Review: The Lake House
Okok, before anybody start, the only reasons I went to catch this flick was:
1. My sis wanted me to accompany her, as she’s celebrating the end of her exams
2. I’ll admit that I was interested in the unusual premise of this flim
So on with it then! I ended up going to the cinema with my cousins as well as my sis, and after not ploughing into any trees on the way there, we finally reached the mall just on time.
Now, before I caught the movie, curiosity got the better of me, and I checked out the reviews for it on good ol’ Rottentomatoes.com. Ahem, prognosis wasn’t good, judging from it. Got only a measly 35%!
However, this is a good example of how the critic’s opinions can go to hell. I throughly enjoyed this film, and bear in mind that I hardly ever catch chick flicks 
I think the last one that I (inadvertedly) saw on TV was “Serendipity”, and man, what a pile of cow dung that was! It had a terribly cliched and predictable plot. There was 2 hours of my life that I’ll never get back…
Anyway, back to the Lake House. Now this was good 
It’s actually based on the Korean film “Il Mare” (or it’s original Korean title “Siworae”). The premise for the film involves Dr. Kate Forster (Sandra Bullock), a young doctor and Alex (Keanu Reeves), an architect. And a lake house, of course. Kate is leaving the Lake House to move closer to the city, and so she leaves a letter to the new tenant of the house. Alex gets the letter, and is very confused by it, since nobody has lived in that house for ages, and it also spoke of things which had not happened yet (dog prints, people). Eventually, they both find out that Alex was living in the past (2004), while Kate is living in the present (2006). After corresponding with each other via a magical mailbox in the Lake House, they eventually fall in love. How nice
So now Alex and Kate’s all fired up to meet each other so that they can fall into each other’s embrace, love each other till kingdom come, etc etc. You get the idea. The thing is, there’s a problem. If Alex goes off to find Kate in 2004, she won’t know who he is, as they’ve not started writing to each other yet. And she can’t find him in 2006 because……. (see spoiler at the bottom for a discussion on this)
So basically they’re stuffed. Unless…. 
Catch the movie to find out how they evetually meet then folks. Suffice to say that my sis, cousins as well as myself really feel sorry for poor Alex
The film conveys a suitably dewey feel to it, with shots of autumn leaves falling, beautiful rows of trees, and the picturisque lakeside where the house is located. The soundtrack is also superb, in my opinion. Nicely sets one in a romantic mood. I’m trying to get the titles of the songs played in there now.
Sandra Bullock really is adorable in this film. I found her very attractive here. A bit scary when you remember that she’s 42 (!!) now! A case of “Stacy’s Mum”, perhaps? Incidentally, I’ve always been a fan of Sandra. You just feel like hugging the lonely Kate in this film. Plus, I really liked what she wears in this film. Works well in acentuating her appeal. And I don’t mean in a sexual way lah! More in a ‘girl-next-door’ cutesy way. So all the more reason why I can’t understand why the critics are panning her in this flick. Keanu also does well in his role as the frustrated Alex. And there’s definitely chemistry between the both of them. Towards the end of this film, you can’t help but hope that they’ll eventually find a way to meet each other.
I will be discussing more of the supposed ‘giant loopholes’ that many of the critics on Rottentomatoes are ranting about, as I really didn’t encounter any humongous ones which detract my enjoyment of this film. Check it out below if you’ve already seen the film
Overall, a melodrama romance flick that works.
Verdict: 
1/2
Gonna try to get a copy of the original “Il Mare” now to compare!
Spoilers!!! Read this only if you’ve seen the movie.
There were many gripes of the supposedly giant loopholes in this film from many critics, and I personally didn’t spot many of them. For example, read this review by the Boston Globe. Especially this part:
“By this point, the part of your brain that likes kittens has thrown in the towel. The part of your brain that pays the bills is saying, “Now wait just a minute.” Why couldn’t Kate send Alex her 2004 e-mail address or phone number and tell him to just bluff it out? Why couldn’t he tell her where he lives in 2006? Watching them stare at that mailbox until the tin flag flies up of its own accord wears thin after a while; listening to them “talk” their letters to the air is absurd from the get-go.”
I think the reviewer wasn’t paying enough attention to the film, based on these queries:
“Why couldn’t Kate send Alex her 2004 e-mail address or phone number and tell him to just bluff it out?”
Umm, I thought that was because she was still with her previous boyfriend then? If you were Kate, wouldn’t you freak out if a random guy just suddnely calls you up? Wouldn’t she wonder where in the world would Alex had gotten her contacts?
On to the second part:
“Why couldn’t he tell her where he lives in 2006?”
This one really proves that the reviewer was probably staring at some hot babe during the movie. The reason Alex couldn’t do this was because by the time Kate knew him, in 2006, he had already been knocked dead by a bus! He no longer exists when Kate started falling for him in 2006.
Jeez man, it’s a wonder that that reviewer gets paid for his job!
So, tell me what you think then. Agree with me on these points? Point out some of the loopholes that I’ve missed as well please.
