which serves little purpose; etc. Those who can overlook the ragged edges of the film will be rewarded by some excellent performances and an evocative and compelling drama while, as the extremes of IMDB.com's users' perspectives indicate, the more analytical viewers will react quite the opposite. An earnest and interesting love it or hate it sleeper.
52 Reviews
Oscar-worthy cinematography lost in the shuffle
Scoopy4 July 2017
Forever Mine is not a good movie. Many other reviewers on this site have pointed out why.
But let's give credit where credit is due.
Cinematographer John Bailey did a magnificent, Oscar-worthy job on this film! It looks great. The first half takes place in Miami in 1973. I lived in Miami in the early 70's, and this film caught the feel of it so beautifully that I could smell the Cafe Cubano, hear the Jai-Alai cheers, and feel the sea breezes. The pastels, the faded glory of the hotels, the neon lights, the whole palette.
John Bailey can't be blamed for Forever Mine's script, or its legal problems, but the result of those problems must have been depressing for him because nobody ever saw Bailey's work projected on the big screen after the film festivals. That's really a shame. This film was meant to be projected in a 2.35 aspect ratio, and that simply can't be appreciated anywhere except a big screen. Of course, Bailey didn't know it would go straight-to-cable-and-DVD when he filmed it in that super widescreen ratio.
By the way, this work was no isolated fluke for Mr. Bailey, as you might guess. He has never won an Oscar, or even a nomination, but he's shot some very fine films in his career. He probably should have been nominated for an Oscar for his work on The Big Chill, and he has shot some terrific offbeat stuff, like Cat People and Groundhog Day.
So, a strong "well done" for Mr Bailey, for work that few people will ever see.
But let's give credit where credit is due.
Cinematographer John Bailey did a magnificent, Oscar-worthy job on this film! It looks great. The first half takes place in Miami in 1973. I lived in Miami in the early 70's, and this film caught the feel of it so beautifully that I could smell the Cafe Cubano, hear the Jai-Alai cheers, and feel the sea breezes. The pastels, the faded glory of the hotels, the neon lights, the whole palette.
John Bailey can't be blamed for Forever Mine's script, or its legal problems, but the result of those problems must have been depressing for him because nobody ever saw Bailey's work projected on the big screen after the film festivals. That's really a shame. This film was meant to be projected in a 2.35 aspect ratio, and that simply can't be appreciated anywhere except a big screen. Of course, Bailey didn't know it would go straight-to-cable-and-DVD when he filmed it in that super widescreen ratio.
By the way, this work was no isolated fluke for Mr. Bailey, as you might guess. He has never won an Oscar, or even a nomination, but he's shot some very fine films in his career. He probably should have been nominated for an Oscar for his work on The Big Chill, and he has shot some terrific offbeat stuff, like Cat People and Groundhog Day.
So, a strong "well done" for Mr Bailey, for work that few people will ever see.
Disappointing melodrama...
MrGKB15 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
...from an otherwise top-notch writer/director who must have been on one serious bender or another to create something so remarkably mundane, despite some nice work from Gretchen "The Notorious Bettie Page" Mol as Ella, the romantic focus of this half-baked bodice-ripper, and Ray "Goodfellas" Liotta, as the stereotypical shady, possessive, violent husband. Unfortunately, it also features Joseph "Shakespeare in Love" Fiennes taking a paycheck with his eyebrows as the passionate Miami cabana boy who's fallen for Ella and swears undying, smoldering devotion. Everything goes downhill from there, including some of the worst aging and make-up effects I've seen in a feature film in some time. Small wonder it never made it into theaters; I'm sure test audiences roasted it! Of interest only to fans of Mol, who demonstrates the ease with nudity that landed her the titular role in Mary Harmon's classy-but-sassy bio-pic, "The Notorious Bettie Page," or maybe dedicated Liotta followers or Fiennes groupies who can't get enough of their boy. Cinemaphiles will otherwise find nothing of interest to retain in their memory banks. A watch-once DVD, unless maybe you want to hear Schrader's commentary, which so far I haven't and very likely never will. Earns its 5/10 from me strictly on Ms. Mol's charms and precious little else.
The acting and the ending
JanetMurie20 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The acting was a disappointment.Ella's appearance should have changed for the years she and Alan had been apart, but it would have been better if there was a longer duration of years. It was hard for me to comprehend that both Ella and Mark absolutely did not recognize Alan. With what had previously happened to Alan, it should have been a huge red flag to him ,as Manuel, that by telling Mark Brice about his love for Ella it would cause Mark to go after Manuel, but we see Manuel unprepared for Mark showing up and why would Manuel have let Ella go shop for groceries after he fully declared his love for her to Mark.You would think he would be smart to know Mark would be coming after them. The movie drags on and the ending was a disappointment with it seeming to wrap-up quickly.It makes you wonder if we're suppose to think Mark laid there and died.
Slow and largely uninvolving Romantic Drama
d_fienberg6 July 2001
There is a mystery at the heart of Forever Mine, the most recent downturn in writer-director Paul Schrader's roller coaster of a career. The mystery involves a man in the first class section of an airplane to New York, circa 1987. The man looks a little bit like Joseph Fiennes, but he is wearing a goofy make-up job to imply scarring and he is speaking with a goofy accent to add intrigue. And thus the mystery can be summed up with a series of questions: Who? Who is this man? What? What is he going to New York to do, dressed as a drug dealer? And Why? Why would anybody cast Joseph Fiennes for a part that required acting? Sure, Fiennes is perfectly skilled at looking soulful, but anything beyond that -- accent, characterization, etc -- is out of his range.
