rb-66
I wanted to add another review here because I feel those praising the film don't do it justice. Two Lovers is a beautiful film. It's also a strange film that defies description. It is very different from Gray's earlier films, sharing with them only a tone of drab realism. It is painfully awkward at times, flitting between a pervading melancholy and a doomed hopefulness. But it is also touching, fragile and utterly captivating.I have just re-watched Two Lovers after seeing The Master and being reminded how wonderful Joaquin Phoenix is. I think it is fair to say he is the outstanding actor of his generation. He has that strange awkward power and charisma that the younger De Niro had in his greatest performances, you can barely watch but can't take your eyes off him. He and Gray have a truly rare chemistry and in Two Lovers both are at the very top of their game.Gwyneth Paltrow is superb as well. Her character could easily have been overplayed but she gets it just right, balancing the pain of emotional manipulation with an impossible combination of resilience and resignation.In many ways the plot of the film is far fetched but there is something about it that feels profoundly true. It's hard to say exactly what that is but that's what makes it so perfectly beautiful.
itamarscomix
Two Lovers is a decisive improvement over Joaquin Phoenix's previous collaborations with director James Gray, and it may well be Phoenix's finest performance yet. It's a much smaller, simpler story than that of We Own The Night, and as a result it's more focused and leaves a stronger impression.The themes of family and duty are still very central in Two Lover, but this time the conflict is almost entirely within the protagonist's head, and Phoenix does a good enough job to pull it off - he's vulnerable, pitiable, charming and charismatic all at once, and he's very relatable. The basic premise of his conflict - a man being torn between his family's expectations and his wild, passionate love - has been done many times before, but rarely this sincerely and brutally honest. Two Lovers serves almost as a deconstruction of that ages-old tale, it's one of the most honest romance films I've ever seen and it leads down to a crushing but inevitable conclusion.Phoenix is aided by a fine cast of supporting actors, all of them doing a terrific job but never stealing the show - Gwyneth Paltrow and Vinessa Shaw as the love interests, Isabella Rossellini as Phoenix's mother and a special mention for Moni Moshonov - one of the biggest stars of stage and screen in his native Israel - in a wonderful turn as the father. Elias Koteas and Bob Ari complete the compact ensemble, but of course it's Phoenix's show and he's always captivating, proving just how good he can be. My only complaints about the film would be an uneven and sometimes clumsy script, and cinematography that fails to leave any real impression (in stark contrast to We Own The Night, of which the cinematography was the most impressive aspect). None of that hurts the overall impression much, though - Two Lovers is still one of the most refreshing, captivating and depressing romance films around.
LilyDaleLady
It was hard to know how to rate this film -- the performances and cinematography are quite good and some elements of the script are poignant. I am not surprised to learn here that it is loosely based on a short story more than 120 years old! Somehow, the script has updated the action to the present day, where it makes no sense.Why? Because nobody in the US agrees to arranged marriages. The main character, Leonard, is 36: He would have grown up on American movies, TV shows, etc. all making it clear that in western culture, people marry for love. His parents are Israeli immigrants of Russian origin. NONE of those cultures have had arranged marriages in the past 150 years!The other problem is that Leonard seems not merely "troubled" but mentally retarded or perhaps, developmentally delayed, in some way. He doesn't behave like a normal adult, and certainly not one who grew up in the cultural milieu of New York City and it's environs. He's naive, weird, sheltered. He has no concept of living on his own. There is no sense of rebellion or desire for him to have his own career or apartment. He appears to have attended college, but utterly lacks the sophistication of someone who has done so. Sure, there are sheltered, weird, introspective people like this in the world. But chances are, they are not "marriage material" for anyone. More likely, they end up living homeless under a bridge, or in some halfway house, or spend a good chunk of their lives in a residential treatment center.The backstory that Leonard has the gene for Tay suggests the scriptwriters did not bother even slightly researching this. Many Jews have the gene for Tay Sachs (and it is not solely unique to the Jewish community). Because of this, most Jews are tested for it before having children. But the PRESENCE of Tay Sachs genes does not normally result in loving couples breaking up! HELLO! this is the 21st century. People who are found to have this anomaly either do not have children, adopt, or use artificial insemination. Leonard is hardly a member of a royal lineage that requires his specific genes. Furthermore, as a carrier, he would have at least a small risk of this in any relationship and any partner he choose would require genetic testing. EPIC FAIL here.What does make sense here is the story of a man torn between two potential female partners -- one beautiful and sexy, but unacceptable to his family. The other plain -- sweet and kindhearted -- but utterly undesirable, more of a sister-type. Of course, his family wants him to marry this second girl, whose father also just so happens to own a compatible dry- cleaning firm. But it doesn't work in this film, because Leonard has no reason to want to be with Sandra (Vinessa Shaw): doesn't desire her, doesn't really want to work in dry-cleaning, doesn't even really want to please his parents. (Shaw is fine here, in a thankless role.)The sad part is that Leonard only proposes to Shaw when his flighty, screwy semi-girlfriend Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow) totally gives him the heave-ho and destroys his dreams. In other words, it's on the rebound. It's already clear by then that Leonard wants to go to California with a blonde shiksa. So his marriage to Sandra is a cruel fake, that will likely make both of them miserable. It's not a stretch to imagine that Michelle will come crawling back into his life when her unfaithful boyfriend dumps her again, and that Leonard will cheat on Sandra to be with his true love Michelle. So you end the film pitying Sandra for her easy acceptance of the engagement ring, that Leonard has heartlessly transferred from the woman he really desires to the one he has settled for.Again, this story would make a great deal more sense if set in the late 19th or early 20th century, where we could believe in such naivety. Instead, the ending left me feeling depressed and that the storyline was creepy. Why should the lovely Sandra (who is quite attractive, just not Gwyenth-attractive...what women would want to have to compete with THAT blonde, skinny perfection?) have to settle for a mentally ill, reclusive, slovenly man who DOESN'T EVEN LOVE HER?Like I said, a strange little movie that I can't imagine who the audience would be, or who the filmmakers THOUGHT would like this.Joaquin Phoenix is a fine actor -- his work in "Walk The Line" was exemplary -- but he's sleepwalking here, foreshadowing his decision to give up acting for hip hop (or was that an act?). He's much too attractive, anyways, for a guy who lives in his parent's home in middle age, or who has trouble meeting girls -- it's odd casting for a "Marty"-type part (Marty was played by uber-homely Ernest Borgnine). Because of this, we don't sense how inappropriate his flirtation with the unstable Michelle is, because a Joaquin/Gwyneth pairing -- two hottie superstars -- is not unbelievable at all.Because of THAT, I think many viewers are probably rooting for Leonard to choose the dishonest, unstable MIchelle and move to California, no matter how unlikely or tragic that kind of action seems to be. That puts an odd spin on the entire movie.My own impression is that NEITHER woman belonged with the insular, suicidal, mentally ill Leonard -- that a "happier" ending would have had him getting proper therapy, a good shrink and moving out on his own, perhaps to find a meaningful life, rather than just doing what his clingy parents want him to do. It is strange in 2008, to see a film that argues for arranged marriage, pleasing your suffocating parents, giving up your dreams and "settling" for a plain girl you don't love.
