Conference bookie::movies

    A reviewer said that this was a bad film because of all the historical
    inaccuracies "as if they didn't care..." and there was no chemistry
    between Gere and Foster.

re        <<< Note 24.1 by 32905::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

  >  A reviewer said that this was a bad film because of all the historical
  >  inaccuracies "as if they didn't care..." and there was no chemistry
  >  between Gere and Foster.

Probably one of those effete, snobbish, New York film critics, who doesn't
like any film, unless its foreign made, with a totally incomprehensible plot
that only he understands :-)

I just saw the film today, and found it excellent. If there were no chemistry
between Gere and Foster, than I've never seen chemistry on the screen, before.

Regards
Barry 

    I have to agree with Barry on this one.  I thought the movie was
    excellent.  The chemistry between Foster and Gere was there for me. 
    The story was very interesting and the photography was great.  8/10
    
    				Bart

Maybe I took some used litmus paper with me, because
I thought the chemistry was missing. The film was
a mish-mash of dynamics, and most of it was underdone.
The thing that really bugs me about modern mystery or
suspense movies is the inclusion of blatant inconsistencies.
For instance, [spoilage alert]



did the murder happen in Elmira NY or in
Jackson MS?  From what the movie told me, it could have
been either. And wasn't it just a bit absurd to have
killed off that dog? The dog seemed to like the Gere
character, so what was the big deal? 

I suppose it's just plain ridiculous to think that
an imposter could return to someone else's home and 
take over his life, so why should the filmmaker bother
being consistent about the little details? And it is
nothing short of sophomoric to leave the guy's identity
unclear right through the end. If there was anything
hokier than the plot, it had to be the stringy soundtrack
that provided, rather intravenously, this film's emotion.

-PHiL

    I saw the movie yesterday and I enjoyed it.  It's not a great movie,
    but I thought the plot, and the acting, etc., were all okay, and I
    didn't find anything that I thought was really wrong with it.  I
    thought that Jodie Foster and Gere had a lot of chemistry between them,
    and that their scenes really made the movie.  I thought the story of
    their relationship was quite good.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .4
    
    I loved the movie, but I hated the ending.  It was fitting, though.
    And I don't think it could have ended any other way!
    
    
    
    The dog clearly growled at Gere when he approached the steps.  He
    didn't want any chances taken.
    
    When Laurel was getting ready for Jack's arrival, she put his photo on
    the bureau.  I thought the resemblance was enough.
    
    But in the courtroom scene, she said she knew early on it wan't her
    husband, she just was too much in love to admit or care!
    
    

    RE: .4
    
    SPOILAGE ALERT -- SOME ANSWERS...
    
    
    There were 2 deaths that took place...one was in Elmira NY which was
    *not* a murder.  The one in NY was the real Jack Sommersby.  The 2nd
    was in Jackson, MS that the real Jack Sommersby allegedly commited.
    But...now that I think about it, if they (real Jack, and fake Jack)
    had escaped from a prison in NY, how did they get to MS and then back
    to NY where the real Jack to die?  Was the fake Jack lying when he said
    he didn't commit the murder?  Or did the murder happen before they were
    captured?
    
    They explained the fake Jack knowing as much as he did because they
    were imprisoned alone together for 4 years, so they talked and learned
    about each other.  If the fake Jack was a con artist, which they made
    very clear, I believe he could have learned that much from the real
    Jack, with the intention of pulling a scam...maybe he did murder the
    real Jack.
    
    I don't believe Jack killed the dog either...I think loony Orrin did it
    to set Jack up...the dog accepted Jack after the initial growling.
    
    I really liked this movie...I thought there was definite chemistry
    between Gere and Foster.  This movie was described to me by a friend as
    "a wicked intense love story"...boy, I would definitely agree with
    that!
    
    				Donna 

                   <<< VALKYR$DKA200:[NOTES]MOVIES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Movie Review Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 24.8                           Sommersby                             8 of 8
32198::KRUEGER                                       14 lines   5-MAR-1993 11:39
                                -< Three stars >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I loved this movie.  I wondered how Gere and Foster could emote any
    chemistry, but boy, they sure did!  I loved the gentleness of the main
    characters and their feeling their way around each other at first.  I
    thought Jodie Foster was incredible as always, and Richard Gere is
    always underrated, but my personal feeling is that most people
    underrate actors who are gorgeous (Tom Cruise, too).  You don't have to
    be ugly to act.
    
    [Possible spoiler:]
    
    
    I hated the ending; right up until the last moment I still had hope and
    when it went as it did, I was horrified!  Great acting and of course I
    should have suspected what was going to happen, but I just couldn't
    believe it.  What a waste.
    
