Judging A Book By Its Cover: Reviewing The Lake House
By Terri Kauffman
Can you judge a book by its cover? Of course you can, but should you? Conventional fortune cookie wisdom says that you shouldn’t, but should we use clichés as our moral compass? I will admit that some clichés contain truths that should be self-evident, such as “Don’t shit where you eat.” I recently learned that some people potty train their children using a kiddie toilet they’ve actually placed in the kitchen; in the same room they prepare and eat their food. Now, it’s debatable whether or not it’s a great idea to sleep with people you work with, but I can say unequivocally that you should never literally shit where you eat. Ever. But the colonialists didn’t need a cliché to understand this. They didn’t even want to shit under the same roof as where they ate, so they put their crappers outside. So some clichés are true, but maybe some aren’t. What’s my point? That just because something sounds catchy and people have repeated it throughout the course of time, doesn’t mean you have to believe that it’s true. I believe not only that you can judge a book by its cover, but that you should. Otherwise, you’d be forced to select books at random from the library shelves, just hoping to get lucky and happen upon one that you might actually enjoy. Though, chances are, you’ll be reading a how-to book about knitting. And thus I introduce to you a new kind of movie review, one where the reviewer has not actually seen the movie. I’ve seen the trailers, I’ve seen the junkets, and I’ve seen the appearances, and I think I’m plenty qualified to adequately review the movie itself. Maybe you can’t judge a book by its cover, but you can sure as hell judge a movie by its trailer.
I haven’t seen The Lake House, and neither should you. I could’ve watched it and then told you not to see it, but why should I have to suffer just to spare you? This
movie has logic problems so obvious that you can’t even explain the premise without apologizing. But I’ll get to that later. Positive and negative reviewers alike all admit to the absurdity of the plot, and this is almost always the focus of any debate on the subject of this film. But I contend these logic problems, however severe, are the least of this film’s flaws. Keanu Reeves is the worst thing that ever happened to romantic dramas since…well, actually, now that I think about it … ever. Remember the trailers for Sweet November? I didn’t see that movie either, but the sound of him clunking out the line “You defy every law of nature I know” has been permanently burned in my brain. And the studio selected that clip for the trailer, so one can only imagine the excruciating two hours of dialogue that wasn’t trailer-worthy. It’s like casting Romeo as the captain of the football team - who will only do it, so he can try to bang Juliet - just because he’s popular.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Keanu in The Matrix and, his gift to the world, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. He even squeaked by in Point Break and Speed, where he played a lug-head law enforcement officer with a heart of gold. Speaking of Speed, in almost every interview Keanu had with co-star Sandra Bullock the interviewer wanted to know why they had waited twelve long years to star in another movie together. Has this really been on people’s minds? Were people in Peoria asking when they could see another Keanu-Sandra vehicle? I like to believe that nobody outside of Hollywood even cared. I also like to believe that those reporters who asked them that question were told to do so by an intern doing prep work for the show who had just typed their names into IMDB.com and only then remembered they had been in Speed together.
For argument’s sake, let’s just say that Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves were good in Speed. I’m not convinced another set of actors wouldn’t have returned the same box office magic, but I’ll concede they weren’t terrible in that particular film. But Speed had the advantage of things
potentially blowing up and things almost blowing up and things actually blowing up to distract us from the plot’s obvious dissociation from the laws of physics. You know it’s true. Enjoy the movie as you might, but just imagine trying to keep a bus moving at 50 mph through the streets of Los Angeles. Improbable? Nope. Impossible. Even in the middle of the night. They would have all blown up long before they ever made it to that gap in the freeway overpass that they never would have made it over anyway. Why was there a random gap in that overpass anyway? Who cares! Something might blow up soon!
