The Lake House (2006) - spoilers?

I loved this film. I recommend all to see it...well most! I think
some people may not enjoy it, but I did. Definetly a chic flick=)


Al Smith wrote:
> > Having seen the trailer in the cinema, I wanted to discover how the time
> > difference is resolved. After all, if one person lives in 2004 and another
> > in 2006, how can they ever meet?
> > But then they have a Magic Mailbox, through which they can send messages
> > to each other. Like a miniature Tardis (of Doctor Who), it crosses the
> > time-barrier. This may be a violation of the law of normal physical time -
> > but not of Science Fiction.
> > The final resolution is not very satisfactory, in that one person "catches
> > up" with the other; but again this is presumably due to magic of the
> > mailbox.
> > The movie has its spooky moments, as the time-difference is exploited in
> > various ways; and plausibly, given the basic premise.
> > But enough of the SF aspect.
> > This film is a Romantic movie, and on that level it succeeds perfectly.
> > It can be highly recommended as a chick flick or date movie, as those two
> > seasoned actors, Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, do a superb job in
> > convincing us that any "chemistry" detected in "Speed" was no illusion.
>
>
> Yes, it's a great chic flic (as the French would say) but I was
> bugged by the lack of any explanation for the magic mailbox, or
> the time spanning between the two lovers. Their only connection
> seemed to be that the both loved the house (which, by the way, was
> a glass shack -- I don't think anyone would want to live in it).
 >> Stay informed about: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers? 

> I loved this film. I recommend all to see it...well most! I think
> some people may not enjoy it, but I did. Definetly a chic flick=)


Well, I didn't hate the film, and I watched it to the end. It was
a little limp. No explosions. No shootings. No scenes of torture.
Hmmm, come to think of it, not a bad film at all.
 >> Stay informed about: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers? 

Re: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers?

At 57 Million US dollars worldwide box office, it sure was a big flop.
What on Earth could anyone say to spoil that film.

Having been a fan of Bullock since Demolition man.
She had plenty of "Anal" in that.
Even seeing her Last year in london.
She looked WEEDY, and OLD.
OLD and WEEDY is the impression I walked away with.
Past her sell by date. by a few years.

A shame really, a real shame, cause she was quite pretty and sassy with it.
Now she is married and loosing her looks and getting crankey.
After this film, it's going to get worse.

Had she got married to K Reaves years ago, and been Celebrity couple NO. 1
to NO.3 her films would have been more successful.

At this premire to "Miss congenital deformity II" most prob in 2004, come to
think of it.
UP popped Hugh Grant to give her a snog and get a few more collumn inches to
promote and get arses on seats.
I wondered at the time, how much Hugh Grant was getting paid to turn up on
the night.

That is what a lot of the Celebs are more worried about.
Getting their hands on the CASH.
The "Art" of their films hardly come into it.
They gave up on that years ago.

Had they both got married, K R and S B that is, Sandra wouldn't have had to
do such dreadfull films like she did.
They were just films that people went to see, just to see her.
Not particularly for the film itself.

They could have faked the marrage, they could have acted being the happy
married couple.
Sometimes people do like to see people happy.
(Except freeky psycho cult cruse/holmes mush, placenta eating bullshit) Who
cares about needle dick and mouth sore !
What was that, some kind of thrush!

Sandra's blown it now.
She has no doubt earnt her success to date.
Was she the 90's Hepburn?, or did Julia Roberts more fit the bill.

I really did fancy Bullock for quite a while.
Now I've gone off her a bit.
Getting married to some hairy biker has put me off.
Though who else can take her place.
No one at present.
They just haven't got that sassy Sandra scarface look to them.

I think K R fancied her, but she wan't all that interested in anything
further.
He still holds a flame for her.
Why else would he endulge in a $57. million flop.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Don H" <donlhumphries DeleteThis @bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:NDyyg.2635$rP1.2013@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Having seen the trailer in the cinema, I wanted to discover how the time
> difference is resolved. After all, if one person lives in 2004 and
> another
> in 2006, how can they ever meet?
> But then they have a Magic Mailbox, through which they can send messages
> to each other. Like a miniature Tardis (of Doctor Who), it crosses the
> time-barrier. This may be a violation of the law of normal physical
> time -
> but not of Science Fiction.
> The final resolution is not very satisfactory, in that one person
> "catches
> up" with the other; but again this is presumably due to magic of the
> mailbox.
> The movie has its spooky moments, as the time-difference is exploited in
> various ways; and plausibly, given the basic premise.
> But enough of the SF aspect.
> This film is a Romantic movie, and on that level it succeeds perfectly.
> It can be highly recommended as a chick flick or date movie, as those two
> seasoned actors, Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, do a superb job in
> convincing us that any "chemistry" detected in "Speed" was no illusion.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers? 

