good@pixar.UUCP (Craig Good) (09/22/89)
SEA OF LOVE
A film review by Craig Good
Copyright 1989 Craig Good
SEA OF LOVE is a thriller that never seems to get into overdrive in spite
of fine performances by the principals. It's not a bad film; indeed so much
about it is good that it pales mainly in comparison with the film it could have
been.
Al Pacino stars as a twenty-year veteran detective investigating a series
of execution-style murders. John Goodman joins him in a two-man task force
when the murders spread to his precinct. Ellen Barkin plays of woman Pacino
meets and falls in love with during the course of his investigation. All three
actors are proven, reliable performers with lots of presence, and they deliver.
I had some trouble buying Barkin's attraction to Pacino's character
because he spends most of the movie in various states of drunkenness. But
Barkin's dangerous good looks are used to great advantage in this film, and she
does at least convince me that she falls deep in lust. Whatever the quality of
the chemistry, there was a lot of it, even if it was in an alcohol solution.
Goodman delivers his usual engaging and natural performance in his supporting
role.
There are enjoyable aspects to the editing as we are spared some of the
obligatory scenes one comes to expect in this genre. The way the film jumps
forward in time at just the right moments is refreshing. The comic relief is
well-placed and springs naturally from the performances. That's the good news.
Somehow SEA OF LOVE lacks the kind of edge needed in a thriller like this. The
surprise ending provides the desired shock, but then leaves a disappointing
after-taste.
One thing that lured me to the theatre was the fact that SEA OF LOVE
opened on three of the best screens in the Bay Area. Must be pretty, I
thought. The print I saw had some of the worst color timing I've ever seen in
a modern feature film. The colors had a sickly green cast, which could be the
printer's fault, but most of the lighting seemed rather un-inspired, which is
no doubt the Director of Photography's fault.
The fact that I was thinking about things like the hair in the gate and
the quality of the print is a good indication that I wasn't swallowed up in the
tension. That may be fine for some films, but it's a real problem for a
thriller. If you're a fan of Pacino, Barkin or Goodman (or all three, as in my
case) feel free to go enjoy their work. If you want another experience like
FATAL ATTRACTION or JAGGED EDGE, save your money.
--
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!goodleeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (09/22/89)
SEA OF LOVE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Steamy love story crossed with a tepid
police procedural mystery. The plot may have been intended
to be clever but fails somehow to have anything very
unexpected. There are problems in continuity, casting, and
plotting. Rating: low +1.
There is a serial killer in New York City. Somebody seems to be
answering all the rhyming ads men put in the personals columns and killing
the men placing the ads. Twenty-year veteran police detective Frank Keller
(played by Al Pacino) teams up with Sherman (played by John Goodman). Frank
and Sherman decide that the fastest way to catch the killer is to place
their own personals ad and plan rendezvous with the thirty or so women who
respond to the ad. By getting the fingerprints of each, they hope to get a
match with the fingerprints found at the scenes of the murders. One woman
who responds is the tall, slim, and sensuous Helen (played by Ellen Barkin).
Frank fails to get Helen's fingerprints, but runs into her again and they
become lovers. Now here is one failing of the plot. Frank is ambivalent on
finding out if Helen is connected with the murders, but on those days he is
curious he is willing to steal her Social Security card but not to take her
fingerprints. Frank is expert enough to recognize if two prints match, but
he never bothers to compare.
Pacino's character is one heck of a policeman. He is an alcoholic, he
has a chip on his shoulder, and he is a slob. Even worse, he garbles his
lines so they are almost incomprehensible. Barkin makes all the right moves
to play a really sexy woman, but somehow she never makes it all the way to
actually being sexy. Still, her love scenes are sufficiently steamy to keep
the audience staring closely at the screen. Rounding out the cast is the
now familiar John Goodman. Goodman has a big St. Bernardish look but is
likable as the wise-cracking partner. Also on hand is William Hickey
playing Pacino's father. Hickey looks and talks like Pacino much more than
some other actors who could have been cast in the role such as Jay
Silverheels or Toshiro Mifune.
