No Looking Back Review
by Fernando Vallejo (WryFascist AT aol DOT com)April 1st, 1998
NO LOOKING BACK (R)
A Film Review By Fernando Vallejo
_________________________________________________________
RATING (OUT OF ****): **
In 1995, THE BROTHERS McMULLEN, the feature film debut by filmmaker Edward Burns, won the audience prize at the Sundance film festival and automatically placed him into the limelight as one of the *hottest* young filmmakers, virtually gearing him for a prosperous future. The film, a slight but undeniably charming confection of three Irish Catholic brothers struggling with their multiple rendezvous with women was a shrewd, cleverly written account of the parallels between religion and morality.
One year later, Burns crafted SHE'S THE ONE, a cloyingly cutesy comedy that forced me to my bad side. It ran over similar territory, only this time it the material wasn't as fresh, the acting was second-rate and the photography abysmal. Furthermore, it made me question Burns' integrity as a filmmaker. After all, it was his first "studio" film, one with higher goals and more responsibilities.
Edward Burns' latest venture is Irish Catholic-free, which could account for his first female protagonist in the three films his made, odd, since all of his films have been about women. NO LOOKING BACK is a flimsy, homespun melodrama about nasty people acting nastily towards each other.It doesn't avoid the conventionalities presented and instead embraces the meat-and- potatoes values their characters don't embrace.
The film's humdrum setup stars Lauren Holly as Claudia, an attractive waitress in an unnamed small East Coast town, who yearns for an alternate existence that differs from the monotonous, draggy reality she experiences with Michael (Jon Bon Jovi), her unimaginative and homey boyfriend whose aspirations of marriage ultimately frighten Claudia. This hunger is further accentuated by the return of Charlie (Edward Burns) her ex-boyfriend who left the town to deal his cards in California, shortly after Claudia become pregnant and opted for an abortion. Soon thereafter, Charlie abandoned her, never really devoting himself to Claudia's full recovery. Three years later, and with a part-time job at a gas station, he's back with a vengeance, and although he's informed she's "basically" engaged to Michael, his flirtation is ceaseless. Predictably, this sets a dilemma as to wether she shall take a chance with Charlie or maintain loyalty with Michael.
Jon Bon Jovi, once again proving he's more than a capable actor, and Lauren Holly, in her first true role she can chew on, stand out above the rest of the vacuous cast which includes Blythe Danner as the all-wise grandmother suffering from grandpa's bitterness (years ago, he too left the family and flew to Vegas), Connie Britton as the sister who renders valuable advice, and yes, Edward Burns. Bon Jovi shines with an understated performance that underlines the character's faithfulness in Small Town, USA. It's a very poignant piece of acting, one that will make Bon Jovi more recognizable. Holly, with her exquisitely golden smile, gives Claudia a sweetly ethereal touch blending the impatience of a woman who can no longer stand the same faces and the one native side that calls for a restraint to her choices.
Burns, however, clunks. Badly. Doesn't he realize, as a filmmaker and a screenwriter, that he possesses the acting abilities of a dried-out turnip? He casts himself, in a woefully written role, that mainly consist of charmless smirks and witless wisecracks, designed for someone like, say, Stephen Baldwin. "What wasn't okay?" he naively responds, after Claudia questions his sudden departure. He constantly drinks, lies, and re-affirms his role as a heartthrob by persuading a jailbait to rent a "motel," and letting everybody know by displaying her at a bar at happy hour. I have no business objecting to these moral choices, only when they interfere with the plausibility of characters do I take a stand. And, idiotically, Claudia falls for this routine. Which leads to an even more improbable conclusion.
NO LOOKING BACK more than any Edward Burns movie, exposes what he can and can't do as a screenwriter. At times you want him to take a more harsh approach to the situation, a la CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. Why should we bother to behave morally in a universe where God may not exist, and where goodness is so rarely rewarded? But then again, this standpoint is anti-Burns. He stays within the frames of his stories, letting the actors do the talking and figure it out for themselves.
Despite its faults, NO LOOKING BACK isn't a complete failure. The cinematography by Frank Prinzi is gorgeous. The film has moments of dramatic intensity and Burns is refreshingly unpretentious and uncynical when it comes to modeling his characters. But their trepidations, their goals, their dreams, their "unhealthy" lifestyles are film-student cliches that Burns looked to be done with in BROTHERS McMULLEN. But now, three years later, his self-pitying is pitiable. (1:36)
(C) Fernando Vallejo 1998
[email protected]
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