We cut quickly from the plane to "14 years earlier" where we see Fiennes again, now much younger. We know he's younger because he isn't scarred and he doesn't have a goatee. He also isn't speaking with a thick Cuban accent anymore. He has a strange accent that waffles between British, "American," and "Latino." Fiennes is Alan, a cabana boy at a Miami resort. His friend Javier is trying to convince him that he should enter the drug game to make some real money. But Alan has clearly seen DePalma's Scarface, Blow, and a number of other drug movies and he has more legitimate dreams, starting, apparently, with bedding the wife (Gretchen Mol) of a New York businessman (Ray Liotta). Alan and the wife, Ella, begin perhaps the most public affair in cinema history. They make out down the beach from her husband, they get all kissy at local bars, and then have emotional conversations outside her hotel room. And the husband doesn't find out. But then it's time for the couple leave, but soulful Fiennes cannot let Ella go. We're not really sure why, though. As a character, she's a total cypher. Schrader gives her one or two expositional confessional moments, but that's about it.
So of course the relationship is at least temporarily doomed. But in Schrader's universe we knew that before Alan and Ella even kissed, because we know that she's Catholic and that guilt and morality will quickly come into play. As with several other Schrader works, religious fervor is the central plot device, which leads to Alan's deformity, Ella's regret, and the film's film act.
Beyond the Catholicism, though, there's not much at stake in Forever Mine. The two leads have minimal chemistry and the film is plagued by constant continuity errors and cliched plotting. I was troubled by the fact that the 14 years between the flashback and the framing device had done nothing to age any of characters. And I was perplexed by the fact that even though Alan's friend Javier starts out as the the man with the connections, he ends up as a glorified servant. I didn't understand why Schrader couldn't be bothered to develop either Ella's character or that of her husband. And I was just annoyed by Fiennes's inconsistantcy as an actor.
Schrader seems to be having fun with his own background and the backgrounds of his actors. There appear to be obvious references to Goodfellas and Taxi Driver, while Fiennes's 1987 persona has a strange similarity to Robert DeNiro. And all of the elements seemed to have been in place for a fine film. This was Schrader's follow-up to the minor masterpiece Affliction and Fiennes's follow-up to Shakespeare in Love. It was also Mol's first starring role after Vanity Fair jumped the gun and made her an "It" Girl shortly before the release of several small parts. But really nothing comes together. Schrader plots an affair without any twists or originality beside the Catholic guilt that have always fueled his violent Graham Greene-esque visions. The political context that justifies the period setting is hardly worth the effort. The drug subplot goes nowhere. And when Ella sits reading Madame Bovary to a group of senior citizens, the symbolism is just infantile.
Forever Mine never was released in theaters because the company producing it went under. It premiered on Starz! and moved to video. It's hard to imagine it having any real box office potential under any circumstances. This film is a 3/10 at best.
We cut quickly from the plane to "14 years earlier" where we see Fiennes again, now much younger. We know he's younger because he isn't scarred and he doesn't have a goatee. He also isn't speaking with a thick Cuban accent anymore. He has a strange accent that waffles between British, "American," and "Latino." Fiennes is Alan, a cabana boy at a Miami resort. His friend Javier is trying to convince him that he should enter the drug game to make some real money. But Alan has clearly seen DePalma's Scarface, Blow, and a number of other drug movies and he has more legitimate dreams, starting, apparently, with bedding the wife (Gretchen Mol) of a New York businessman (Ray Liotta). Alan and the wife, Ella, begin perhaps the most public affair in cinema history. They make out down the beach from her husband, they get all kissy at local bars, and then have emotional conversations outside her hotel room. And the husband doesn't find out. But then it's time for the couple leave, but soulful Fiennes cannot let Ella go. We're not really sure why, though. As a character, she's a total cypher. Schrader gives her one or two expositional confessional moments, but that's about it.
So of course the relationship is at least temporarily doomed. But in Schrader's universe we knew that before Alan and Ella even kissed, because we know that she's Catholic and that guilt and morality will quickly come into play. As with several other Schrader works, religious fervor is the central plot device, which leads to Alan's deformity, Ella's regret, and the film's film act.
Beyond the Catholicism, though, there's not much at stake in Forever Mine. The two leads have minimal chemistry and the film is plagued by constant continuity errors and cliched plotting. I was troubled by the fact that the 14 years between the flashback and the framing device had done nothing to age any of characters. And I was perplexed by the fact that even though Alan's friend Javier starts out as the the man with the connections, he ends up as a glorified servant. I didn't understand why Schrader couldn't be bothered to develop either Ella's character or that of her husband. And I was just annoyed by Fiennes's inconsistantcy as an actor.