    Leslie

> <<< Note 24.0 by R2ME2::OBRYAN "Understand the disease before choosing a medication" >>>
    
> In fact, that is the correct language: this movie borrows heavily from
> the French film "The Return of Martin Guerre", starring Gerard Depardieu,
> released about 10 years ago.  (I hope that revelation hasn't given away
> too much of the plot.)  Despite the borrowing, "Sommersby" stands on its

    The credits on the poster for this movie says "Based on the film, The
    Return Of Martin Guerre". Borrow's heavily is an understatement. It's
    more like a remake.

    I kept expecting to hear "You are not Martin! You are Ponsett! (sp?)
    Loved that line for some reason.

    Both films were excellent.

    -=- Paul

    
    Did Jodie Foster direct this movie?
    
    				Jim
    
    

No, it was Jon Amiel (other credits include Queen of Hearts and Tune In
Tomorrow..., as well as "The Singing Detective").

    Spoiler...
    
     
    I thought it was very obvious that Jack killed the dog...  The dog
    didn't know (or like) him when he arrived, until he extended his 
    hand holding the real Jack's hankerchief (or piece of clothing).
    
    When Laurel tells him she burned the cloth because it was
    so worn, he is upset!  The next scene, the dog has been killed.
    
    Now... as for understanding exactly who killed who at the end, well
    that's still unclear to me!
    
    jacki
     

	   re .7 Yes, I have the same problems with the locations.

	   <spoilage>


    In regard to the dog---I hadn't noticed the Gere character
    offering a handerkerchief. That, like the relationship with
    the kid, were obscured by the need to suture the movie
    up quickly.

    I also wondered why those three ex-soldier/tramps who challenged
    the Gere character's identity weren't in turn challenged by any
    of the other workers on the plantation. Chemistry? I thought
    it was about 7.6 if that. 

    I found some interesting differences between this movie and how I
    remember "The Return of Martin Guerre".
    

    It has been a long time since seeing the French original, so my memory
    may be a bit shaky.  Taking what I say with a grain of salt,  the
    first thing that surprised me upon watching this movie was that Jack
    Sommersby had a son.  As I recall, the real Martin Guerre was
    impotent--in fact, that had a lot to do with why he left his wife.

    In "Sommersby", the "real" Jack's problem was not impotence--it was
    that he was a jerk.  A real nasty jerk who killed someone.  I am
    guessing that the reason for this change has a lot to do with the fact
    that, (as I recall) the fake Martin Guerre was executed for being a
    fraud, *not* for being wrongly associated with a crime committed by the
    real one.  At least that's how I remember it.  If I am right, I suspect
    that, in translating the story to 19th century America, they felt that
    they needed to make the execution more credible in terms of the
    American legal system, so they had him convicted of murder.  But in so
    doing, the dynamics of the trial at the end changed.  Instead of him
    being exposed as a fraud and being executed for it, he was accepted as
    the real one, and executed for what the real one did.  The tragedy was
    thus somewhat different in origin, although in both cases the point
    remained that the new husband was a much better man than the old one.

    In fact, I also recall that the real Martin Guerre showed up at one
    point to confront the fake.  Of course, in "Sommersby", the real Jack
    Sommersby was dead.

    -- Mike

    re.-1
    I also have seen "The return of Martin Guerre" too long ago to
    remember the details.
    But it's a good reason to watch it again - but I had no luck in
    the video stores so far.
    BTW it is all based on a true case that happened I think in France.
    Andrea
    

    I did not care for this movie at all. I did not feel any remarkable
    chemistry at all between Gere and Foster. I too felt that the movie
    tryed to substitute mood music in the absence of any on-screen emoting.
    I felt the ending was a cheap, predictable gimmick to try to make the
    films relationship a "classic trgic love story". I found it pretty
    tacky.
    
    As for the rest of the film, I founding lacking in suspense, pacing or
    any other particularly notable quality. I found it boring. Don't waste
    your money.
    
    Steve.
    

    
    I just watched Summersby on cable.  I really enjoyed this moive, even
    throu I dislike Jodi Foster.  The moives also stared Richard Gere.
    But, I hated the ending!  Did anyone else feel this way?  I know what
    the ending's meaning was and I understand it, but it was just to sad
    for me.  question:
    
    
    
    
    Was the man Richard Gere burried in the very begining, the real Summersby??
    Was Gere a Yankee?  I did'nt think they made that real clear.. but I
    will watch again toight.

    Did they really use the Robin Hood Prince of Thieves  music for this
    movie?   It is bad enough that they ripped off the plot from The Return
    of Martin Guere(sp), but did they really steal another films music as
    well?
    