Unfortunately, nothing is going to blow up during The Lake House, so there is nothing to distract us from the logic problems in this time travel romance and Keanu’s meathead delivery of every clunky line of dialogue. The tag line asks “How do you hold onto someone you’ve never met?” The answer is: you don’t. It’s stupid. The trailer asks “What if you found the one you were meant for, but you lived two years apart?” Two whole years? I don’t know what I would do, it’s madness! I mean, how could I ever live all the way back in 2004 when there was no iPod Nano™ and I would have to use just a plain old regular iPod™? And what shall I ever do without my pink Razr™? And what would happen to Wednesday nights without Lost? Oh, the horror! I fear seeing this movie might cause me to develop nightmares about meeting the love of my life, only to find out we’re living two years apart!
As far as I can tell, the basic plot goes like this: Keanu lives in 2004 and Sandra lives in 2006, but they’re somehow able to write letters to each other using a magical mailbox. Maybe I’m just not romantic, but if I were in 2004 communicating via magical mailbox with someone living in 2006, I wouldn’t give a shit about anyone’s feelings about a freak snow storm in April or paw prints in the concrete. I’d want to know that the Red Sox will come from behind, after being three games down, to defeat the Yankees for the American League title in 2004. Imagine the Vegas odds on that one.
Do you think Sandra would still have fallen for him if he had asked for the lottery numbers over the past two years? How about just a few suggestions to take to the track? Maybe just work it into casual conversation … So how’s Tiger Woods playing these days? Just let me know if he starts losing anytime soon. No reason, just curious. Or: Hey, if it’s really 2006, why don’t you send me a newspaper? Make sure to include the sports section and whatever section prints those lottery numbers. Why does everyone involved in time travel movies have to be such a fucking goodie-two-shoes? What’s wrong with making a little profit for two years, then meeting up with the love of your life in 2006 and you can both be rich? Sounds like “happily ever after” to me!
So if Keanu doesn’t win the lottery or make a fortune at the track somewhere between 2004 and 2006, then how does this magical mailbox tale of romance and woe turn out? Since I haven’t seen the movie, I don’t believe I can spoil it, but I can still offer an educated prediction. In 2006, Sandra finds out that the reason they haven’t been able to put it together and meet in person is that Keanu dies somewhere between 2004 and 2006. Sandra figures it out at some point, writes Keanu a letter Frequency-style and saves his life. Then they meet and live happily ever after in 2006 or sometime thereafter. In my version, right after she puts the letter in the mailbox warning him not to get on that plane or not to eat the salmon mousse
, Steve-O drives by with a bat in his hand and a crazy laugh and plays mailbox baseball. Her warning never makes it to Keanu, so he dies and she spends the rest of her life mourning him and dies herself in the lake house as a lonely old maid. The most compelling scenario, however, would be if there was a bomb in the lake house and Dennis Hopper was holding Sandra Bullock hostage and forcing her to put a letter to Keanu in the magical mailbox that reads “Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb in the lake house. Once the lake house goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If the lake house drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?” Sure, it would be a little confusing, but would it really be any more confusing or illogical than the premise as it stands now? And it would introduce the potential of something blowing up!
But seriously, is there a reason to see this movie? Nobody likes Keanu Reeves, especially not in romantic roles, Sandra Bullock is completely forgettable, and the premise has a complete lack of both logic and things blowing up. I will admit that after watching the trailers and realizing the absurdity of the logic, there’s a part of me that wants to see it just to see how it all really plays out. I can’t help it, now I’m a little bit curious. But you know what they say about curiosity? That’s right, it killed the cat. And it’s a cliché, so it must be true. Plus, that would be 105 minutes of my life I can never have back, and that’s the real reason for none of us to see this movie. But hey, if you’re ever on a plane and they’re playing The Lake House and you’ve got nothing to read, you can’t sleep, and you’ve already leafed through SkyMall, then by all means watch it and let me know how the love between Keanu and Sandra bridges their unfortunate time barrier. Otherwise, this film gets four monkeys out of a possible five, since four out of five people would have a better time watching monkeys copulate than seeing this movie.