Schrader seems to be having fun with his own background and the backgrounds of his actors. There appear to be obvious references to Goodfellas and Taxi Driver, while Fiennes's 1987 persona has a strange similarity to Robert DeNiro. And all of the elements seemed to have been in place for a fine film. This was Schrader's follow-up to the minor masterpiece Affliction and Fiennes's follow-up to Shakespeare in Love. It was also Mol's first starring role after Vanity Fair jumped the gun and made her an "It" Girl shortly before the release of several small parts. But really nothing comes together. Schrader plots an affair without any twists or originality beside the Catholic guilt that have always fueled his violent Graham Greene-esque visions. The political context that justifies the period setting is hardly worth the effort. The drug subplot goes nowhere. And when Ella sits reading Madame Bovary to a group of senior citizens, the symbolism is just infantile.
Forever Mine never was released in theaters because the company producing it went under. It premiered on Starz! and moved to video. It's hard to imagine it having any real box office potential under any circumstances. This film is a 3/10 at best.
The worst film you should never watch
gvlees1 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Please spare yourself. It is humorless without merit. The dual role played by the unbearably unwatchable and quasi-intense Fiennes (proving acting is not a genetic trait), is excruciating bizarre and Gretchen Mol must have wondered after and hour of plodding dialog how she was not supposed to realize that the new mysterious Hispanic guy was her old flame. It's really bad. The only faintly amusing scene is where Ray Liotta acts so frustratedly since the rest of the cast were so - duh - lifeless. When he later says he is going to kill everyone I really thought it would be Fiennes, Mol, then the director, the screenplay writer (same guy, maybe), the cameraman before turning it on himself. Even the ending is so cheesy I felt the audience should have been on life-support. I kid you not. Terrible. Not for "connoisseurs of the simply awful", it's not that interesting. I'm sorry I couldn't give it less than zero. Some people gave it a ten. How? They misread the instructions? They are in the film, maybe? Liotta would give it a zero, I'm sure. Watch something else!!!
Painful. One of the worst I've seen this year
christo_dop12 October 2000
I saw this film at the Telluride Film Festival. People were walking out, but I stuck it out. Wish I hadn't. Shlocky story, contrived and boring characters. The only thing mildly interesting was to see the revenge plot play out and that was a disapointment as well. Pass on this one.
i'm STILL waiting for 'the end'!
SILENCEikillyou14 October 2003
Great movie -albeit, not too original. Good acting -let's say I was pretty well content with the actors and they're portrayals of the characters. An old story with an different twist -or maybe twists that seriously remind of a bunch of different movies. But you figure, 'Hey, it's going to have a unique and blow-your-mind kind of an ending,' right? WRONG! In fact, I'm still waiting for the ending to happen. It's been hours and the DVD is still in the thing, just playin'. I waited through ALL the credits, hoping that some kind of 'sneaky' ending would come, and NADA! It's like they just ran out of film or something. But, hell, I'd forgo any or all of the credits just to see how this frickin' story ends. PLEASE! thank you -7 out of 10- if anybody cares. I doubt my opinion matters, but this COULD have been 10 out of 10 with SOME (just a modicum) of closure. Maybe even 'the end'. At the end.
the end
the end
Mind Boggling
Fredichi14 April 2002
How could such an accomplished screenwriter, a man who wrote such classics as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, etc. be so singularly responsible for such an aggravatingly awful movie?
I don't think anyone will know. Perhaps the joke is on all of us and Paul Schrader is laughing at our reactions. Maybe he set out to make the worst movie he possibly could and in that it is a triumph.
This movie is offensively bad. It will make you mad. A waste of talent, money, time, effort and thought on everyone's part.
I don't think anyone will know. Perhaps the joke is on all of us and Paul Schrader is laughing at our reactions. Maybe he set out to make the worst movie he possibly could and in that it is a triumph.
This movie is offensively bad. It will make you mad. A waste of talent, money, time, effort and thought on everyone's part.
So so close to being a great film
Smells_Like_Cheese12 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit, I was looking for a romance movie. Why? I'm not sure. I have to figure it out first. Getting onto the movie, I was in the mood for this type of genre, so maybe that's why I kinda liked it.
Joseph Fiennes, I have been seeing him quite often now. I have now seen 4 of his movies, and he is very sexy, I give him that. But he gets practically the same role in every film that I've seen him in. What's with the cheating on his spouse or making the girl leave her boyfriend for him? I... I... ah, well! In some ways I can see a girl leaving their ex behind for him. He does do a great job in the film.
Ray Liotta, what a great bad guy! I've probably seen him in about 4 or 5 films, among one of my favorites "Goodfellas". He's an excellent actor who is very under rated. The problem is, again, stereotyping. He's always the villain. Even though he is a very good one at that, I'd like to see him in a different role. But his acting in here, more mob than insanely jealous husband.
That girl, sorry, don't remember her name, she wasn't too bad. But she wasn't too convincing. In some ways the passion lacked a little on her side, she could've put more into being tossed between her husband and the man she truly loves.
The story is actually very good. Even though not original, I wouldn't actually mind buying the film for a good price. It's nothing special, but it's a decent flick I would recommend.
7/10-Almost there.
Joseph Fiennes, I have been seeing him quite often now. I have now seen 4 of his movies, and he is very sexy, I give him that. But he gets practically the same role in every film that I've seen him in. What's with the cheating on his spouse or making the girl leave her boyfriend for him? I... I... ah, well! In some ways I can see a girl leaving their ex behind for him. He does do a great job in the film.
Ray Liotta, what a great bad guy! I've probably seen him in about 4 or 5 films, among one of my favorites "Goodfellas". He's an excellent actor who is very under rated. The problem is, again, stereotyping. He's always the villain. Even though he is a very good one at that, I'd like to see him in a different role. But his acting in here, more mob than insanely jealous husband.