While this film has been likened by some to BODY HEAT, the story is
really just an okay police procedural about the catching of a killer. While
the dialogue is often quite funny, particularly in the byplay of the two
partners, the script is overall just mediocre. The plot is just not very
clever or intricate, and needs a few more twists to keep up audience
interest. I rate this one a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.comreiher@amethyst.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (09/22/89)
SEA OF LOVE
A film review by Peter Reiher
Copyright 1989 Peter Reiher
Throughout the history of film, great screen actors frequently appear in
films that really aren't worthy of them. Bogart, Tracy, Garbo, Brando, anyone
you care to name, really, all appeared in films that not only were not great,
but clearly had no chance of being great from the word "go." Their scripts
were unoriginal and average, their directors were not top-flight, sometimes the
production values weren't all that great. But the classic film actors were
always able to make such films worth watching, despite the fact that the same
film made with a perfectly competent actor in the role would have been just
another piece of mediocrity. Perhaps even more than their successes in strong
roles, great film actors can be defined by the interest they bring to lesser
roles.
Al Pacino establishes that he is that kind of actor in SEA OF LOVE. The
script, while acceptable, is only a bit above average, and of a genre we
really see too much of today, the police thriller. Director Harold Becker has
done a couple of good films, but none that stand far out from the pack. The
entire film is reasonably well made, the supporting cast gives a couple of
strong performances, but, if it weren't for Pacino, this film would be
indistinguishable from any of a dozen other police thrillers released this
year.
The script's central premise owes something to JAGGED EDGE -- instead of
an attorney falling for a client who may be guilty of murder, it's a cop
falling for a suspect who may be guilty of murder, with sexes reversed. Pacino
plays a twenty-year man whose life is hollow and meaningless. While
investigating the murder of a couple of men who had advertised in a singles
paper, he finds himself increasingly attracted to a woman who may have answered
their ads. Is he really falling for a murderer? His instincts are too
ambivalent to trust, evidence is present but weak, and he has so far lost track
of his center that he has no resources to fall back on.
While not fully original, the central idea behind SEA OF LOVE has
possibilities. And having a woman as the suspect, rather than a man, adds
another layer of complexity. But the script does not play with the idea all
that well. The central attraction of the story is a man who loves a woman so
much that he can't give her up, even though he spends half his time expecting
her to kill him. But the film takes nearly an hour to introduce the woman, and
screenwriter Richard Price does not build up the suspense as well as he could
have. There are too few moments when the woman may suddenly pull out a gun and
blow the hero away.
However, Pacino takes over where Price leaves off. Pacino is always best
as a man under heavy pressure. As Michael Corleone, Pacino contained the
pressure. In DOG DAY AFTERNOON, he let it explode. Here, he charts a middle
course, trying to keep it in, but ultimately unable to hold it back. While
not up to the standard of these earlier performances, Pacino demonstrates that
he has lost none of his fire. Pacino also does a nice job of differentiating
this character from his previous parts -- this isn't just Michael Corleone as a
disillusioned cop, or Serpico as an alcoholic sellout.
Pacino, fortunately, has the advantage of good co-stars to play off.
Ellen Barkin is a nice choice for the mystery woman. Barkin's odd looks always
suggest more beneath the surface than what shows, and that is precisely the
quality that this part demands. Price has not gone quite far enough in drawing
her character to make it completely successful, but Barking does a good job of
filling in the blanks. John Goodman is strong in the only other major part in
the film, Pacino's partner. Oddly, his performance, good as it is, probably
detracts more from the films intentions than it adds, since his basic good
humor and niceness undercut the suspense. By offering Pacino's character a
mechanism to release some of the steam, Goodman also releases some of the
film's tension.
Price has not constructed his screenplay as well as he could have, but his
dialog is excellent, excepting only the final scene. That scene lacks the snap
necessary to provide a satisfactory wrapup to the story. If Price had any
really great lines saved up for a rainy day, this scene was the place to use
them. This deficiency is partially compensated by a few sharp observations
that Price manages to fit in around the edges of the story. His plot plays the
police thriller game fairly, but is not sufficiently clever to stand out.
Harold Becker proves to be a reasonable choice for the director. He does
particularly well at capturing Pacino's performance. He succeeds in providing
a few tense moments, and keeps up the mood well. Becker also does nicely in
shading in some minor characters who were probably only vague suggestions in
the script. On the whole, his direction is unobtrusive. One can imagine that
Martin Scorsese or Sidney Lumet could have done much more, but Price does
enough. The technical credits also are fairly average.
SEA OF LOVE is worth seeing, for those who like the genre or those who
like Pacino. The various elements of the film are at least average, and
Pacino's performance raises the overall effort to a higher level. SEA OF LOVE
may never be remembered as a great film, but twenty years from now it's likely
to be regarded as a nice minor film of a great actor.
Peter Reiher
reiher@amethyst.jpl.nasa.gov
(DO NOT send to reiher@amethyst.uucp)
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher