The film begins when Julia Banks is being questioned by a detective in the murder of her psychotic ex-boyfriend, Michael. Julia claims that she has been set up and that she has nothing to do with the murder, despite social media conversations clearly showing Julia lusting after him. The scene then cuts to six months earlier, with Julia getting a send-off from her boss and friend, Ali, from her job as chief online editor for a storytelling website. Julia is now going to work remotely from the mansion she will be sharing with her new loving fiance, David Connover, and her soon-to-be stepdaughter, Lily. Arriving at David's, she is greeted by David's ex-wife, Tessa, who is still not coping with the end of her marriage two years earlier..
Rosario Dawson initially turned down the film when it was offered to her because she wanted a break. However, after discussing it further with the director, Denise Di Novi, she was convinced. See more »
During the party when Julia and David are going to have sex, David slips off Julia's underwear and she is wearing one heel. During sex she is wearing both her heels. After sex she bends over to put her shoes back on. See more »
A curious note first of all: this is the first movie directed by Denise Di Novi. She's been a producer for years - I thought I had seen her name somewhere before, and then it clicked when Tim Burton came to mind (she's produced many of his best films) - but now, only now, does she step behind the camera. Why for this? Did the original director walk away or the producers couldn't find someone? It's not strange to see that this is a directorial debut, but it is odd to see that this is made by an industry professional, nay a veteran, and that it's so... bland. Unforgettable rests in an uncomfortable area: not fun enough to be a trashy/campy movie like a No Good Deed or Obsessed (perhaps Idris Elba is the x-factor?), or even like a made-for-TV Lifetime stalker thriller like Stalked by my Doctor (imagine Eric Roberts in the Katherine Heigl role!), and it's not unique or interesting enough to be good.
Actually, that's not wholly fair: Rosario Dawson, as the new lover (and soon to be fiancé) of the ex-husband of the jilted Heigl character, is quite good. It's hard for her to be anything else, and she takes a movie as middling as this as seriously as she would Sin City or Danny Boyle's Trance or whatever the case. She's here to work, while an actress like Heigl is here to be in her one quiet-but- crazy-B-word modus operondi, and Cheryl Ladd (yep, ex Charlies Angels Cheryl Ladd) is more apt for a Lifetime movie, albeit her profile is just right for this character of Heigl's mother.
We've seen this all before, even if we think the divorced angle makes it a little different (only barely, maybe), and as it involves people of mega privilege it feels distanced from a lot of our lives so the emotional immediacy will only be there for those who really stretch to feel it. It's a telegraphed story put upon a movie that somehow has the even stranger luck, speaking of people behind the camera, of being shot by Caleb Deschanel(!) Perhaps if you have less than zero things to do (or are a master at procrastination) and this pops up on a Sunday afternoon on TV it's passable. But in a theater? Well, let's just say you'll be 80% of the time dulled, maybe 19% of the time entertained in that trashy-campy way (which is not a great ratio)... and then the last 1% is a complete WTF last scene ending that made me curse the screen I was gazing.
26 of 36 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this