That girl, sorry, don't remember her name, she wasn't too bad. But she wasn't too convincing. In some ways the passion lacked a little on her side, she could've put more into being tossed between her husband and the man she truly loves.
The story is actually very good. Even though not original, I wouldn't actually mind buying the film for a good price. It's nothing special, but it's a decent flick I would recommend.
7/10-Almost there.
A good candidate to the title of The Worst Movie Ever Made
sergio5024 December 2005
Everything in this movie is unbearably implausible, false, phony. How comes a woman doesn't recognize the man she loves, just 14 years after he's disappeared, and when it happens that much more than half his face looks exactly the same it was? What the hell did the main character do to become so rich and respected? After all, how many cabin boys have become that rich in real life? And, most of all, how comes a young woman like that stays 14 years with the man that has beaten her and, to her knowledge, killed the man of her life? Ridiculous. The screenwriter of Taxi Driver has made a film that is a very good candidate to the title of The Worst Movie Ever Made.
Like 'em hot? This will do it for ya
thundrmi30 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those features that played late at night on HBO, so I figured I would watch since I like Joseph Fiennes and Ray Liotta. I'd never have paid to see it, given the plot summary, but I was very impressed with this pot boiler of a love triangle. It is a definite case of style over substance, but the plot remains plausible enough for those who are true romantics and who feel that those truly destined for one another will go to great lengths to be together. I must admit that the facial scarring of a primary character should not have been enough to fool those close to him, but beyond that I had no problem with the assumed identity device. On a lighter note, I have to say that Gretchen Mol looks sensational here. How much so? I 'bat for the other team,' yet noticed that Ms. Mol's breasts looked exquisite in the tasteful semi-nude scenes. I can see why her character was pursued so authentically by Fiennes throughout the feature. If you liked the original 'Postman Always Rings Twice,' this is a good companion piece.
Love in the Post Modern Paradox
LeonLouisRicci16 July 2012
The intrigue of this movie is"no one will ever love you like this". Fair enough. It's a romance in the classic tradition of love once and forever.
But the romantic rendezvous quickly takes a quirky and complex twist. A twist of fate that is not fully realized or retorted in any satisfying solution. The 14 year development and "downward up-fall" of the two main male characters is woefully thin and without clarity.
There is enough sordid side play and noirish edge to maintain viewer interest but ultimately an unsatisfying and ugly ending lets us down in an odd denouement of devilish melodrama.
The some of the parts do not add up to anything substantial enough to sustain what could have been an exceptional picture puzzle. But the pieces do not fit snuggly together and we are left with a rough, uneven surface to what might have been the Writer/Director's exceptional ode to an era of movie magic he loves. But he unfortunately can not, without compromise, return, and so he is stuck in his own postmodern paradox.
But the romantic rendezvous quickly takes a quirky and complex twist. A twist of fate that is not fully realized or retorted in any satisfying solution. The 14 year development and "downward up-fall" of the two main male characters is woefully thin and without clarity.
There is enough sordid side play and noirish edge to maintain viewer interest but ultimately an unsatisfying and ugly ending lets us down in an odd denouement of devilish melodrama.
The some of the parts do not add up to anything substantial enough to sustain what could have been an exceptional picture puzzle. But the pieces do not fit snuggly together and we are left with a rough, uneven surface to what might have been the Writer/Director's exceptional ode to an era of movie magic he loves. But he unfortunately can not, without compromise, return, and so he is stuck in his own postmodern paradox.
Very bad screenplay, spectacular Gretchen Mol.
James B.13 March 2001
"Forever Mine" is not a good film. The script is highly formulaic and dull, the characters are one-dimensional, there are several holes in the plot, and the ending manages to be both cliched and unsatisfying. It is worth watching only for two nude scenes from the wonderful and lovely Gretchen Mol, who hasn't done much of that at all. If you're a fan of hers, you won't be disappointed here.
Watching this cheese, I was reminded of "Strange Days", where Joseph Fiennes' brother Ralph was locked inside a picture almost as bad as this one. The Fiennes brothers certainly can act, and Joseph does his best here to keep the wooden lines fresh. Gretchen Mol lights up the screen no matter what she's in, but one can only wonder why these very good actors are stuck in such a bad movie. Weren't there any more intelligent scripts around to do than this one? Ray Liotta is strictly on auto-pilot for this film.
The story here is simple - jealousy, adultery, revenge, etc. Movies like this put some basic elements together, and then count on the magnetism of the stars to enlist the audience's attention. But if the characters have nothing but stupid lines to say, how can we care about them? 4/10, and only Mol's scenes make me go that high.
Watching this cheese, I was reminded of "Strange Days", where Joseph Fiennes' brother Ralph was locked inside a picture almost as bad as this one. The Fiennes brothers certainly can act, and Joseph does his best here to keep the wooden lines fresh. Gretchen Mol lights up the screen no matter what she's in, but one can only wonder why these very good actors are stuck in such a bad movie. Weren't there any more intelligent scripts around to do than this one? Ray Liotta is strictly on auto-pilot for this film.
