Forever Mine (1999)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Touches You

Such a frustrating disappointment

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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!)

It is (Gilda) meets (The Count of Monte Cristo). Watchable ? Yes. Effective ? Yes. Great ? Nay ! In fact Hollywood kind of kept itself far from this romantic melodrama since the 40s and the 50s. In the eastern half of the world these themes are still beloved, rather holy. Look at the Indian movies. They never get board of steamy love dreams, hard revenge stories, and fake white hair for the actors! This time writer director (Paul Schrader) tried to make a comeback. But why despite the actual, sometimes charming, gloss I felt that everything was dead predictable, being extremely clear-cut from miles away ? I believe not much of efforts were done to reform the pretty old characters. I didn't feel something revolutionary. And under the cloudy skies there was nothing but warm colors and some delicate dialog. The idea that neither the girl, nor her husband, identified the returning lead didn't convince me for a second. The make up, the hand's infirmity, the accent, and the hair color weren't enough I suppose. I thought that there must have been other powerful matters. The scene of "I want your wife" wasn't less unconvincing itself. The lead was facing a man who got to kill before due to his love, so threatening him this cheeky wasn't for the sake of anybody on one side, and wasn't quite the revenge that the character longed for on the other side.The movie's factors, especially the cinematography and the soundtrack, worked highly. The cast made a fine job, but why I thought of more charismatic stars to play these parts?! Maybe because this kind of icon stories don't demand lesser than icon actors. In terms of being captivating stars like (Glenn Ford, Rita Hayworth, Tyrone Power), this movie's ones seemed like the understudies. But you can't blame them for trying.Welcome to some portion of decent pure melodrama. I know that this movie will be cherished by a lot of young viewers who didn't use to experience black and white movies (or many Indian ones). But as for me, I enjoyed it as something to watch, and not to touch deeply or dazzle outwardly. It's a commercial movie, but it was lighter and less original than being as classic as its antecedents. It got magic. But not the magic.

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.

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!!!