I just spoiled the ending for myself.

fyi - it was mentioned that it was 2008 - after meeting the brother in the office - they said that the brother died 2 years ago and then at the mailbox she said that she was 2 years .............

anyway, I thought it was really easy to follow and even thoughI knew it was him and then the no show at the dinner confirmed that, I thought that it was still easy to get carried away in their story.

I'm sorry you were so easily manipulated.

whatever......and it seems like a split here on like / dislike if you took the time to read others post.

Flat-out terrible. Flat direction, terrible story construction, dull writing and acting. The film drags majorly especially since, like makeshift said, the ending is telegraphed way ahead of time. That's just lazy filmmaking right there. A better filmmaker would have devised a way to keep the audience in suspense. Instead, the ending is a foregone conclusion almost from the get-go. Bullock and Reeves were both awful as well; even they seemed to know how poor the script was so they didn't bother trying.

Grade: D

Wow, the ending ruined it.

B for the majority of the picture, C- for the wrap up. Not sure what I expected....

B- overall.

B- for a few pretty romantic scenes.

I have to agree with makeshift here. I don't think there is a more obvious "twist ending" in any movie I have seen in my life. After the "twist" takes place, I waited for the entire movie to see it unfold. That didn't even really ruin the movie for me. If they could have executed it well, I would have liked it no matter what. But the film is just a 95 minute bore. A BORE, I say.

If you want a good romantic film with a bit of fantasy, rent "Just Like Heaven". It's a far better film, with the double bonus of Reese Witherspoon and some comedy! I certainly can't wait to watch that again, to get the taste of The Lake House out of my mouth.

Grade: D

Logic asside, I liked the film immensely. It was romantic, it was very well acted especially by Reeves. It is a very good romantic tale.

8/10

Now that's a statement you don't hear everyday

I guess I'm one of the few who actuallly think reeves can act. He was very suited for this role and he pulled it off nicely.

I rarely post my comment (for any movie) in this forum. But I was so disappointed in this movie. I loved the Korean version, and I thought the trailer looked great.. but..

Oh my God! what a truly boring motion picture!

The film looked really great, sweet and romance. Thanks to the absolutely terrific cinematography. Unfortunately, that's all, it just LOOKED great. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are fine (just not worse than what I expected), the chemistry between them is sparkle.

Script is not good (I try to avoid using word 'suck'), it spends its time too much on uninteresting sub-plot (the father, brother, Sandra's lover). In the Korean version, these parts were just small part of the movie (but yet it's still capable to made big affection). By focusing on these uninteresting things, it did make this movie so tedious. Even though, there's one thing I loved about this Hollywood's version script. It's how much it try not to be a clone of a Korean version (scene by scene remake). Although, some additions were simply stupid (for example, that tree scene, or the twist at the end *SPOILER*in Korean version, this is not a twist, we know this fact in the opening scene*END SPOILER*). The plot is already impossible to happen, why make it more unbelievable.

The directing is dull. And it totally killed the charm. He turned the way of these two people connect to each other to some kind of chit-chat thing (Bullock says some line, and then Reeves reply with some line). For one moment, I totally forgot that they're mailing each other, I thought they're chatting by Yahoo!. This, didn't just kill the charm but also a classic feeling of the romance.

So, there you go; charm is gone, romance is gone. What have I got; a flat, tedious, boring romantic flick that isn't exactly romantic.

** out of *****

Sorry about too much of comparison, I know it's not cool thing to do but I have to.

No comment by Libs here? Weird

I liked it

Not an amazing romance, but it took chances and Bullock/Reeves had good chemistry

Oh well..

I second both. The sneeze was terrible and they should never let Keanu Reeves cry in movies ever again. Ever.

Heh, blatanly clear is a hugely vast understatement. They even had him wear the same clothes he wears throughout half of the film, I think.

B


I thought it was one of the better romances we get treated with nowadays. You can completely forget any kind of logic here as nothing really makes much sense time-wise or anything, but the romance agle of it worked really well for me. Bullock and Reeves are a good couple. But please don't ever make Reeves cry on screen.

I was forced to watch this, basically, and while it isn't that bad (I kiiiinda thought it was okay), it's so ridiculously flawed. There's so many little aspects of this film that I guess the director just forgot to explain. The whole "twist" actually flew right by me and I didn't figure it out until the end. Maybe I wasn't paying attention well enough. But yeah, because of that, I guess it was decent since I never read this thread to find out the twist. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock have great chemistry here, although their performances were sub-par. I agree with the consesus - Reeves should never, ever try to fake cry in a film. Good GOD. And the pace is pretty slow near the middle. So it's far from perfect, but not a terrible film overall. Just.. okay.

C

Spoilers ahead

My interest was originally piqued when I first heard about this movie. I'm a sucker for movies about time. But it was a romance movie after all, so I didn't want to go by myself, and had no honey with which to go see it, so I didn't bother with it. My mom rented it the other day, and I had a few hours to burn, so I popped it in, hoping that it could at least prove to be a good time-filler (there's a joke brewing somewhere about that, but I'm too lazy to find it). Some thoughts:

-Bullock and Reeves did great. I didn't even mind his crying. I didn't notice anything wrong with it.
-The movie would have been better with a better director and tighter writing. Some of the scenes felt unnatural. For example, the party scene, with Bullock and Reeves, the character of Alex did exactly as I suspect he would do. But Bullock's character reacted and said things that I don't think would be natural for anybody. It seemed almost two easy for Reeves to woo her and start dancing with her. The cmaera work would hope to make us think otherwise, but it certainly built too fast and too unnaturally for my tastes.
-I suspected the twist near the beginning of the movie, although I didn't think about it after that. The twist was good, but the execution was bad. I think it would have been better (although admittedly not as popular) if Alex had ended up dying in the crash.
-Major problems with time. I can usually overlook some, since there's a certain suspension of belief involved, but I still can't come to grasp how Bullock would have ended up talking to Reeves if the crash ahd never happened. The whole reason Bullock starts talking to Reeves is because she was told that, in the aftermath of losing somebody, a good idea would be to go "far away, where you feel most comfortable". She goes to the Lake House, where she ends up "meeting" her future honey. If she had written the letter in 2008 to stop him from coming in 2006, then she would have never had the chance to write that letter, or any other letter. Especially since the theory of time ealrier in the movie doesn't match up with that bit. For instance, she refers to the paw prints and the box in the attic. The problem I stated earlier is the result of a "cause-and effect" timeline, in which one thing happens, and no matter what else may happen in the timeline, there would be a direct effect because of that action. Whereas other things in the timeline seem to denote a more restrictive timeline, where no matter what you did, it could not breach the flow of that particular timeline. Some might call it fate.


I give it a C. If it had better writing or better directing, it could have easily been a B movie.

C

Pacing, pacing, pacing. Movie never got a rhythm with all the flashing back and forth, alternating between years and storylines, and it just ended up much less fun than it should've been.

Reeves was great though. His best performance ever, unless there's a movie in the past where he hasn't been a piece of wood.

Irk. Not only does it make a mess of time paradoxes and the like, but it's not that interesting either. And Keanu is SO BAD.

Can't they just do Speed 3 instead?

This tends to be one of the movies I watch when I'm drunk lately. This fact scares the shit out of me.