The story here is simple - jealousy, adultery, revenge, etc. Movies like this put some basic elements together, and then count on the magnetism of the stars to enlist the audience's attention. But if the characters have nothing but stupid lines to say, how can we care about them? 4/10, and only Mol's scenes make me go that high.
Digging
tedg18 November 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
Paul Schrader is not someone to be taken lightly -- he's done some very effective work over decades.
Sometimes you wonder whether it will be worth digging when a movie seems so shallow. In this case, digging pays off if you have the DVD, for his commentary is one of the most illuminating I have heard. I watched this three times: once straight on, once with the commentary, and then again. The last time was to try and sort out exactly what went wrong.
The obvious answer is that Mol is neither the actress nor the sexual being that the part demands. And Fiennes is a cold fish. True this is. But why would such an experienced filmmaker not see this? The real answer is more interesting I think: levels of irony and self-reference are the primary currency among Hollywood writers, and he just outgrew his audience.
What I mean is that almost no one makes a film today that is straight, in the sense of real. Okay, but the solution used to be to make a film that is a fantasy -- a fantasy one step removed from reality. Those abstractions are one step away: everything as an idealization of something the viewer might experience firsthand in their out-of-theater life aka real life. But those days are long gone.
Now, we get films that are about other films and the abstractions are multilayered and often folded. Thus, you get films that don't reference dynamics of real life, but dynamics of a prior film fantasy. The more sophisticated of these carry some commentary: satire, reversals, ironic twists or deflations. Or in the case of love stories, those fantasies, abstractions and commentaries are used as the definition itself of sex, even love.
Schrader's career has shown him to be always ahead of the crowd in the number of abstractions and their novelty. Here he goes way beyond zebra, and in a short section of the commentary tells us why.
He intended to make an abstraction of an old `beauty' film that was so beautiful and true (to the original) that it would go beyond camp to hip. This is what the man said, and I believe him. That he missed means he was either too far out in front of us, or that he's in front of us on a different road. I think the former is true, because people like him direct our appetite for popular abstraction.
Paul Schrader is not someone to be taken lightly -- he's done some very effective work over decades.
Sometimes you wonder whether it will be worth digging when a movie seems so shallow. In this case, digging pays off if you have the DVD, for his commentary is one of the most illuminating I have heard. I watched this three times: once straight on, once with the commentary, and then again. The last time was to try and sort out exactly what went wrong.
The obvious answer is that Mol is neither the actress nor the sexual being that the part demands. And Fiennes is a cold fish. True this is. But why would such an experienced filmmaker not see this? The real answer is more interesting I think: levels of irony and self-reference are the primary currency among Hollywood writers, and he just outgrew his audience.
What I mean is that almost no one makes a film today that is straight, in the sense of real. Okay, but the solution used to be to make a film that is a fantasy -- a fantasy one step removed from reality. Those abstractions are one step away: everything as an idealization of something the viewer might experience firsthand in their out-of-theater life aka real life. But those days are long gone.
Now, we get films that are about other films and the abstractions are multilayered and often folded. Thus, you get films that don't reference dynamics of real life, but dynamics of a prior film fantasy. The more sophisticated of these carry some commentary: satire, reversals, ironic twists or deflations. Or in the case of love stories, those fantasies, abstractions and commentaries are used as the definition itself of sex, even love.
Schrader's career has shown him to be always ahead of the crowd in the number of abstractions and their novelty. Here he goes way beyond zebra, and in a short section of the commentary tells us why.
He intended to make an abstraction of an old `beauty' film that was so beautiful and true (to the original) that it would go beyond camp to hip. This is what the man said, and I believe him. That he missed means he was either too far out in front of us, or that he's in front of us on a different road. I think the former is true, because people like him direct our appetite for popular abstraction.
Amazingly inept and unsatisfying
astacvi-113 July 2012
I won't attempt to summarize the plot, such as it is. Suffice it to say that every single character in this film manages to behave in the least straightforward and believable manner in every situation. The heavy hand of a poor screenwriter is evident throughout, as all the characters seem more manipulated than motivated. The writer/director, Paul Schrader, was an unfamiliar directorial name to me until I watched this mess, and his resume makes it clear why. He's had a few successes as a writer, but pretty much all of them were directed by Martin Scorsese, who is very definitely not on hand to salvage this disaster.
Fiennes and Mol are game for the most part, and do what they can with the laughable dialogue. Ray Liotta, however, is at his over-the-top worst. He can be effective with the right part and some directorial restraint (see *Blow*, for instance) but neither is present here.
Avoid this and find something better to do.
Fiennes and Mol are game for the most part, and do what they can with the laughable dialogue. Ray Liotta, however, is at his over-the-top worst. He can be effective with the right part and some directorial restraint (see *Blow*, for instance) but neither is present here.
Avoid this and find something better to do.
The return of the Faceless Man
sol-kay23 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Totally ridicules combination romance/horror movie with the horribly disfigured former Miami cabin boy Alan Riply, Joseph Fieness, waiting 14 long years to get his revenge against indited US Congressman Mark Brice, Roy Liotta. It was Brice who had Alan's faced rearranged with a shogun blast from his paid goons after he refused to deist in carrying on his romance with Brice's wife Ella, Gretchen Mol.
