I really tried hard to like this film and the characters in it. The real life brothers Jeff and Beau Bridges play the titular Jack and Frank Baker, two pianists who are at the end of a once successful career, reduced to playing gigs at seedy dive bars and cheesy lounges.
They decide they need new blood in the act in the form of a female singer. After auditioning what seemed to be all the tone-deaf women in Seattle (Jennifer Tilly has a cute little role as a ditsy audition hopeful who sings "The Candy Man"), in walks Susie Diamond (Michelle Pfeiffer), who has a shady background as an escort, but a sultry voice that catches womanizing Jack's attention.
The problem with this film that was eloquently stated by another reviewer, is that we never really get to know the history of the two Baker brothers, where they came from, what the height of their career was like when they were "fabulous", and the reason for their current downfall. We already see them when they're down and out, and we have no deep connection to their struggle for the rest of the story. We never really know the reason for Jack's anger and resentment toward his brother. The director should have learned this valuable lesson from Film Making 101: "Show, don't tell." A few flashbacks could've explained this beautifully, but it's never there.
The little neighbor girl that Jack looks after because of a neglectful mother seemed like a plot device that was thrown in. She didn't add anything valuable to the story and was another stock character for Jack to get angry at. The character of Susie was someone I really wanted to root for and feel some kind of sympathy toward, but I didn't feel much for her whatsoever. I like Michelle Pfieffer as an actress, but I was so disappointed about her character. Although she was a sultry and sexy siren on stage, her voice wasn't quite as good as I hoped it would be. It was a little rough in some places. Over the years her singing has gotten much better, most notably in Hairspray. Perhaps if there was a little more background on Susie and why she was the way she was, maybe if there was a little bit of a struggle about her wanting to be taken seriously as a singer, all that would have helped immensely in understanding her better.
There were little moments that were just plain silly in the way the director tried to build sexual tension between Jack and Susie. At first Susie resists his advances, but I never understood why after the act goes on the road, Susie changes her mind all of a sudden about sleeping with Jack. The scene where they sneak into the bathroom separately to smell each others perfume and cologne was awkward. They stare and stare at each other in several scenes for what seems like ages. I love sexual tension between characters as long as it is done right and it doesn't take too long. I was anxious for them to finally get on with it.
When they finally do the deed in a deserted hotel ballroom in the middle of the night after a New Year's Eve celebration, there was an attempt at an erotic moment, but it still seemed so awkward. A more realized piano sex scene occurred a year later in Pretty Woman, no doubt inspired by this film, only better. I never sensed there was enough of a reason why Jack and Susie would fall in love or care for each other. To me the romance felt obligatory.
It was confusing at first to figure out what city this was set in. Seattle is a wonderful location to film in and I felt it was underused in this film, like everything else. We don't even see a shot of the Space Needle to establish that it is indeed Seattle. If it wasn't for certain posters and signs in the film that say "Seattle", I never would've known what city this was set in. Cities can be characters within films as well and Seattle is a glorious city to capture the ambiance of what the Bakers' lives were like because of its rich musical history. Not so much here, and that's a shame. The biggest irony was a movie about music had such poor sound quality! I'm not sure if it was the DVD or what, but the beautiful jazz standards that were showcased should have been given the full royal aural treatment.
The actors in this movie really gave their all to an underdeveloped and mediocre script. They might have thought it was a great movie, or it was just another paycheck. Who knows? Whatever their feelings about it, the director's vision from paper to the big screen just didn't translate well. I was hesitant for some reason about seeing this film for so many years. It first came into my consciousness because of the parody scene in Hot Shots!. Now I can see why this movie was worthy of ridicule.
The conflict between the two brothers was absolutely believable, but I wish there was more camaraderie there, which would make the scene in which they reconcile even more powerful than it was. This movie had potential to be great, but it fell flat. I read that several big names in Hollywood turned down a chance to be in this film. Based on this halfhearted effort, it's not difficult to see why.
They decide they need new blood in the act in the form of a female singer. After auditioning what seemed to be all the tone-deaf women in Seattle (Jennifer Tilly has a cute little role as a ditsy audition hopeful who sings "The Candy Man"), in walks Susie Diamond (Michelle Pfeiffer), who has a shady background as an escort, but a sultry voice that catches womanizing Jack's attention.
The problem with this film that was eloquently stated by another reviewer, is that we never really get to know the history of the two Baker brothers, where they came from, what the height of their career was like when they were "fabulous", and the reason for their current downfall. We already see them when they're down and out, and we have no deep connection to their struggle for the rest of the story. We never really know the reason for Jack's anger and resentment toward his brother. The director should have learned this valuable lesson from Film Making 101: "Show, don't tell." A few flashbacks could've explained this beautifully, but it's never there.
The little neighbor girl that Jack looks after because of a neglectful mother seemed like a plot device that was thrown in. She didn't add anything valuable to the story and was another stock character for Jack to get angry at. The character of Susie was someone I really wanted to root for and feel some kind of sympathy toward, but I didn't feel much for her whatsoever. I like Michelle Pfieffer as an actress, but I was so disappointed about her character. Although she was a sultry and sexy siren on stage, her voice wasn't quite as good as I hoped it would be. It was a little rough in some places. Over the years her singing has gotten much better, most notably in Hairspray. Perhaps if there was a little more background on Susie and why she was the way she was, maybe if there was a little bit of a struggle about her wanting to be taken seriously as a singer, all that would have helped immensely in understanding her better.
There were little moments that were just plain silly in the way the director tried to build sexual tension between Jack and Susie. At first Susie resists his advances, but I never understood why after the act goes on the road, Susie changes her mind all of a sudden about sleeping with Jack. The scene where they sneak into the bathroom separately to smell each others perfume and cologne was awkward. They stare and stare at each other in several scenes for what seems like ages. I love sexual tension between characters as long as it is done right and it doesn't take too long. I was anxious for them to finally get on with it.
When they finally do the deed in a deserted hotel ballroom in the middle of the night after a New Year's Eve celebration, there was an attempt at an erotic moment, but it still seemed so awkward. A more realized piano sex scene occurred a year later in Pretty Woman, no doubt inspired by this film, only better. I never sensed there was enough of a reason why Jack and Susie would fall in love or care for each other. To me the romance felt obligatory.
It was confusing at first to figure out what city this was set in. Seattle is a wonderful location to film in and I felt it was underused in this film, like everything else. We don't even see a shot of the Space Needle to establish that it is indeed Seattle. If it wasn't for certain posters and signs in the film that say "Seattle", I never would've known what city this was set in. Cities can be characters within films as well and Seattle is a glorious city to capture the ambiance of what the Bakers' lives were like because of its rich musical history. Not so much here, and that's a shame. The biggest irony was a movie about music had such poor sound quality! I'm not sure if it was the DVD or what, but the beautiful jazz standards that were showcased should have been given the full royal aural treatment.
The actors in this movie really gave their all to an underdeveloped and mediocre script. They might have thought it was a great movie, or it was just another paycheck. Who knows? Whatever their feelings about it, the director's vision from paper to the big screen just didn't translate well. I was hesitant for some reason about seeing this film for so many years. It first came into my consciousness because of the parody scene in Hot Shots!. Now I can see why this movie was worthy of ridicule.
The conflict between the two brothers was absolutely believable, but I wish there was more camaraderie there, which would make the scene in which they reconcile even more powerful than it was. This movie had potential to be great, but it fell flat. I read that several big names in Hollywood turned down a chance to be in this film. Based on this halfhearted effort, it's not difficult to see why.