Highly Overrated But Still Good

Blistering performances.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This film is the basic story of 1969, Marty and Pearl Kantrowitz a couple who married young and have two children, on vacation in upstate NY. Anything north of the city is "upstate" and they take vacation near the well known "Nevele" and Concord Hotels, only at a more down at heel bungalow campground.The atmosphere of the Catskills bungalow and the rather tacky but fun atmosphere is realistic. Tovah Feldshuh as Lillian is excellent, she realizes something is amiss with Pearl and lets her son know, calling him in Brooklyn.The Moon walk itself is secondary to the actual story of America in the turbulent 1960's, Woodstock, and social unrest, but the story is not heavy handed.Nor is it a complete miss like the faint hearted "1969" film with Robert Downey Jr., which attempts to address the same time period in America, and misses the point. Entirely.Pearl Kantrowitz, well portrayed by Diane Lane feels something is missing, she has married too young, and subsequently meets Walker Jerome, a hippie who is known as the "Blouse man" (announced over the intercom by Julie Kavner's unmistakable voice ), when he brings his bus of clothing and jewelry to the camp site. Viggo Mortensen as Walker Jerome, is believable as a young man who eventually gets involved with Pearl, hoping for more.The story rings true because it is simple, but believable and even sad. The affair with him, the ultimate fact that she realizes her life is passing by, but she does love her husband and children as well. and its time to say good bye to lofty dreams. There is a decent soundtrack including Joni Mitchell, and many other gems from that era. Liev Schreiber as Marty Kantrowitz is sympathetic and funny, attempting to dance to Jimi Hendrix at the end of the film.The story is memorable without cheap sentiment, and a rare thing we see from Hollywood deserves praise. It is not a cheap romantic comedy with over the top actors, just a believable vignette which will touch you as the audience.During the credits I noticed it was produced by Dustin Hoffman as well as Tony Goldwyn. Well done. 9/10.

I am writing this review as a non-American. I have watched other movies about wives betraying their husbands and have liked them. For example I liked Unfaithful also featuring Diane Lane. This particular movie however, I felt was depicting the process of betrayal in very unnatural way. Main character Pearl decides to have an extra marital affair and even when caught does not show the emotions that I would expect from a character like hers. She decides to leave at night while her mother-in- law is asking her not to go. Mother-in-law finds out that she is having an affair but does very little about it. Daughter finds out that her mother is sleeping with another man and she shows her anger for mere two minutes. Husband finds out that wife is screwing another man and he just throws the milk and drives car fast. At the end all are fine. I personally feel that even in American family in 1969 this is not what happens after an extra marital affair. This movie almost seemed like the director was telling the audience that this is how you should behave after having an affair. Very unconvincing story-line.

When a family spends the summer of '69 in the Catskills, both mother and daughter find new love interests. Diane Lane stars as a wife and mother who turns to the "blouse man" for affection when her husband can't get out of the city and spend any time with his family. Anna Paquin plays her teenage daughter who comes into her own during this time and needs her mother's emotional stability, which isn't there.The first thing I ask myself is the reality behind this film. Could this really happen? Yes. Could I believe something like this could happen in Lane's character? Not with her mother-in-law living in the bungalow, as well. It's a nice film based on a time when things were a little simpler, but I don't think the director gave very much opportunity for any of the stars to "give it their all," especially co-star Viggo Mortensen. Bottom line: good plot, great actors, bad fit.7 out of 10 stars.

Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.