After 14 years and with a dozen or so skin graphs Alan is now back as big time financier for the mob Manuel Esqueala to get Brice out of the hole he dug himself into; Taking kickbacks from the mob and not reporting them to the IRS. Little does Brice know is that Alan or Manuel is really out to screw him both out of his money as well as wife Ella. It's with Ella who by now doesn't recognize Alan from Mount. Rushmore whom he now plans to start up the relationship he had with her back in sunny Florida as well as Yonkers New York, the district the Brice represents in the US Congress, some 14 years ago!
The film storyline is just too much to take as well as believe in Ella not for once recognizing her former lover Alan even though his good,the left, side of his mug or face didn't change a bit since she was kissing it before he got whacked by her husband's goons. Criminal mastermind, in masterminding this entire scene, Alan himself isn't all that bright either in him exposing himself to Brice to who he really is his wife's former lover. That's in Alan by demanding that the fee that Brice pays him besides money for keeping him from being sent up the river and serve hard time in a federal penitentiary, instead of serving easy time in a country club like federal correctional facility, would be his wife Ella!
***SPOILERS*** Confusing final ending with an outraged and humiliated Brice not at all caring if he lives or dies out to kill both Alan and his cheating wife Ella as well as himself and royally screwing everything up instead. Or so it seemed since the ending was so confusing like the rest of the movie that we in the audience didn't really get what happened in the film never explaining if those involved in this turkey survived or not before the ending credits!
After 14 years and with a dozen or so skin graphs Alan is now back as big time financier for the mob Manuel Esqueala to get Brice out of the hole he dug himself into; Taking kickbacks from the mob and not reporting them to the IRS. Little does Brice know is that Alan or Manuel is really out to screw him both out of his money as well as wife Ella. It's with Ella who by now doesn't recognize Alan from Mount. Rushmore whom he now plans to start up the relationship he had with her back in sunny Florida as well as Yonkers New York, the district the Brice represents in the US Congress, some 14 years ago!
The film storyline is just too much to take as well as believe in Ella not for once recognizing her former lover Alan even though his good,the left, side of his mug or face didn't change a bit since she was kissing it before he got whacked by her husband's goons. Criminal mastermind, in masterminding this entire scene, Alan himself isn't all that bright either in him exposing himself to Brice to who he really is his wife's former lover. That's in Alan by demanding that the fee that Brice pays him besides money for keeping him from being sent up the river and serve hard time in a federal penitentiary, instead of serving easy time in a country club like federal correctional facility, would be his wife Ella!
***SPOILERS*** Confusing final ending with an outraged and humiliated Brice not at all caring if he lives or dies out to kill both Alan and his cheating wife Ella as well as himself and royally screwing everything up instead. Or so it seemed since the ending was so confusing like the rest of the movie that we in the audience didn't really get what happened in the film never explaining if those involved in this turkey survived or not before the ending credits!
Wow. Dumbest. Movie. Ever
serenstar-412-29725112 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, technically there are worse. I usually like Joseph Fiennes. The movie's plot was badly written and heavily contrived. There was nothing romantic about the romance in this movie. Every line was softly spoken in true stalker fashion. This is the guy that you do NOT want to be with.
The whole, "You will never be loved like this," thing is not sweet and loving. It's creepy. When she says he was the man she loved, I asked myself, "Why?" She knew nothing about him. For 14+ years she loved a man she knew nothing about. She stayed with a man she didn't love or care about. Ella was weak and unlikable. The acting was stilted. The plot was terrible. I think the best acting in the movie was Javier. Ray reprises the same kind of role he usually plays. He did a fine job at playing the same character he usually plays. This movie has probably ruined Fiennes for me as well. Just all around bad. 2 stars only because I finished it.
The whole, "You will never be loved like this," thing is not sweet and loving. It's creepy. When she says he was the man she loved, I asked myself, "Why?" She knew nothing about him. For 14+ years she loved a man she knew nothing about. She stayed with a man she didn't love or care about. Ella was weak and unlikable. The acting was stilted. The plot was terrible. I think the best acting in the movie was Javier. Ray reprises the same kind of role he usually plays. He did a fine job at playing the same character he usually plays. This movie has probably ruined Fiennes for me as well. Just all around bad. 2 stars only because I finished it.
sick plot.. sick moral..
artsay27 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***** SPOILERS ************
I really can't understand it! The plot is SICK!!! Some people say LOVE WINS. LOVE??? Are you kidding? This woman is a whore! She was with Mark just because she wanted good life and she didn't go away with Alan at first when he was nothing. When he became rich she has betrayed Mark. Alan? He is a b***ard! Ruins Marc's life and steals his wife!
It's very sad Marc didn't kill them both! They have deserved it 100%
The moral of the movie: steal wifes and betray husbands and you will be happy!
**** END OF SPOILERS *****
Liotta's acting is the only acting in this movie! Mol and Feinnes are weak..
I really can't understand it! The plot is SICK!!! Some people say LOVE WINS. LOVE??? Are you kidding? This woman is a whore! She was with Mark just because she wanted good life and she didn't go away with Alan at first when he was nothing. When he became rich she has betrayed Mark. Alan? He is a b***ard! Ruins Marc's life and steals his wife!
It's very sad Marc didn't kill them both! They have deserved it 100%
The moral of the movie: steal wifes and betray husbands and you will be happy!
**** END OF SPOILERS *****
Liotta's acting is the only acting in this movie! Mol and Feinnes are weak..
was this really only two hours; it felt longer !
beardouk2 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The flashback structure didn't add anything. What was the point of the girl and her mother on the plane ? Length is OK when you get lyrical or beautiful....
