Well, it's no Notebook, but it is pretty darn romantic and really is an innovative variation of the time travel story recognizing the flexiblity of time derived from action. I also liked the open references to it's inspirations: Notorious with Ingrid Bergman and Persuasion by Jane Austen.

But darned if the whole thing isn't a bit clunky, the director never seems to get the engine of this film tuned to a smooth powerful hum, it gets you where you're headed but the ride is a bit jarring at times.

Still, gotta love the ROM-[s]COM[/s]-TIME genre, following in the hallowed footsteps of movies such as Time After Time (I'm still in love with Mary Steenburgen after seeing that so many years in the past) and Somewhere in Time with Christopher Reeve (though, I'm saving that one to see for the first time in the future...).

And luckily, I'm a commited Sandra Bullock fan and Keanu Reeves acting has always worked for me.

Plus, the soundtrack features This Never Happened Before, a new song by Paul McCartney who turns 64 tomorrow...

4 out of 5.

Potential Oscar nominee, Bradley? Is it written for the film? He seems to like time-bending films (Vanilla Sky) to write songs for.

Well, there's good news and bad news...

The good news is that the new song sounds like McCartney's classic ballads from back in his prime with the Beatles and Wings.

The bad news is that the new song sounds like McCartney's classic ballads from back in his prime with the Beatles and Wings.

As to an Oscar, with the poor quality of recent nominees, I suppose it would be as worthy an opportunity as any to honor the Maccanator...

It stumbles a bit and with a better director, it would have been a classic.

Still, solid romance and a twist's twist to boot.

A-

BTW, the song is off of Paul's 2005 album Chaos and Creation in the Backyard. I dug it out of the inner bowels of my Vidpod and listened to it, along with Nick Drake on the car ride home.

Agreed with lower, stumbles a bit, but overall very solid. I enjoyed far more then I expected. This film is remainder of why Bullock and Reeves became stars.

pretty nice movie - better than I expected

but lots of questions that should have been tied up better / why???

[spoil]* did she ever look at his face during the accident - seems like she should have recognized him
* wouldn't she google him to see what he was doing in the present
* she never opened the box in th actic?
* smart dog and lots of fate in this movie
* seems like she would have picked up on him quicker - considering all the Lake House talk - then just remember the 2 year old dinner party and an architect.

* After seeing Frequency with Dennis Quaid, you knew how this was going to end. [/spoil]

Mixed bag. I thought Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock both gave credible, dedicated performances (Christopher Plummer and the rest of the supporting cast members were wasted!) and the cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. However, the film's pacing was all over the place (speed up here, slow way down, speed up, and so on) and it was a bit too morose for it's own good. Also, I never bought the central romance. Yes, they're both involved in this incredible situation, but why not just communicate as friends? It seems they're hopeless lovers after just one scene of communication, which annoyed me throughout the whole film.

Overall, I would give it a C+. It's well-acted and shot, but dull and uninspired overall. Wait for DVD.

I thought this was a very sweet romantic film that both Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock both pulled off. The whole premise of the movie is fantastic, and though there may still be questions unanswered, they're really not all that important. You can most likely forsee its ending from the start, but it's still a great trip along the way. All the interconnections between friends of Reeves and Bullock is also neat, though the drama in the character's backstories isn't all that interesting. That is my only complaint about the film, that it should have focused more on the couple. Also it seemed like relationship between them turned from friends to more all too quickly, the time passed was hard to understand.

Grade: B+

Another "also", I thought it was quite nice of the writers to tell such a good love story without having to show much physical aspects.

Dude, I am so peeved. We tried to go see ths tonight but it was sold out.

I don't have another chance to see it until Tuesday Oh, well

I haven't the slightest clue when I'll see it. I'm working until 4AM Wednesday, so Thursday is out of the question... Then I work again.

Hmmm.... I guess [spoil]the people in this film have never seen The Butterfly Effect[/spoil] lol

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Major laws of nature and time disregarded, but the heart is in its right place. People in my crowd really liked it.

