MovieChat Forums > Goodbye Lover (1999) Discussion > Why Didn't This Film Work?

Why Didn't This Film Work?

posted 18 years ago by dylan1669
8 replies | jump to latest

Okay I almost never start threads but I had to start one about this movie and on this topic. Goodbye Lover is one of my favorite movies that I hate recommending to people. In other words, there are some CLASSIC moments in this movie (almost all of them are the result of Ellen DeGeneres’s character and her relationship with her partner). Sure, Patricia Arquette’s bi-polar character has some interesting qualities, such as the constant Sound Of Music obsession, but the rest of this film just seemed so blah to me. It was almost like watching a B movie with a couple A movie moments thrown in for flavor... and I was constantly sitting through the B moments impatiently waiting for my A movie pay off moments.

Now for me personally, the end was what made it and why I recomend this film to people. We like to THINK that the good guys receive good things and the bad guys receive bad things. We don’t like to think that anything in our system could ever be even slightly corrupt. But reality is only how we perceive it, and while those who feel the glass is half full think their reality is unchanged, us, the audience, know that reality is the exact opposite.

The moral of the story was simple... who's to say who the good guy and the bad guy truly is? It reminded me a little of "The Departed" in that the line between the good guys and the bad guys gets blurred sometimes when everyone’s goal it to screw the other side... does it really matter if Ellen is screwing the bad guy with the law or with a cashiers check? The bad guy gets a spanking in the end even if they're buddies after the spanking... almost like a twisted child-parent relationship.

Anyway, I was just wondering what other peoples thoughts were on this film and why it just didn't seem to work. I mean it was good.... and yet it was bad. I think that's the part about this film that I've had the hardest time explaining to people when I'm recommending it. The whole movie is about the final moment when Rollins looks in to the camera at the end and says his classic line that sums up the entire theme of the film.

Why didn't the rest seem to work? What was missing?

[–] christopherscase 17 years ago

This is a very interesting question for an under-rated film and under-rated performances. I think a lot of the negativity came because of all the over-hype surrounding Ellen's coming out just before the release (probably why it was delayed) and because of cheesy Don Johnson-- in one of his best roles, in which he was near perfect. Who else would be better as this sleazy slick jerk who you actually feel a bit sorry for when the tables are turned, Alec Baldwin? A no-name character actor?
I suspect a lot of the 'distaste' for this great little quirky gem is not being able to handle Arquette's overt sexuality and then Degeneres' lesbianism mixed with it. And women I've talked to were upset about the fate of the 'lead hunks.' We need classes on objectivity in the arts to teach people to separate their prejudices from the work.
As for 'exhausting plot twists' what's wrong with a good number of teases and jerks along the way, usually that's called 'unpredictable', something filmgoers are always saying they want. What's too much?
Maybe it's because to some viewers who can't suspend disbelief (and shouldn't be watching mysteries or capers or even comedies, period) it seems the whole cast is involved in the plot reversals. It becomes predictable in the sense that you're just waiting for the next character to turn out to be involved? So? Ever seen or read Agatha Christie?

Is it because it looks a lot like a Lifetime potboiler--with female leads? Is that the prejudice, because it's a lot more clever and funny than any Lifetime programmer.
This has some very clever plot twists, and I defy anyone to say they could predict even half of them.

Okay, the Degeneres switcheroo may be a bit hard to buy, but this sort of thing never happens? hardly-- and especially in LA, you know it does. And her partner is a dork and a bit over the top unbelievable, but to a foreign director, this stereotype is very representative of certain Americans-- the supposedly morally pure guy is the one who truly gets fooled. A-HA! A theme here, once again, about who's really good and who's really bad.
Maybe it's another problem lots of films have-- it's hard to really care about anyone-- our heroine is bonkers but sexy but crazy.

Bottom line-- if this had been a French farce with the usual French suspects it would have very likely been an Oscar contender for Best Foreign Film. Francis Veber probably would have put his name on it.