"BIG BEN" <Fred9999.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:KdPAg.36804$oo2.15696@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Re: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers?
>
> At 57 Million US dollars worldwide box office, it sure was a big flop.
> What on Earth could anyone say to spoil that film.
>
> Having been a fan of Bullock since Demolition man.
> She had plenty of "Anal" in that.
> Even seeing her Last year in london.
> She looked WEEDY, and OLD.
> OLD and WEEDY is the impression I walked away with.
> Past her sell by date. by a few years.
>
> A shame really, a real shame, cause she was quite pretty and sassy with
it.
> Now she is married and loosing her looks and getting crankey.
> After this film, it's going to get worse.
>
> Had she got married to K Reaves years ago, and been Celebrity couple NO. 1
> to NO.3 her films would have been more successful.
>
> At this premire to "Miss congenital deformity II" most prob in 2004, come
to
> think of it.
> UP popped Hugh Grant to give her a snog and get a few more collumn inches
to
> promote and get arses on seats.
> I wondered at the time, how much Hugh Grant was getting paid to turn up on
> the night.
>
> That is what a lot of the Celebs are more worried about.
> Getting their hands on the CASH.
> The "Art" of their films hardly come into it.
> They gave up on that years ago.
>
> Had they both got married, K R and S B that is, Sandra wouldn't have had
to
> do such dreadfull films like she did.
> They were just films that people went to see, just to see her.
> Not particularly for the film itself.
>
> They could have faked the marrage, they could have acted being the happy
> married couple.
> Sometimes people do like to see people happy.
> (Except freeky psycho cult cruse/holmes mush, placenta eating bullshit)
Who
> cares about needle dick and mouth sore !
> What was that, some kind of thrush!
>
> Sandra's blown it now.
> She has no doubt earnt her success to date.
> Was she the 90's Hepburn?, or did Julia Roberts more fit the bill.
>
> I really did fancy Bullock for quite a while.
> Now I've gone off her a bit.
> Getting married to some hairy biker has put me off.
> Though who else can take her place.
> No one at present.
> They just haven't got that sassy Sandra scarface look to them.
>
> I think K R fancied her, but she wan't all that interested in anything
> further.
> He still holds a flame for her.
> Why else would he endulge in a $57. million flop.
>
>
# As to why it may have flopped there can be several answers - it relied
solely on Romance to carry it, and that was successful insofar as it went.
But it was not enough. The time-shift element was poorly managed,
especially its final resolution which failed to explain or convince.
KR is known for action films, and SB for comedies. In these cases, both
excel. Even in "Speed" they both perform along these lines, with any
romance more incidental than central.
Still, I doubt one flop will spell the end of the career of either. But
lessons can be learnt.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Don H" <donlhumphries.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:NDyyg.2635$rP1.2013@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Having seen the trailer in the cinema, I wanted to discover how the time
> > difference is resolved. After all, if one person lives in 2004 and
> > another
> > in 2006, how can they ever meet?
> > But then they have a Magic Mailbox, through which they can send
messages
> > to each other. Like a miniature Tardis (of Doctor Who), it crosses the
> > time-barrier. This may be a violation of the law of normal physical
> > time -
> > but not of Science Fiction.
> > The final resolution is not very satisfactory, in that one person
> > "catches
> > up" with the other; but again this is presumably due to magic of the
> > mailbox.
> > The movie has its spooky moments, as the time-difference is exploited
in
> > various ways; and plausibly, given the basic premise.
> > But enough of the SF aspect.
> > This film is a Romantic movie, and on that level it succeeds
perfectly.
> > It can be highly recommended as a chick flick or date movie, as those
two
> > seasoned actors, Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, do a superb job in
> > convincing us that any "chemistry" detected in "Speed" was no illusion.
> >
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: The Lake House (2006) - spoilers?