Two stars here, but only for the radiant Emma Thompson, who can rarely put a foot wrong and on sentiment for Dustin Hoffman, who has done so much good work over many decades. Hoffman tries earnestly here, but the script, by director Joel Hopkins, is labored and stilted, and the comedy mostly falls flat while the romance is unconvincing.
This is one of those films where virtually everything has been explained in advance by the trailers: the two "middle-aged misfits", the slight of Harry's daughter choosing her stepfather to give her away at her wedding. The film tries far too hard for the first 1/2 hour or so to present both people (but especially Harry) as pathetic losers, with wretched jobs and lonely lives, and seemingly never having had any other serious relationships for the last twenty years at least.
Sorry, but that seems like an awful stretch of imagination given that Kate is really lovely, charming and good humored. The script is making some very tired assumptions about the presumed "ghastliness" of a single woman's life, i.e., she must be childless, sex-starved, lonely, desperate to be fixed up on blind dates.
I'm sure other reviewers have commented on the big age gap between co-stars. Yes, it happens a lot, but you feel like the film is trying to suggest that 71 year old Hoffman is a very reasonable "catch" for 49 year old Thompson, when in fact he is about the same age as Eileen Atkins, who is playing Kate's MOTHER. Why does it seem so appropriate to most Hollywood directors and screenwriters that a woman would desire to have a romance with a guy old enough by far to be her DAD? Speaking of that, I think Dustin Hoffman is still quite attractive and looks healthy and vital -- but he looks his age. And that age is a good 15-20 years too old for this role, which calls for a man still in his prime working years, and not a decade into social security. Really, despite his considerable charm and star power, he is badly and even cruelly miscast.
The script labors to make Harry a "loser"; he's not merely a talented musician forced to write commercial music to survive, no he also has to get fired. His wife has happily remarried, but Harry apparently hasn't had a relationship of any sort for two decades. His daughter hasn't simply not seen him in a while (she lives in London); she has to despise him enough to want to cut him entirely out of wedding and even sticks him in a distant hotel.
That begs some other inconsistencies: Harry seems to be not just a composer but on the staff of a big ad agency as an account executive. If true, he wouldn't be a sad sack loser but wealthy and successful. After the painful scene where his daughter tells him she wants her stepdad to give her away (almost at the last minute, and very cruelly), we skip to the actual ceremony -- which is at a justice of the peace, very informal (the bride wears a casual dress), and seemingly NO ONE gives her away.
(Speaking of that, it is somewhat minor, but its in the FAQ...it makes no sense to have a casual wedding at a judge's office, THEN change into a very formal bridal gown to EAT DINNER IN. If anything, a formal bride might change into a short dress for the reception so she can dance more easily! It's as if the writers have never been to a real wedding.)
Mostly, what struck me was the superficiality of Harry and Kate's relationship. They meet at a late lunch on a Saturday afternoon, talk and ride a train for just a few hours (she's at a class, with him waiting outside for much of it!). Then they attend the reception, where Harry rather rudely ignores Kate.
BUT AFTER THIS trivial half-day together, obviously they are each others A. true love! and B. "solve" one another's lonely meaningless lives (because someone ELSE must appear to solve your angsty middle-aged loneliness, rather than, say, yourself). Not to mention, Harry's going to move across the Atlantic to be with this woman he just met, and mostly ignored the previous evening!
Though innocent in feeling, this is the kind of film that makes me feel angry as a woman. Why does a youngish and lovely woman like Kate have to be painted as so desperate and loser-ish? Why does the script make her seem like a spinster who can't even get a date -- and a pathetic mama's girl, who can't spend 20 minutes without her mom phoning her? (British cellphones, apparently, have no "off" switch.) Mostly, why would she find a depressed, angry, rude man so irresistible (especially one 22 years her senior!) -- is it that she must be grateful that ANY man will have her?
Lastly -- like way to many films and scripts today, too much of the action and dialog is done through cell phones. Yes, people do use them a lot in real life -- but in a movie, it's about as interesting as watching characters floss their teeth. We want to watch human beings interact, be emotional and witty and moving -- not yack into tiny black boxes. This is just lazy scriptwriting 101.