There must be easier ways of killing a prisoner than this ?
Why did Alan wait 14 years before contacting her ?
When "Manuel" and Ellie kiss, she enjoys it, there is pause, then she recognizes him as Alan. So she'd kiss any stranger who declares he loves her ?
[Re the earlier comment about Javier's changing position - clearly Javier was only ever suited to being a henchman. Alan's "banking skills" enabled him to rise in power.]
There must be easier ways of killing a prisoner than this ?
Why did Alan wait 14 years before contacting her ?
When "Manuel" and Ellie kiss, she enjoys it, there is pause, then she recognizes him as Alan. So she'd kiss any stranger who declares he loves her ?
[Re the earlier comment about Javier's changing position - clearly Javier was only ever suited to being a henchman. Alan's "banking skills" enabled him to rise in power.]
A Curious Melange For Schrader
CitizenCaine26 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
We've come to expect well written, believable characters from Paul Schrader, and with Forever Mine, Schrader gives us interesting characters in Alan Riply and Ella Brice. Beyond those two; however, the characters seem anachronistic and with a too modern sensibility by comparison. Schrader has said he likes to make romantic melodramas every ten years or so, the previous one being The Comfort of Strangers from 1990, which turned into an erotically twisted tale. Forever Mine is a combination of 19th century romanticism, Film Noir elements, and cinematography done in the style of a Douglas Sirk melodrama from the 1950's.
Joseph Fiennes, fresh from his success with Shakespeare In Love, plays a cabana boy who falls in love with a hot-headed politician's wife at a beach-front hotel. Gretchen Mol plays the politician's spouse as a trophy wife longing for the romance missing in her life. We get a sense of her troubled married life that she herself does not wish to admit due to her Catholic beliefs. Schrader alludes to this further in the film with the passages Mol's character reads for the elderly from Madame Bovary, the Flaubert novel about extra-marital love. Fiennes, through the progression of the plot, becomes transformed into a confident, romantic gentleman one would find in a 19th century romantic novel, like Madame Bovary for example. He wears a long overcoat, is costumed in browns, and sports facial hair reminiscent of the era. The dialog between Mol and Fiennes contains flowery touches one would not expect to hear elsewhere, further evidence Schrader concocted a special world for Mol and Fiennes only. The film's flashback use also parallels similar usage in Victorian romance novels.
Gretchen Mol easily migrates back and forth between appearing as a proper housewife on one of Douglas Sirk's sets to a romance-starved woman who can't get enough of Alan Riply; once she decides to go his route. No small obstacle between them is Ella's husband, Mark, played by Ray Liotta with almost a maniacal intensity. Liotta's aggressive tenaciousness eventually clashes with Fiennes' assertive confidence. Liotta will not lose Ella and Fiennes will not give her up. Does anyone ever wonder why all of this clashing male tension isn't directed toward the woman in these films? The noir elements are the plot devices: meeting by chance, Catholic guilt, a woman coming between two men, a guy getting in over his head by getting mixed up with a woman above his social station, intense romance vs. intense violence, and most significantly the color cinematography reminiscent of black and white efforts of years ago, utilizing multiple angles for repeat shots on the same sets and different tinted lenses to contribute the film's shift in mood or tone. Schrader films the same staircase in at least three different ways depending on who is in the scene. He also makes liberal use of pink, blue, and green lenses to achieve the unique lushness in some scenes that recall the films of Douglas Sirk.
The editing also plays a huge role in the film. The cutting between the past and the present, from the beginning on, deliberately sets up the contrast which later occurs between Riply and . The choice of locations even illustrates the unreal quality lustful romance has at the beginning and the more practical life resulting from it later on. The pink hues in nearly all the beach-front hotel scenes give way to more ordinary colors later in the film when reality sets in for Ella's husband. Then again the colored lenses are used when Ella and Alan are paired in scenes, underlining the other worldly quality a romance like no other is supposed to have.
Problematic for many viewers is the transformation of Alan into Manuel and whether or not Ella and Mark would remember him from the past. I have to agree here. I had a similar experience with a girlfriend from the past I had not seen in 14 1/2 years. I bumped into her at a jazz club years later. I never spoke to her or acknowledged her, as she was with someone else. However, I recognized her instantly, despite the fact I only went out with her a couple months. Like many Victorian romance novels, Schrader requires a willing suspension of disbelief regarding plot devices and contrived situations. Ultimately, Mol is the most interesting character to watch, and the cinematography and editing turn the film into something better than it has a right to be. **1/2 of 4 stars.
Joseph Fiennes, fresh from his success with Shakespeare In Love, plays a cabana boy who falls in love with a hot-headed politician's wife at a beach-front hotel. Gretchen Mol plays the politician's spouse as a trophy wife longing for the romance missing in her life. We get a sense of her troubled married life that she herself does not wish to admit due to her Catholic beliefs. Schrader alludes to this further in the film with the passages Mol's character reads for the elderly from Madame Bovary, the Flaubert novel about extra-marital love. Fiennes, through the progression of the plot, becomes transformed into a confident, romantic gentleman one would find in a 19th century romantic novel, like Madame Bovary for example. He wears a long overcoat, is costumed in browns, and sports facial hair reminiscent of the era. The dialog between Mol and Fiennes contains flowery touches one would not expect to hear elsewhere, further evidence Schrader concocted a special world for Mol and Fiennes only. The film's flashback use also parallels similar usage in Victorian romance novels.
