A Disappointing Continuation

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Looking here ...http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098394/ratingswe can see that females 30-44 gave this movie a rating of 8.1 .... way over any other group. Not only acceptable but notable.I thought this movie was irritating, frustrating, slow, stereotypical ... I could go on. I did watch it all the way through though, so I had to give it over a 1 which I reserve for the unwatchable.I obviously missed something and I would like to know what it was.Two American expatriate sisters living in Britain live their different lives, one a model and one a doctor.The doctor looks down on the model until the doctor does something decidedly un-doctorly and humiliates herself and near ruins her life with this buffoon of a man.What I don't get beside my obvious distaste for all the characters is ... what is the cup half full side that I missed ... I just do not get it.Miss this one ... at least until there is a good answer to my review in the message section! ;-)

I don't get this movie, not even after two viewings. What was Hare trying to do? What was he aiming at? It's as if a committee of mixed gender had sat around a table and put together a list of the things that they believe women want to see in a man who becomes their lover. Let's see. Continental accent, of course, with no clearly focussed origin, kind of like a "continental" menu. That goes without saying. Elegance in dress and grooming. No fur balls allowed here. Smooth, yes, to the point of manipulativeness. Polite. Soft spoken, not a bit brash. Loving, caring, sensitive (whatever that is). Mysterious too. That's an important ingredient. (Why is mystery appealing?) Maybe a bit dangerous, but not towards Blair Brown, and only a bit, rather like a spirited horse is dangerous. A tender and attentive lover, although we have to guess at that. But we already know that guys with continental accents are good lovers. Bountifully rich, of course. Brown: "I'll get the check." "Ganz: "There is no check. They know me here." Blair Brown, who has a beautiful used face in this film, responds by holding Bruno Ganz at bay through most of the movie because she doesn't want to be involved again, while one imagines all the women in the audience silently screaming at her -- "GET that guy!!!!"The performances are decent, although Ganz never smiles for fear of losing his mystery I guess. Bridget Fonda is sexy, sleazy, and not very well grounded in reality. But the plot cannot be overcome. That stereotypical male lover is a terrible insult to men and women alike. Perform a thought experiment in which the genders are exchanged and a female is the pursuer and a man the pursued. Then have the woman with an overblown body, a more than robust bosom and a big can, who drenches herself in perfume, wears tons of make up, has a penchant for dressing in black teddies and hose, wearing stiletto heels, prancing about with her tongue hanging out, and assuming postures around her target that suggests she is in a constant state of estrus. Isn't that the sort of image that Katherine MacKinnon has been calling pornographic? Shouldn't there be a corresponding pornographic image for men? If so, wouldn't this guy be in the running?

Bizarre is probably the best word to use when describing this film. The plot lazily, and arbitrarily, bounces back and forth between totally under-written characters and indeterminate settings (at one point I thought some scenes were taking place in Monte Carlo), with barely a nod to coherence. Blair Brown, always fascinating, doesn't have too much to work with here; her character is woefully undeveloped. The mysterious stranger is nothing more than a stalker, and no reason is given for her falling in love with him other than the luxury he can offer her. Bridget Fonda has nothing to do; the scenes in the hospital seem straight out of another movie (or an episode of St. Elsewhere). Despite the flim's almost dizzying lack of sense, I could not, at times, take my eyes away from it. This film is redolent of the sort of warm-shadowed, color-flecked rococo headiness (just look at the title sequence) that is often associated with the culture of the late eighties (watch Bonfire of the Vanities- dont turn up the volume, or pay attention to the characters, just look at the sets). Perhaps the incoherence of the film added to this mysterious gauziness. In any case, I still cant believe this came out of David Hare (despite the presence of Blair Brown). A playwright I usually admire, Hare can go off track, and this is a definite instance of that. There is even a gratuitous, non-sequitur joke about actors, done in a set that includes a poster for a Hare play. This sort of in-jokeyness is completely out of place in a film that sets itself up as a psychological mystery/romance. Also, Nick Bicat's score is distracting, often building into pointless crescendoes in the middle of talky scenes. This movie is . . . . well, lets just call it a curiosity.

The film mesmerized me in the same way that the male lead tantalizes the female lead. There is something so focused about the silence in this film: penetrating looks, thoughtful glances, wonderment. Author David Hare uses the actors' eyes to reveal a woman's inner cravings and a man's use of silence as a manipulative tool. The title "Strapless" suggests the vulnerability of the characters. It is a romance done with mystery and charm.