Where are the risks?

Rating: 7/10 (31 December 2002)

Many reviews talk about how they don't have words that can describe this movie. I have the perfect word: vanilla This movie is the Toyota Camry of movies. Pleasant, but bland. It doesn't take any risks, just plays it safe and the result is a pleasant experience, but not a satisfying one. I would have liked to see more risks taken. How about some ground-breaking cinematography? What if some of the characters pushed the envelope a little further? Far enough to be accused of overacting by some? How about a parallel story? How about SEVERAL parallel stories? What about moving the story at a faster pace? The beginning of the movie was really quite slow...There is no reason this movie should be more than 2 hours. I give it only a 7 out of 10 for breaking no new ground. I think this movie fails to distinguish itself in my memory.