IN LOVE AND WAR
A film review by James Berardinelli
Copyright 1997 James Berardinelli
RATING (0 TO 10): 4.5 Alternative Scale: ** out of ****
United States, 1996 U.S. Release Date: 1/24/97 (wide) Running Length: 1:54 MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Violence, mature themes, sex, brief nudity) Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Chris O'Donnell, MacKenzie Astin, Emilio Bonucci, Ingrid Lacey, Ian Kelly, Margot Steinberg, Tara Hugo Director: Richard Attenborough Producers: Dmitri Villard and Richard Attenborough Screenplay: Allan Scott, Clancy Sigal, and Anna Hamilton Phelan based on the book HEMINGWAY IN LOVE AND WAR: THE LOST DIARY OF AGNES VON KUROWSKY by Henry S. Villard and James Nagel Cinematography: Roger Pratt Music: George Fenton U.S. Distributor: New Line Cinema
The pairing of an Oscar-winning director with two of today's hottest stars creates expectations for something more impressive than a somnambulant, meandering romantic melodrama. IN LOVE AND WAR, Richard Attenborough's first directorial effort since 1993's SHADOWLANDS, is dead-on-arrival. The problem isn't so much that both leads, Sandra Bullock and Chris O'Donnell, are miscast (although they are), but that the film is devoid of passion. IN LOVE AND WAR is a frustrating motion picture -- frustrating because you want to feel more for the characters than you ever do.
In a story that's based on real people and true events, Chris O'Donnell plays a 18-year old Ernest Hemingway who is shipped overseas to help with the war effort in 1918 Italy. Hemingway, anxious to get into the thick of things, volunteers to ship supplies to the men on the front lines. Once there, he is caught in an Austrian attack, and, while attempting to carry an injured soldier to safety, he is shot in the leg. He soon finds himself in a hospital, being tended to by Agnes von Kurowsky (Sandra Bullock), a 26-year old volunteer Red Cross nurse. When gangrene sets in, the doctor advises amputation, but, through tireless ministering to the wound, Agnes manages to stop the putrefaction's spread, and Hemingway is allowed to keep his leg. As he convalesces, he and Agnes spend a great deal of time together, and, predictably, fall in love.
Supposedly, Hemingway's experiences with Agnes in Italy formed the basis for A FAREWELL TO ARMS, but it would be difficult to make that connection from this film, an uninspired motion picture populated by one- and two-dimensional characters. IN LOVE AND WAR is devoid of the passion that's so necessary for the effective enactment of a compelling love story. The emotion has been sucked out, leaving behind a beautiful-looking shell. The costumes and sets are wonderful, and the battle scenes are expertly staged, but, in the end, who cares? Consider the sweep of THE ENGLISH PATIENT and you'll recognize just how flat IN LOVE AND WAR is.
Both Bullock and O'Donnell, presumably chosen because of their box- office appeal, are out of their depth. And, while they don't do terrible jobs, neither is capable of effectively exposing their character's emotional core. Of course, the script doesn't give them a lot to work with -- it's an unremarkable story peppered with stilted dialogue -- but there's no discernible chemistry. Not only do we have trouble accepting the fresh-faced O'Donnell as one of the twentieth century's greatest authors, but, despite her obvious star quality, Bullock's Agnes hardly seems to be the kind of woman to inspire great literature. At least the supporting players -- MacKenzie Astin as Henry Villard, Hemingway's pal; Emilio Bonucci as a doctor smitten by Agnes; and Ingrid Lacey as Mac, Agnes' friend -- turn in solid performances.
Structurally, there are also serious problems. The love affair comprises only half of the movie's running length. A lengthy prologue is needed to set up the situation in Italy, so the film is nearly a half-hour old before Agnes and Hemingway meet. The final act, a thirty-minute denouement, is poorly-paced and tedious. IN LOVE AND WAR limps to a lame, dissatisfying conclusion.
Not since Demi Moore's ill-advised version of THE SCARLET LETTER has a period piece with such impeccable technical credentials betrayed so many glaring flaws. Four years ago, Attenborough released the disappointing biopic, CHAPLIN. Twelve months later, he rebounded with what is arguably his most emotionally moving film to date, SHADOWLANDS. One can only hope that history will be repeated and that the director's next effort will enable us to forget this one. Not that anyone is likely to remember something as singularly unremarkable as IN LOVE AND WAR.
- James Berardinelli e-mail: berardin@bc.cybernex.net ReelViews web site: http://www.cybernex.net/~berardin
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews