Where the Heart Is | | Cast : | Natalie Portman, James Frain | | Director : | Matt Williams (II) | | Studio : | Twentieth Century Fox | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | April 28, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | September 26, 2000 | | Language : | French (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), English (Dubbed), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | June 22, 2005 | | Summary | What Were They Thinking? | Content
 | What Were They Thinking?
"Where the Heart Is" reminds me a little of "Pumpkin". Good performances and excellent individual scenes that occur so haphazardly that the movie never quite figures out where it is going but manages to cover a lot of ground in the process. This gives both films such a surreal quality that a few days after viewing you will wonder if the whole thing was just a dream (Christina Ricci as a blonde sorority girl-Natalie Portman as a pregnant hillbilly-must have just been my imagination). Unfortunately, both films stop short of being truly surreal and are simply ordinary efforts with a little strangeness. If a visionary director like David Lynch had just ratcheted up the surreal qualities a tiny bit more the result would have been special.
The plot is such a mix of randomness, contrivance, flash-forwards, improbability, coincidence, reversals of fortune, and incidental sub-plots that the editor must have been pushed to the brink of madness during the post-production process. The ending is such a lame contrivance that you are puzzled that the producer did not send the script back for major alteration before shooting even began.
It is a tribute to Natalie Portman that she holds this mess together, and even manages to keep the nausea meter at a tolerable level during the ending. Although you won't believe it from her "Star Wars" performances, Portman is really a fine actress. Although horribly miscast here (couldn't her character have been from rural Nebraska instead-thus not requiring that hillbilly accent?), she does manage to bring her character to life. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 06, 2005 | | Summary | Hate the term "Chick Flick" | Content
| It;s used whenever a woman's movie is made where both the cast and the script revolves around a woman's story and issues. I think the term was invented by male internet geeks who drool while looking up porn sits on the web...anyway, regardles of that, Is it too much to ask Hollywood to make a movie where a teenage mother to be is actually loved by a good/decent man. I'm sure it;s happened in real life, but NO, they keep turning out junk like this which is little more then shock value garbage alone. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 24, 2005 | | Summary | A few good performances can't save it. | Content
| I enjoyed the book but the movie is simply awful! The plot in the book is charming and touching; however, in typical Hollywood fashion, the movie has ditched most of the relevant characterizations and plot points and offers instead only the action sequences, greatly exaggerated, and strung together with the barest hint of a story. It all seems absurd and unbelievable. Conflicts abound, but never fear, they are all resolved in a matter of minutes. There's no time for exploration or thought or emotion and the viewer simply can't engage. There's a tornado, a kidnapping, a train accident, a birth, child abuse and domestic violence, and plenty of suggestive sexual talk, but frankly, it's boring.
Ashley Judd and Stockard Channing give decent performances (though not their best) but Natalie Portman is terrible as Novalee. I believe this was one of the first films she did after the first Star Wars and Queen Amidala is still very evident in her acting. Novalee is wooden, stilted, and boring and she utterly fails to make a connection with any of the other characters (including her daughter) or with the audience. Her romance with the librarian is so devoid of any chemistry and passion it was laughable. The subplot with the sleazy boyfriend is stupid and pointless, though Joan Cusack salvages it slightly by her mere presence.
Two stars because of Judd, Channing, Cusack, and the cameo by Sally Field. Everything else would rate negative stars. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 15, 2004 | | Summary | Another Chick Flick | Content
| They give us a bad name, I swear.
This one isn't terrible, but it's not something you would want to spend money on either. Natalie Portman plays a young pregnant woman abandoned at a Wal-Mart by her boyfriend who has dreams of becoming a star. She shacks it up at the Wal Mart where she actually delivers the baby one late night.
Ashley Judd and Stockard Channing play the supportive friends, the former a baby making machine that can't find the right guy, and the latter a hippie-esque type that takes her in. From tornados, to kidnappings, to terrible women-beaters and the sensitive and mysterious romantic interest, this movie has everything a Lifetime movie should except a barf bag.
It does have it's moments, and some are even funny. Judd, Channing, and Portman are all worthy actresses and they can turn any turkey into something at least watchable. And watchable it is if like me, you are stuck with nothing better to do and an older relative is in control of the television. At least I didn't fall asleep or just go home.
Sally Field has an interesting cameo in this movie, and it is probably the most memorable scene in the whole flick.
More disturbing than anything about this bland movie is this glorification of small business undermining Wal Mart. I hate Wal Mart and all that it stands for, and I am pretty sure that were I in Novalee's predicament, I would have at least given birth in a dumpster before I let Wal Mart capitalize on me. What kept me from giving this a three star rating was the visual I had of this movie further promoting this decidedly evil empire. Sorry for the soap box rant, but I had a hard time getting past that particular point, and it made it difficult for me to like the movie more so than it would have anyway.
It is only in reading the reviews on this web site that I even knew that this movie was based on a book. Why freakin' Wal Mart? I am sure that the book is better than the movie - it always is, but I don't think I will be reading it any time soon.
|
| Rating | | | Date | June 30, 2004 | | Summary | Magnificent | Content
| I originally rented this video as part of my Natalie Portman marathon session. I didn't care or expect this to be a good movie. However, as I started to watch it, I started to lose focus of Natalie and get enveloped by the enormity of the plot's attention to detail.
Natalie and macho-stupid-everyman decide to move to California from TN. As they are going along, Natalie asks for some money to get some stuff in Wal Mart. When she returns, her boyfriend (and sperm-father of her fetus) is gone. His uncaring decision ignites an extended session of events.
First, Natalie intuits that she must stay in Wal Mart because of her superstitious opposition to the number five. She figures out a method to sleep in the store overnight. Any reasonable person would know this is not possible in reality, but I guess we can let movies have some creative license.
She ends up popping out her kid in the Wal Mart late at night with the unknown help of Forny crashing himself through plate-glass to help her (we are still trying to figure out how he knew she needed his help). She comes to and is told what happened and that she is a tv celebrity because of delivering the kid at Wal Mart. She even get $500 from the CEO of Wal Mart, plus a lifetime guarantee of employment at any Wal Mart due to the enormous positive advertising she gave the chain.
Most of the remainder of the movie deals with everyday life events raising the kid (Americus). One small event that displays the attnetion to detail of this movie is the part of the overly-literal right-wing nuts from Mississippi, who come there and temporarily steal the baby only to have second thoughts before deciding to just build a Jesus display on the lawn while saying that delivering kids outside of marriage is an abomination of God.
It's hard for me to verbalize how good this movie is. Some excellence is not to be conveyed through words. This is one of those movies you need to see for yourself while allowing the emotions to caress you to their maximum effect. Enjoy! |
|
Picture 01 (20)