    Andrew
    

    Spoiler

    

    It was pretty clear (to me anyways) that Gere was the loser-guy they
    identified him as in court.  (The swindler)  The dude that stole money
    from the other county.

    It seemed that he made a life-change in prison and struck out for a new
    life.  If he admitted he was (whatshisname), that would mean that guy 
    would exist again.

    Basically, he'd rather die a honorable person than live life as coward
    and a thief.

    Pretty sad ending.  I thought it was going to be predictable and it
    wasn't...

    Chip

Re. Ending

The film is based on the French film, The Return of Martin Guere (with Gerard
Depradieu in the lead role). (FWIW, I think the French version is infinately
superior if you can stand subtitles).

That film, is based on a true story that happened in SE France in the 17th (?)
century. The ending in that film reflects the real-life ending. Both films are
very similar (Somersby really is just an Americanised version), so I suppose that
it's natural that the endings are the same, sad or not...

Graham.

    Personally, I thought Somersby was better than the original.  The
    original put me to sleep, and I'm not usually bothered by subtitles, so
    it wasn't because of that.  I thought Somersby was faster paced, and
    much more accessible.
    
    All in all, I thought it was an okay movie, but nothing spectacular.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    more questions:
    
    
    
    
    I might of missed the part, but did Jack/Richard say how he knew so
    much about the real Jack and his life?
    
    

    After having seen the movie four or five times, this is what I came up
    with:
    
    
    
    
    Spoiler alert:
    
    
    
    Jack Sommersby was in prison with Gere for about six years (I
    remember that from somewhere, I think the prison cell right before the
    hanging). They looked similar and got to know each other very well, as
    well as info about their families and lives outside the war. When the
    real Sommersby shot Mr. Murdervictim, Sommersby in turn was killed and 
    Gere buried Sommersby and took on his identity. The three bad guys that 
    showed up at the farm knew that the real Sommersby was dead and buried by 
    Gere.
    
    If Gere said that he was Mr. Whatsisname, then that would have made all of
    the property deeds that he signed invalid, which would also have kept the 
    slaves from owning any land. Rather than let "Jack Sommersby" be the 
    original Mr. Murdervictim, Gere chose to become Sommersby and keep
    Sommersby's good name; that way, his word was good regarding the deeds 
    and everything else he did as Sommersby.
    
    I hope that isn't too confusing now.
    
    Catherine
    

    RE: .23

    spoiler
    

    According to Gere,

    Sommersby spent six years, everyday, with Gere, talking about the farm,
    the life, the people, etc.  He also said that he and the dead man looked
    extremely alike.
    
    (Of course Gere said that the guy he told these things to was the dead
    man, not visa-versa)

    still looking for a response, Catherine, where-ever you are, you should
    be able to answer this question easily.  Did they use the soundtrack,
    or part of the soundtrack from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves?  I hear
    it every time they show a trailer.  When the film first came out, I
    attributed the music to the practice of producers to rush out trailers
    prior to the completion of soundtrack and soundtrack addition to the
    print, but, now that they are announcing the video, they are using the
    same music, are they just being lazy. or is that the films main theme?
    
    Andrew
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Andrew -
    
    Yup, they did it! I thought the music sounded familiar! Didn't pay too
    much attention to the credits, though, so I'm not absolutely positive.
    
    Catherine
    

    I thought this was a very mediocre movie. I kept having problems 
    with plausibility of the plot, plus I just didn't feel much chemistry
    between Gere and Foster. I couldn't understand why Gere would be so
    passionate about proving himself to be Sommersby and so impassionate
    about explaining that he did not commit the murder for which he was
    accused. Just didn't make sense.
    
    Pan....
    
    Curt

>    I thought this was a very mediocre movie. I kept having problems 
>    with plausibility of the plot, plus I just didn't feel much chemistry
>    between Gere and Foster. I couldn't understand why Gere would be so
>    passionate about proving himself to be Sommersby and so impassionate
>    about explaining that he did not commit the murder for which he was
>    accused. Just didn't make sense.
    
	Was that the only bit of the plot you had problems believing?
    Funnily enough that's the only bit of the otherwise true story that
    Hollywood made up. So much for Hollywood dramatization, and,
    incidentally, the reason that I still prefer the original French
    version, The Return of Martin Guerre.
    
    Graham.

    re. .30
    
    Basically yes, but it was a biggie and I got very perturbed about it.
    From there on, I was no longer into the movie so its interesting that
    you point this out. Up to that point I found the movie pretty good...
    
    Hollywood should have stayed out of this script.
    
    Curt