Can you judge a book by its cover? Of course you can, but should you? Conventional fortune cookie wisdom says that you shouldn’t, but should we use clichés as our moral compass? I will admit that some clichés contain truths that should be self-evident, such as “Don’t shit where you eat.” I recently learned that some people potty train their children using a kiddie toilet they’ve actually placed in the kitchen; in the same room they prepare and eat their food. Now, it’s debatable whether or not it’s a great idea to sleep with people you work with, but I can say unequivocally that you should never literally shit where you eat. Ever. But the colonialists didn’t need a cliché to understand this. They didn’t even want to shit under the same roof as where they ate, so they put their crappers outside. So some clichés are true, but maybe some aren’t. What’s my point? That just because something sounds catchy and people have repeated it throughout the course of time, doesn’t mean you have to believe that it’s true. I believe not only that you can judge a book by its cover, but that you should. Otherwise, you’d be forced to select books at random from the library shelves, just hoping to get lucky and happen upon one that you might actually enjoy. Though, chances are, you’ll be reading a how-to book about knitting. And thus I introduce to you a new kind of movie review, one where the reviewer has not actually seen the movie. I’ve seen the trailers, I’ve seen the junkets, and I’ve seen the appearances, and I think I’m plenty qualified to adequately review the movie itself. Maybe you can’t judge a book by its cover, but you can sure as hell judge a movie by its trailer.
I haven’t seen The Lake House, and neither should you. I could’ve watched it and then told you not to see it, but why should I have to suffer just to spare you? This
movie has logic problems so obvious that you can’t even explain the premise without apologizing. But I’ll get to that later. Positive and negative reviewers alike all admit to the absurdity of the plot, and this is almost always the focus of any debate on the subject of this film. But I contend these logic problems, however severe, are the least of this film’s flaws. Keanu Reeves is the worst thing that ever happened to romantic dramas since…well, actually, now that I think about it … ever. Remember the trailers for Sweet November? I didn’t see that movie either, but the sound of him clunking out the line “You defy every law of nature I know” has been permanently burned in my brain. And the studio selected that clip for the trailer, so one can only imagine the excruciating two hours of dialogue that wasn’t trailer-worthy. It’s like casting Romeo as the captain of the football team - who will only do it, so he can try to bang Juliet - just because he’s popular.Don’t get me wrong, I love Keanu in The Matrix and, his gift to the world, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. He even squeaked by in Point Break and Speed, where he played a lug-head law enforcement officer with a heart of gold. Speaking of Speed, in almost every interview Keanu had with co-star Sandra Bullock the interviewer wanted to know why they had waited twelve long years to star in another movie together. Has this really been on people’s minds? Were people in Peoria asking when they could see another Keanu-Sandra vehicle? I like to believe that nobody outside of Hollywood even cared. I also like to believe that those reporters who asked them that question were told to do so by an intern doing prep work for the show who had just typed their names into IMDB.com and only then remembered they had been in Speed together.
For argument’s sake, let’s just say that Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves were good in Speed. I’m not convinced another set of actors wouldn’t have returned the same box office magic, but I’ll concede they weren’t terrible in that particular film. But Speed had the advantage of things
potentially blowing up and things almost blowing up and things actually blowing up to distract us from the plot’s obvious dissociation from the laws of physics. You know it’s true. Enjoy the movie as you might, but just imagine trying to keep a bus moving at 50 mph through the streets of Los Angeles. Improbable? Nope. Impossible. Even in the middle of the night. They would have all blown up long before they ever made it to that gap in the freeway overpass that they never would have made it over anyway. Why was there a random gap in that overpass anyway? Who cares! Something might blow up soon!Unfortunately, nothing is going to blow up during The Lake House, so there is nothing to distract us from the logic problems in this time travel romance and Keanu’s meathead delivery of every clunky line of dialogue. The tag line asks “How do you hold onto someone you’ve never met?” The answer is: you don’t. It’s stupid. The trailer asks “What if you found the one you were meant for, but you lived two years apart?” Two whole years? I don’t know what I would do, it’s madness! I mean, how could I ever live all the way back in 2004 when there was no iPod Nano™ and I would have to use just a plain old regular iPod™? And what shall I ever do without my pink Razr™? And what would happen to Wednesday nights without Lost? Oh, the horror! I fear seeing this movie might cause me to develop nightmares about meeting the love of my life, only to find out we’re living two years apart!
