I say "pretty good" cuz my first response was "excellent," but the more I think about it, I'm a little disappointed in the simplicity of it. After thinking about it for a while now, I think I've broken the plot down to it's "lowest common denominator" and have sort of distilled it down to a lesser entity than I held it to be after I first left the theater--kind of like it could have been the story line for a strong episode of Charmed--had they been given the hour and forty minutes to work it out. Can't quite put my finger on it at this point--hope I'm making sense.
Hudson was great in this role--very low key and "lost" demeanor to her. My wife and I were discussing what a great actor she is becoming. One question I raised, was "Is she a good actor because she has trained, or is she just replicating what she knows from her life already--without so much training?" This gets into training theory, Stanislovsky's method etc, vs the natural method that other actors use--sorry, can't think of the biggie--famous guy right now who SHOULD readily come to mind as an example... anyway, you get my drift.
Gena Rowlands was amazing as well--that always goes without saying.
The twistiness of the plot was strong (for me) but my wife "figured it out" about halfway through, so she didn't come away with as strong an appreciation for it as I did. I was off (happily I might add) on some rabbit trail, due to a red herring that was thrown my way, when the major reveal was let loose at the end of the film. The more I think about it, I think the "style" of the film is what hooked me and got me engrossed in it. It *is* a very stylized movie, with lots of aesthetic spectacle to keep you entertained as you watch it.
I won't say much more so as not to spoil it for those who may have ventured in here and haven't seen it yet.
Anyone else see it this weekend?
Thoughts