If we can figure out the cynicism involved in people who dislike this film we might be able to figure out why good, creative comedy has all but disappeared from American cinema-- or at least how to revive it. It's in the same boat as people who would say that even the best of Neil Simon is 'too sitcommy'.

[–] dylan1669 17 years ago

Well you bring up some good points. I'd just like to say for one, that I had no problem with Ellen in the film. In fact, Ellens character for me seemed like the only character in the movie who I actually cared about. I felt like the rest of the movie was "crime soap opera plot point 1, blah blah blah, crime soap opera plot point 2, blah blah blah, crime soap opera plot point 3, blah blah, ect."

I guess if I had to describe it, I felt like I never truly "understood" Patricia Arquettes character, and this is essential in establishing an emotional bond between the viewer and character. It was like watching a Jerry Springer episode of some loony who likes to listen to The Sound Of Music when she's not plotting her husbands death (it's very entertaining but I can’t relate to it at all without better understanding why these people do the things they do through additional character development).

You feel like you're watching a freak show from afar rather then BEING that character every time the camera is on her. I think this can be said to an extent for her lovers as well and why two brothers could become so estranged from one another. I mean that was a great opportunity to share the story of how this disconnect between them developed and instead the movie just skipped over that “cause” of the disconnect to the "symptom" of the disconnect (their competition over the same women.)

I felt Ellens character was easy to relate to because she was a SIMPLE person... a cynic who is working in a low-paying high-stress job, seeing people all around her being legally extorted for money (she makes reference to the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit) and she starts to wonder, “what is my reward for being the good little worker?” Who doesn’t feel like they just want to say “TO HELL WITH THIS!” from time to time in whatever job they’re in? I think that’s a character motive that you can actually relate to. That was why I found myself rooting for her and actually WANTING her to get away with it. When Rollins said “you’re under arrest!” to her at the end, I was like =O NO!!!! no no no!” and I NEVER have that reaction in a movie… but I think that’s because I cared about her at that point because I could relate to her motives and desire to retire off on some tropical island.

Aside from that though. I felt like there were a lot of missed opportunities in this movie to make me care about all the other characters by letting me understand them in a way that I could relate to.

[–] LittleNinja 14 years ago

I agree. I loved this movie and I've seen movies that are much worse but get much more attention!

[–] scottcom36 14 years ago

The movie didn't work because it was too cluttered with twists in the main plot and too many subplots. It felt like the writers had a contest to see how many twists they could cram in. It makes for a lot of work for the viewer just to keep up. Still, it oozed style and I enjoyed it.

[–] karlh10 13 years ago

I know this is an old thread, but I thought I would add my 2 cents for posterity sake. (WARNING: Stop reading to avoid SPOILERS)

I watched this movie because a Coen brother was involved in the production.

I enjoyed the movie, but felt like something was missing. I think it might have been that the plot twists were thrown at you a little too quickly. What I mean is that you don't really get a chance to relish the deviousness of the character's plans.

For example, there's just about 30 seconds between when you find out Jake and Sandra had secretly plotted to get Ben's insurance money until he falls to his death. Then, later, there's only a minute between finding out Peggy (M-L-Parker) is part of another evil plot and then she is killed (in a rather unrealistic way, BTW).

Murder-plots-for-money usually have a known reason, i.e. gambling debts. Without showing cause, the plot surprises seem a little contrived. And like another poster said, the estrangement between the brothers was never explained.

I give the movie credit, though, for originality....and I did not see the plot twists coming. Excellent performances, too.

[–] mrmathexpert 8 years ago

Because Ellen DeGeneres is in it.

[–] sonnythefat 8 years ago

Have you seen joe Orton's "Loot" ? One of favourite black comedies. The sixty's version is the best in my opinion.

[–] TheMan18 (12560) 3 years ago

You might also ask if maybe the movie was trying to either make a statement or ask the audience to decide for themselves if an anti-heroine in this movie deserves like that to get away because she also happens to be pretty, even if she is involved in criminal activities that may also, directly or indirectly, involve killing someone? Or maybe I am reading a little too much into it.