And I agree with Gunslinger, the cinematography is gorgeous - lots of scenery shots (Chicago and the lake house vicinity), and even that overhead shot moments before the bus accident. Is the bus a nod to Speed?

I can't say that I thought going in that I was going to love The Lake House, but I can say that I am a little disappointed. My biggest problem with the film is that it's tedious. Another problem I had was the overacting. There wasn't too much with Bullock and Reeves (Except for a certain sneeze and crying), but I didn't really like Christopher Plummer or the brother.

C+

D

A massive disappointment. Flat, tepid, and monstrously boring. Poorly acted and written, so the romance angle never hooks you, and the "time travel" angle is loaded with holes and doesn't make sense. The "twist" ending is telegraphed in the first five minutes, so you spend the entire film waiting for it to catch up to you. Some of the direction is decent (the rotating door shot was brill), and the cinematography is okay in spots (it didn't feel expansive enough for me, though), but other than that, this is a flat out bore that is terribly executed in almost every aspect.

Just read this in a Ebert review - he said he used to worry about problems with time travel theory but then he realized just to accept the premise that they offered and watch the rest of the movie.

How many movies could really live up to real world analysis anyway.

***************************

From Ebert

The Lake House (PG) - 3.5 Stars

"The Lake House" tells the story of a romance that spans years but involves only a few kisses. It succeeds despite being based on two paradoxes: time travel, and the ability of two people to have conversations that are, under the terms established by the film, impossible. Neither one of these problems bothered me in the slightest. Take time travel: I used to get distracted by its logical flaws and contradictory time lines. Now in my wisdom I have decided to simply accept it as a premise, no questions asked. A time travel story works on emotional, not temporal, logic.

"Will you still love me, will you still need me, when I'm 64?"

Heather Mills certainly won't.

OH MY. That was sooo terrible!!! Fakest sneeze evar. I laughed while he cried.

I loved the opening credits... got to see to the point where he sneezed (ha!)

So far, good enough.

I just came from it and refrained from seeing the Omen right after because this movie put me in a different mood and I didn't want to ruin it

I was completely engrossed with the film. I loved it way more than I thought.

I still have some confusion with the ending and I don't know if it's something I couldn't figure out or just something we should just give in to and believe...

[spoil]Actually... I think I got it. Just wanna make sure...

So... it's 2008 when she realizes that the guy she couldn't save in 2006 was Alex. So she runs to the lake house on Valentine's Day 2008 and sends the letter, I'm assuming to Valentine's Day 2006. Then Alex, now in 2006, realizes it's Valentine's Day and goes to the Lake House... is this how he gets her letter from 2008 because in 2006 he wasn't living at the Lake House. And why did he go there in the first place? Did he remember her mentioning she was in the plaza on Valentine's Day 2006?

Oh yes... and how in the world did she find that Persuasion book? Was that in her apartment or in the Lake House?[/spoil]

This was one of the biggest problems I had with the film.

If it was 2008, why wasn't that clarified or mentioned? It seemed to cause confusion when there didn't need to be any.

Of course, even having this clarified wouldn't change the fact the film was crap.

I completely missed that.

My disinterest in the events (because of the telegraphed conclusion) made my mind (and eye) wander throughout the film.

Seriously though...

Was anyone else really, really, really pissed off when it was made soooo blatantly clear who the "mystery" guy that got hit by the bus was? To me, it flushed the entire film down the drain ten minutes in.

I actually thought it was him when it happened and definitely more after the scene ended and they didn't show his face.

But oh well... I guess you weren't in the mood to get faught up with the movie. I guess it just sort of left my mind after a while and then remembered it again when I saw Alex wasn't there with his brother in the meeting... even though initially that scene was SOOOOO confusing because they essentially had the brother in both 2006 and 2008 scenes like at the same time... so after figuring which was which...

Ah see... this is why people won't like the movie. Don't over-analyze it too much!