As far as I can tell, the basic plot goes like this: Keanu lives in 2004 and Sandra lives in 2006, but they’re somehow able to write letters to each other using a magical mailbox. Maybe I’m just not romantic, but if I were in 2004 communicating via magical mailbox with someone living in 2006, I wouldn’t give a shit about anyone’s feelings about a freak snow storm in April or paw prints in the concrete. I’d want to know that the Red Sox will come from behind, after being three games down, to defeat the Yankees for the American League title in 2004. Imagine the Vegas odds on that one.
Do you think Sandra would still have fallen for him if he had asked for the lottery numbers over the past two years? How about just a few suggestions to take to the track? Maybe just work it into casual conversation … So how’s Tiger Woods playing these days? Just let me know if he starts losing anytime soon. No reason, just curious. Or: Hey, if it’s really 2006, why don’t you send me a newspaper? Make sure to include the sports section and whatever section prints those lottery numbers. Why does everyone involved in time travel movies have to be such a fucking goodie-two-shoes? What’s wrong with making a little profit for two years, then meeting up with the love of your life in 2006 and you can both be rich? Sounds like “happily ever after” to me!
So if Keanu doesn’t win the lottery or make a fortune at the track somewhere between 2004 and 2006, then how does this magical mailbox tale of romance and woe turn out? Since I haven’t seen the movie, I don’t believe I can spoil it, but I can still offer an educated prediction. In 2006, Sandra finds out that the reason they haven’t been able to put it together and meet in person is that Keanu dies somewhere between 2004 and 2006. Sandra figures it out at some point, writes Keanu a letter Frequency-style and saves his life. Then they meet and live happily ever after in 2006 or sometime thereafter. In my version, right after she puts the letter in the mailbox warning him not to get on that plane or not to eat the salmon mousse
, Steve-O drives by with a bat in his hand and a crazy laugh and plays mailbox baseball. Her warning never makes it to Keanu, so he dies and she spends the rest of her life mourning him and dies herself in the lake house as a lonely old maid. The most compelling scenario, however, would be if there was a bomb in the lake house and Dennis Hopper was holding Sandra Bullock hostage and forcing her to put a letter to Keanu in the magical mailbox that reads “Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb in the lake house. Once the lake house goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If the lake house drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?” Sure, it would be a little confusing, but would it really be any more confusing or illogical than the premise as it stands now? And it would introduce the potential of something blowing up!But seriously, is there a reason to see this movie? Nobody likes Keanu Reeves, especially not in romantic roles, Sandra Bullock is completely forgettable, and the premise has a complete lack of both logic and things blowing up. I will admit that after watching the trailers and realizing the absurdity of the logic, there’s a part of me that wants to see it just to see how it all really plays out. I can’t help it, now I’m a little bit curious. But you know what they say about curiosity? That’s right, it killed the cat. And it’s a cliché, so it must be true. Plus, that would be 105 minutes of my life I can never have back, and that’s the real reason for none of us to see this movie. But hey, if you’re ever on a plane and they’re playing The Lake House and you’ve got nothing to read, you can’t sleep, and you’ve already leafed through SkyMall, then by all means watch it and let me know how the love between Keanu and Sandra bridges their unfortunate time barrier. Otherwise, this film gets four monkeys out of a possible five, since four out of five people would have a better time watching monkeys copulate than seeing this movie.
<< Back to the Table of Contents