elshikh4
I watched this movie, in some channel, under the Shakespearean title "Much Ado about Nothing". I don't know till now, if that was a mistake, or the movie has alternative titles. Thought, what I do know, is that I kept thinking, while the viewing, where was the "Ado", to simply find none, and that was annoying; whether the movie was named "Much Ado about Nothing", "Once in a Lifetime", or "Belly of the Beast" ! The real trick was in the drama, not the title, whereas it initially gives the feel that it is a story of a struggling single mother, Daphne, who wants to thoroughly raise her deaf baby, Andrew. So during the first third; I came to believe that it would be about that mom's striving to provide everything her child needs, especially while being only a writer, who still searches for a publisher for her first book ! Or maybe, it would be about the clash between her child and her developing career, especially when she has to leave him to promote her work. Or maybe, it's about letting her son go; namely not imprisoning him in her care, learning that love isn't about blockading the one she loves, but giving him freedom, to be on his own. OK. It wasn't about any of that. However, that wasn't the problem. The problem is that it was about something less powerful, and more common.The second and third parts were about the worn-out love triangle of which you've watched at least 3567 times before, in previous cinematic movies, soap operas, and TV movies. What gets on your nerves is that the treatment of that triangle itself didn't try to be any rich or proficient. For instance, while Daphne refuses, or rather hesitates to except, Dr. Matthew's love, because she's not ready to love again after the death of her husband; she – in the same time – madly surrenders to the love of Justin, the movie star !! I couldn't buy that at all. If Justin represented her late husband in her story / movie, by embodying a character similar to him; to fall in love with her husband, or actually his ghost, again. Or the script underlined how Justin blinded her, by his utterly materialistic temptations; such as money, fame, and risk; of which her late husband and Dr. Matthew didn't have.. any of that would be more convincing than this sudden, literally unreasonable, love that we watched !Add to that, the soppy melodrama, which was used densely. As we have : a husband who got killed, a daughter who got killed with him, a widow who got hit by a car to have a long coma, a fatherless son who got born deaf, a fiery love story which ended abruptly, another love story which got hindered by misunderstanding. All of that almost exhausted the movie along with the viewer. Not to mention, the awful predictability of the whole thing. Since the appearance of Justin; it's all "dramatic" downhill from there ! You know, by heart, that Daphne will love him, then he'll be irrational, and as flashy as the "Forth of July's fireworks", exactly like the friend early hints, and it'll end in a deadly customary scene, where Daphne is in the arms of Dr. Matthew, celebrating the birthday of little Andrew, while the latter is planning for exploding his school.. err.. sorry, that was me trying to heat up the corpse that this movie turns into at the final shot ! Speaking about awful predictability; the poster spells out the movie, divulging its ending, in a provocative manner ! Lindsay Wagner was no less than great. It's not about her ultra-soft presence, or understanding the character. It's about what Lt. Columbo names "the little things". Watch carefully how she trembles her fingers while being tense, or uneasily moves her nick while being emotionally perplexed. She's – forthrightly – the movie for me. I loved Barry Bostwick. He treated his character so fairly. I enjoyed the transformation of his way of dealing with the heroine; from pure lecturer, to admirer, to desperate lover, to a very desperate – yet noble – lover. Darrell Thomas Utley, as 8-year-old Andrew, wasn't on that right note of acting around. With his charisma and reactions, he looked cold in many moments; as if the plan was saving all the lights for the grown ups ! Duncan Regehr was the worst, no arguments. Who the heck picked him as Mr. Romance, the handsome movie star ??!! He seemed more like a perfect parody of one ! Just look at his map of a face, and uncombed hair; to know that he can be wonderful as an old loser who lives the delusion, and thinks himself a handsome movie star !!! Though I have to respect writing a scene where he admits his aging. As long as I talk about the script's positive points; the first scene of Daphne and her husband, which fools us about their fact as a married couple; is too wicked and witty it's unforgettable. The scene of the park's children questioning Andrew's silence, wins being sorely touching and a brilliant motive for the mother to change her mind about not sending her son to a private school. The story-line of the heroine being in coma at present, running parallel to the events of the past, serves as a good thrilling factor, succeeding in keeping even the story's most haters till the very end. So, it's a TV-ish mix of melodrama and romance, blended in some tenderness and ton of predictability. It was, and still is, made for certain viewers whom don't mind watching shabby love triangles, sugary happy endings (or charming Duncan Regehr !). And they're a lot of which this movie satisfies, despite its foibles, and my preferring to any other movie, with true "ado" in it !