Gretchen Mol easily migrates back and forth between appearing as a proper housewife on one of Douglas Sirk's sets to a romance-starved woman who can't get enough of Alan Riply; once she decides to go his route. No small obstacle between them is Ella's husband, Mark, played by Ray Liotta with almost a maniacal intensity. Liotta's aggressive tenaciousness eventually clashes with Fiennes' assertive confidence. Liotta will not lose Ella and Fiennes will not give her up. Does anyone ever wonder why all of this clashing male tension isn't directed toward the woman in these films? The noir elements are the plot devices: meeting by chance, Catholic guilt, a woman coming between two men, a guy getting in over his head by getting mixed up with a woman above his social station, intense romance vs. intense violence, and most significantly the color cinematography reminiscent of black and white efforts of years ago, utilizing multiple angles for repeat shots on the same sets and different tinted lenses to contribute the film's shift in mood or tone. Schrader films the same staircase in at least three different ways depending on who is in the scene. He also makes liberal use of pink, blue, and green lenses to achieve the unique lushness in some scenes that recall the films of Douglas Sirk.
The editing also plays a huge role in the film. The cutting between the past and the present, from the beginning on, deliberately sets up the contrast which later occurs between Riply and . The choice of locations even illustrates the unreal quality lustful romance has at the beginning and the more practical life resulting from it later on. The pink hues in nearly all the beach-front hotel scenes give way to more ordinary colors later in the film when reality sets in for Ella's husband. Then again the colored lenses are used when Ella and Alan are paired in scenes, underlining the other worldly quality a romance like no other is supposed to have.
Problematic for many viewers is the transformation of Alan into Manuel and whether or not Ella and Mark would remember him from the past. I have to agree here. I had a similar experience with a girlfriend from the past I had not seen in 14 1/2 years. I bumped into her at a jazz club years later. I never spoke to her or acknowledged her, as she was with someone else. However, I recognized her instantly, despite the fact I only went out with her a couple months. Like many Victorian romance novels, Schrader requires a willing suspension of disbelief regarding plot devices and contrived situations. Ultimately, Mol is the most interesting character to watch, and the cinematography and editing turn the film into something better than it has a right to be. **1/2 of 4 stars.
It Would Be Very Embarrassing Trying To Explain Why...
zalkor12 March 2010
Brazilian Globo TV showed yesterday in it's "gala" time this film. Maybe the complete belief in the 'universal' (rather coprophagous) appetite of the masses for a bit of cheap entertainment between reality show "Big Brother" and the soporifics Late Hour News...
On the other hand, a proof that prestige of American film in general, and of names like Schrader, Liotta, Fiennes are untouched
If I write here right now that we took it as a bona fide self-parody, or maybe an attempt to emulate Ed Wood in producing the worst film possible - Yes, things like that are already been said before on this board, as I read above...
The best point, to place it, after all, above the 'awfull' grade: It's funny, thanks for some sincere giggles and roar of laughters while the whole evolves - in short, a classic in the "worst of" category... (In this mood, don't' miss it!)
On the other hand, a proof that prestige of American film in general, and of names like Schrader, Liotta, Fiennes are untouched
If I write here right now that we took it as a bona fide self-parody, or maybe an attempt to emulate Ed Wood in producing the worst film possible - Yes, things like that are already been said before on this board, as I read above...
The best point, to place it, after all, above the 'awfull' grade: It's funny, thanks for some sincere giggles and roar of laughters while the whole evolves - in short, a classic in the "worst of" category... (In this mood, don't' miss it!)
a truly wonderful movie
pappu4 November 2001
some might laugh.... but i guess there is a big philosophy in the movie....
the husband had no fault... neither the lady.. nor the cabana boy.
they all fell in love in from different angles. and every ones view was just perfect.
Gretchen Mol .... as Ella Brice was a perfect choice.... wow what a lady....
if you have not seen the movie... you must
the husband had no fault... neither the lady.. nor the cabana boy.
they all fell in love in from different angles. and every ones view was just perfect.
Gretchen Mol .... as Ella Brice was a perfect choice.... wow what a lady....
if you have not seen the movie... you must
Forever Classic
Kagcan13 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER!!!! A classic story of love between a married women and a man below her normal standards. However, with one twist. The evil husband plots to remove his wife's new love but in the end it is he who is erased from the couple's life. Love wins in the end in the classic love story ending.
This film was defined as a awful film with bad performances by English actor, Joseph Fiennes, and American, Ray Liota. However, I found it quite good. The acting abilities of the two men are excellent, especially by Joe Fiennes. Its a shame this film was never given the recognition it deserves. I think it was great!
This film was defined as a awful film with bad performances by English actor, Joseph Fiennes, and American, Ray Liota. However, I found it quite good. The acting abilities of the two men are excellent, especially by Joe Fiennes. Its a shame this film was never given the recognition it deserves. I think it was great!
Something happened on the way to the ending
rmendez16 December 2002
While not too original, this movie had some great performances and nice pacing - up until an ending that feels like it was written by somebody who hadn't seen the rest of the movie. This has the stink of test audience feedback all over it. Skip it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
