Reeves plays this particular moment as if Alex has revealed something of himself involuntarily.

In an acting class I took some years ago, the teacher advised us on the difference between male and female tears: "Women cry. Men try not to cry." It's that struggle that makes a male actor's crying both compelling and uncomfortable to watch. Sounds like Reeves nailed it there.

I'll be interested to check this odd-sounding film out.

Alex is living in 2004, while Kate is booking along in 2006: Apparently, they're exchanging letters across some wrinkle in time.

Whoa!

Why can't they just say they'll meet on a date in 2006? For example, on June 15, 2004/2006, they make a date for July 1, 2006. The 2006 Keanu would remember the letter he got in 2004, and show up to meet her. Of course, that's assuming he doesn't die between 2004 and 2006.

Or why can't she just give him her address, and he can go there in 2006?

Il Mare is wonderful - and it has a beautiful soundtrack.

I haven't seen lake house yet, so I can't compare lake house to Il mare.

Stephanie: Love the reviews and your articles in general, but this paragraph has me puzzled:

"Reeves has the kind of casualness that people often confuse with "doing nothing." He's not an aggressive actor; what makes him so charming to watch, and so moving, is the way he keeps his emotions in check -- as if displaying them too baldly would be a way of disrespecting them. Reeves has some lovely moments here, many of them seemingly tossed off: When Kate (in one of the few scenes where the two characters speak to each other directly) explains why she so dearly loves Jane Austen's "Persuasion," he listens carefully, attentively, and then politely challenges Kate's devotion to a work in which a happy ending isn't guaranteed: "Why do you like that?" he asks, in a way that suggests he really wants to know the answer."

I've never seen Reeves convincingly portray ANY emotion, save that of casual indifference. What you take for being understated, I interpret as a seriously deficient ability to express emotion.

Reeves in a romantic role is horrific casting. Didn't you see Something's Gotta Give>

Keanu Reeves is the soul of the film? Stephanie, you're talking about the man as if he were a genuine actor. He keeps his emotions in check? Are you Reeves' new publicity agent? That deadpan stare you see is not a man checking his emotions, it's a bad actor who is unable to project any emotion. The soul of the film? You could not make a more condemning statement. Thanks, I'll stay away.

Some actors do not act. Some actors give wonderful performances by just saying the words. Watch Paul Newman. Most of the time, he just says the words. Contrast this to Al Pacino, who always has to put something "on" the words. Both fine performers, and who can say who is the better actor? I think Al is a little over the top sometimes, but that's me.

Keanu may turn out to be a "say the words" sort of actor. I will rent this movie based on Stephanie's description of his performance, and because I liked Sandra Bullock in "Crash".

And on acting and crying? I learned that as soon as those tears leave your eyes, the audience loses the tension. If YOU cry, the audience doesn't have to. But if you keep choking those tears back, you break our hearts. Think of the best crying scenes you ever saw, you'll see what I mean.

I think that Ringer has it exactly right. Behind Reeves' pretty face is a complete lack of acting ability. He would do better to stick to action roles ala Steven Seagal.

Kircarcha asked: "Why can't they just say they'll meet on a date in 2006? For example, on June 15, 2004/2006, they make a date for July 1, 2006. The 2006 Keanu would remember the letter he got in 2004, and show up to meet her. Of course, that's assuming he doesn't die between 2004 and 2006.

Or why can't she just give him her address, and he can go there in 2006?"

Because when it's 2006 for *him* it will be 2008 for *her*, obviously. Same problem, different year.

Keanu is like a pretty boy piece of firewood. Whereas Tom Cruise is all bluster and fake epiphany, Keanu is brain dead and vacant. Stephanie, dear girl, I've been waiting since Bill and Ted for him to come around and he simply hasn't.

I used to think Brad Pitt was wooden, but in loosey, goosey roles like "Ocean's 11" he does pretty well.

Alas, all the pretty boys of Hollywood! All the lights are on, and no one is home.

The premise is pretty straightforward - Keanu is in 2004 and Sandra is in 2006 and typical sci-fi rules regarding time paradoxes don't apply. I don't see why SZ is having trouble unraveling it. It seems to have given Ebert a headache too. Are reviewers now in the disingenous business of appearing dumb? That is a conundrum worth exploring, not the ins and outs of fictional time travel. My advice is - pay attention, don't get all anal about the time element, and enjoy the beautiful cinematography, unique storyline, and nice performances. I thought the principals did a surprisingly good job - I say surprisingly not as a slight against the actors, but because so many big name stars just phone it in and either don't bother acting anymore or just play variations on old themes (Jennifer Aniston, I'm looking at you). Sure Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves can be accused of this, but they genuinely seem to be thinking, relating, and feeling in this movie.

I saw it Saturday night and some in the audience wondered why the magic mailbox was never explained. The overly literal should avoid this movie.

Kirkaracha: The answer to your question (without giving away too much) is that they do.

Ronron: The 2004 *him* would be meeting the 2006 *her* in 2006.

Comment: The thing with them talking across time is understood as a device to make the movie more visually interesting instead of having them always standing at the mailbox exchanging notes. I didn't have a problem with that.

I liked the movie, but really disliked the ending. [Note: The following shouldn't be a spoiler, but there's also no point in reading it if you haven't seen the movie.] Why would he run back to see if she had left a note in the first place? Why would he think she had? And the box in the attic apparently takes over the function of the mailbox. That didn't make sense to me either. Why didn't he find her last note in the mailbox?

Mostly, though, it made me want to see Il Mare.