E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS







There was an error processing this request. We cannot subscribe you to newsletters at this time. Please contact technical support with details.
MOVIES Sponsorship

AVERAGE USER RATING

RATE THIS ARTICLE

  • Email
  • Print
  • Discuss
Search The Bible   
Advanced Search
Product photo

Be Warned: Premonition Goes Nowhere Slowly

Christa Banister

Contributing Writer

DVD Release Date:  July 17, 2007
Theatrical Release Date:  March 16, 2007
Rating:  PG-13 (some violent content, disturbing images, thematic material and brief language)
Genre:  Drama/Thriller
Run Time:  110 min.
Director:  Mennan Yapo
Actors:  Sandra Bullock, Julian McMahon, Nia Long, Amber Valletta, Courtney Taylor Burness, Shyann McClure

Memo to Sandra Bullock:  Stick to comedy, it’s what you’re good at. Or at least go the Reese Witherspoon route and choose something smarter like Walk the Line the next time you think about doing a serious film.

While I definitely understand her desire to choose scripts that aren’t of the Miss Congeniality, While You Were Sleeping or Two Weeks’ Notice variety after getting the guy in so many movies, this whole time-travel thing she’s tried with The Lake House last summer, and now Premonition, just isn’t working.

First off, it certainly doesn’t help matters that the script doesn’t make even a twitch of sense. I know, I know, they’re going for the whole Memento vibe that’s already been done countless times before. But even “Memento” could be explained (or at least debated) when the final credits rolled. Not so much for “Premonition.”

The story gets off to a very slow start (trust me, pacing is definitely an issue as I probably changed seat positions five or six times in the first 30 minutes) as we’re introduced to Linda Hanson (Bullock) a woman who seems to have it all. She’s got the gorgeous house, an attractive husband (Nip/Tuck actor Julian McMahon) and two beautiful daughters (Courtney Taylor Burness and Shyann McClure). But even before the car crash that gets the story all jumbled around, Linda doesn’t seem particularly happy. Yet we have no idea what she likes (or doesn’t like) about her life because no one’s bothered to even show us. Instead, we see her lumbering through the day-to-day housewife duties like dusting off the mantle, doing laundry or picking up her girls from school with disdain.

And things only get worse when a police officer stops by to let her know that her husband has died. But did he really die? That’s the question Linda is faced with the next morning when he’s very alive and well and drinking coffee at the kitchen table. At first, she believes it must have all been a nightmare. But when she wakes up the next day as a widow, well, she doesn’t know what to think anymore.

Of course, all the waking-up-on-different-days craziness leads her to try and figure out things logically. As she constructs a makeshift calendar of events during one of her few moments of clarity, she has an important decision to make about future events: “If I let Jim die, is that the same as killing him?”

Now if the story had been set up right, that question could have made a pretty intriguing premise for a movie. But unfortunately, the ambiguity and emotionless nature of the script also doesn’t do Bullock any favors as an actress, either, as she seems to be walking through the film in the same perpetual daze as the audience is by watching it. Because of this, you don’t really care how the movie ends just as long as it does so. And soon.

Speaking of the ending, it’s quite possibly the worst part of the film. Not only is there a lot of schmaltz involved, but there’s no possible explanation for what happened, which again begs the question of why Bullock signed on for this in the first place.
      
AUDIENCE:  Teens and up

CAUTIONS:

  • Drugs/Alcohol:  Linda is prescribed lithium to help her relax, but she ends up dumping them down the sink. She’s also injected with something to help her relax when she gets out of hand at a psych ward.
  • Language/Profanity:  An assortment of profanities, including one “F” word. God’s name is also taken in vain on several occasions.
  • Sex/Nudity:  Jim considers having an affair with Claire, but doesn’t act on it. Jim and Linda, who are married, have sex, but nothing is shown aside from a kiss.
  • Violence:  A brutal car crash is shown. A girl falls through a glass window, resulting in lots of blood and scars. A bird gets electrocuted, and is later shown in a rather disturbing fashion.
  • Religious Content:  Unsure of what to do about her troubled life, Linda visits a priest. After confessing that she hasn’t been to church in a while, he tells her that she probably needs faith now more than ever before and explains how faith is believing in something you can’t see, smell or touch. While an accurate description, the rest of what he has to say about believing is pretty much cotton candy in the theology department. And when he gets on a kick about “history being full of unexplained happenings,” one begins to wonder where he’s going with this discussion. It’s almost like he’s saying it was bound to happen because of her irregular church attendance.

 

Most Recent User Comments
MaineRoadie
7/27/2007 7:06 PM
My first impression as I read the article was, "What does this person have against Sandra Bullock?" I found the script well written, with the exception of the mentioned language. Yes it was hard to understand, but not more than could be thought out. There are some points that leave questions in the mind of the observer, but isn't that the point of a mystery? The priest had an effective part. His main line about it never being too late to get things right is something to be lauded, not conjectured as to where his mind might have been going. This film was actually positive for its portrayal of Christianity. No it didn't have a clear redemption plan, but the priest wasn't spouting platitudes either. The crash at the end of the movie did leave you hoping for a better answer, but we don't always get that. The future was turned around, and although her husband was gone, she was not left with bitterness. It had my vote for an exceptional movie. Too bad we didn't see the same one.
crystalgrinder
4/1/2007 10:28 AM
I think you missed a very important point in the writer's intent. Going to the door and being informed that your spouse has been tragically killed in a car crash throws one into a world of uncertainty. I watched the movie with my wife and we both agreed that the confusion of the movie was intriguing and stressful to watch. We, like you, were watching from our "safe & normal" world. We tried to apply logic and order to someone else's insane and unwanted world. The big lesson from this movie was that I have never been in this character's shoes. I don't know haw she must have felt, what she must have done, how she should have acted. Point blank - I cannot judge what "should have" happened. I agree that the ending left me wanting more clarity, but life doesn't always give us clarity. Perhaps this was just a little too clear for comfort. My wife and I also agreed that this movie made us painfully aware how unprepared we are for a tragedy of this nature. We liked the movie.
Sign up to post your comments

It's quick and easy to register with Crosswalk.com! Just fill out the short form below. You'll have the opportunity to post comments, and be more involved in our community and forums. Plus, with this one account, you can sign in anywhere in our network of sites displaying the Salem All-Pass logo, including Oneplace.com, Christianity.com, Lightsource.com, Crosscards.com, and more!