Frankly, "Last Chance Harry" is a very labored and forgettable effort. And it is time for filmmakers to start pairing actors and actresses who are somewhat reasonably of an age, and stop acting as if a beautiful woman like Emma Thompson is believable as a pitiable and desperate spinster...she IS NOT.
This is one of those films where virtually everything has been explained in advance by the trailers: the two "middle-aged misfits", the slight of Harry's daughter choosing her stepfather to give her away at her wedding. The film tries far too hard for the first 1/2 hour or so to present both people (but especially Harry) as pathetic losers, with wretched jobs and lonely lives, and seemingly never having had any other serious relationships for the last twenty years at least.
Sorry, but that seems like an awful stretch of imagination given that Kate is really lovely, charming and good humored. The script is making some very tired assumptions about the presumed "ghastliness" of a single woman's life, i.e., she must be childless, sex-starved, lonely, desperate to be fixed up on blind dates.
I'm sure other reviewers have commented on the big age gap between co-stars. Yes, it happens a lot, but you feel like the film is trying to suggest that 71 year old Hoffman is a very reasonable "catch" for 49 year old Thompson, when in fact he is about the same age as Eileen Atkins, who is playing Kate's MOTHER. Why does it seem so appropriate to most Hollywood directors and screenwriters that a woman would desire to have a romance with a guy old enough by far to be her DAD? Speaking of that, I think Dustin Hoffman is still quite attractive and looks healthy and vital -- but he looks his age. And that age is a good 15-20 years too old for this role, which calls for a man still in his prime working years, and not a decade into social security. Really, despite his considerable charm and star power, he is badly and even cruelly miscast.
The script labors to make Harry a "loser"; he's not merely a talented musician forced to write commercial music to survive, no he also has to get fired. His wife has happily remarried, but Harry apparently hasn't had a relationship of any sort for two decades. His daughter hasn't simply not seen him in a while (she lives in London); she has to despise him enough to want to cut him entirely out of wedding and even sticks him in a distant hotel.
That begs some other inconsistencies: Harry seems to be not just a composer but on the staff of a big ad agency as an account executive. If true, he wouldn't be a sad sack loser but wealthy and successful. After the painful scene where his daughter tells him she wants her stepdad to give her away (almost at the last minute, and very cruelly), we skip to the actual ceremony -- which is at a justice of the peace, very informal (the bride wears a casual dress), and seemingly NO ONE gives her away.
(Speaking of that, it is somewhat minor, but its in the FAQ...it makes no sense to have a casual wedding at a judge's office, THEN change into a very formal bridal gown to EAT DINNER IN. If anything, a formal bride might change into a short dress for the reception so she can dance more easily! It's as if the writers have never been to a real wedding.)
Mostly, what struck me was the superficiality of Harry and Kate's relationship. They meet at a late lunch on a Saturday afternoon, talk and ride a train for just a few hours (she's at a class, with him waiting outside for much of it!). Then they attend the reception, where Harry rather rudely ignores Kate.
BUT AFTER THIS trivial half-day together, obviously they are each others A. true love! and B. "solve" one another's lonely meaningless lives (because someone ELSE must appear to solve your angsty middle-aged loneliness, rather than, say, yourself). Not to mention, Harry's going to move across the Atlantic to be with this woman he just met, and mostly ignored the previous evening!
Though innocent in feeling, this is the kind of film that makes me feel angry as a woman. Why does a youngish and lovely woman like Kate have to be painted as so desperate and loser-ish? Why does the script make her seem like a spinster who can't even get a date -- and a pathetic mama's girl, who can't spend 20 minutes without her mom phoning her? (British cellphones, apparently, have no "off" switch.) Mostly, why would she find a depressed, angry, rude man so irresistible (especially one 22 years her senior!) -- is it that she must be grateful that ANY man will have her?
Lastly -- like way to many films and scripts today, too much of the action and dialog is done through cell phones. Yes, people do use them a lot in real life -- but in a movie, it's about as interesting as watching characters floss their teeth. We want to watch human beings interact, be emotional and witty and moving -- not yack into tiny black boxes. This is just lazy scriptwriting 101.
Frankly, "Last Chance Harry" is a very labored and forgettable effort. And it is time for filmmakers to start pairing actors and actresses who are somewhat reasonably of an age, and stop acting as if a beautiful woman like Emma Thompson is believable as a pitiable and desperate spinster...she IS NOT.