free counter with statistics Premonition | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

premonition.jpg
An Ass-Wrinkle in Time

Premonition / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | March 16, 2007 | Comments (43)

I always figured that the whole point behind using disordered chronology in movies was to either provoke higher-order thinking or be used as a narrative device to heighten certain aspects of the story. The weird thing about Premonition is that it can’t really do either. Its nonlinear chronology is just a crutch — a way of confusing the viewer and injecting thriller/mystery tropes into an inherently empty, flat-paced story. There’s nothing to think about because the disjointed elements of the plot are explained as baldly as possible and with maximum dispassion by the cast and crew.

Linda Hanson (Sandra Bullock) is living the life of an average, boring hausfrau. She ferries her two daughters to school, enjoys some bland chitchat with hubby (the perennially sleazy Julian McMahon), goes shopping, does housework, and then stares out into space. One morning, the sheriff shows up on her doorstep. Bad news: A semi hit hubby and he exploded. Tough break, but Bullock seems as disinterested about this tragedy as she was while doing the dishes. Sure, she squeezes out a tear or two, but otherwise goes through the machinations of grief as idly and absently as if it were just another chore. Either all was not well at home, or Bullock can’t act (Hint: It’s both).

Whoopsie-daisy: Linda wakes up the next morning to find hubby sitting at the counter sipping coffee. Was it all a dream, or does Linda have Cassandra Syndrome? Linda doesn’t seem all that interested to find Dr. Doom Troy miraculously reanimated, but when her next nap sends her back to the future, things get complicated. Linda continues to bollix around the timeline, either discovering scrumptious new details about what’s been going on (not much) or trying to change the past/future. But like I said, Premonition isn’t some weighty look at the Novikov self-consistency principle or even the simple glance at causality it wants to be; it isn’t La Jetée or even Donnie Darko — the time angle is just a way to obfuscate the plot, because without it, the story would be revealed as the lifeless exercise in banality it really is.

Do we really care if (or will) Linda can save hubby? No, because the relationship between the two characters is nonexistent. Aside from Bullock and McMahon’s lackluster talents, the script doesn’t really give them anything to do except glumly exhort their love for one another; there’s no romance or even shape to their association. And like The Jacket and that other Bullock-afflicted nonsense, The Lake House, a disordered chronology doesn’t make much of a difference if there isn’t a dramatic element to match it. Premonition is basically a Dean Koontz potboiler acted out by a cast on Quaaludes. My premonition? $45 million at the box office.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.


← Dead Silence | Passion of the Christ, The →



Comments

Greatest fucking review title ever.

Posted by: markus at March 16, 2007 8:58 PM

I was invited to see this movie earlier tonight, and the fact that I did not have to pay was the only reason I decided to go. I urge everyone to save their money and not pay to see this movie. It was unreasonably horrible.

It was as if the screenwriter and everyone else involved in the production neglected to read the script twice. IT WAS SO FUCKIN BAD!!!!!! I literally yelled out as the credit rolled: "That movie freakin sucked!" I decided not to curse because there was a little girl seated in the row in front of me. I have no problem with movies that try to confuse or have twist, but this movie decided to outright lie (There were no scars on the first day!!!) as they jumbled the timeline.

Sandra Bolluck is dead to me, as she is now on my list of actors I will never go to a theater to see. I just wish there could be a rift in time for me to go back and cancel my date, as well as kill her career.

TRUST ME!!! DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE ON THIS MOVIE!!!! YOU MAY WILL LIVE TO REGRET IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Posted by: Daisy at March 16, 2007 9:15 PM

Sandy is the poster girl for "how the hell does she keep gettin' work?" Seriously, her shtick is being (allegedly) the cute next door type, that got old the during the first 3minutes of her very first film.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 16, 2007 9:35 PM

KARNACK says 30 mill at the box office.Sandy needs to take that next step, like MEG fugly ryan and show some skin, while some of us still give a shit

Posted by: pasadenamike at March 16, 2007 10:15 PM

Sandy looked constipated throughout this entire movie - it was ridiculous, the only good part about the movie was the woman sitting in front me who kept making "HMMM" noises every so often like she was really invested in trying to "figure it out"

Posted by: s at March 16, 2007 10:57 PM

My dad loves Sandra Bullock. Maybe he holds within him the secret to her continuing career.

She has the exact same freaking expression in EVERY SINGLE SHOT in the preview. And scroll up to the picture at the top of this review? THAT'S the expression I am talking about. Actually, it's more an utter lack of expression.

Posted by: Ari at March 16, 2007 11:19 PM

I can't care enough about Sandra Bullock to hate her. In fact, I'm looking forward to the day I can forget about her entirely, if only the American public would cooperate.

Posted by: ecp at March 17, 2007 1:43 AM

She's boring. That's really what it comes down to. She's so boring she makes me wanna nap. I was thinking about it, and honestly I can barely think of any movies with her that I've seen. Lessee: That Grisham movie, Speed, the one with the-

zzzzzzzzz...

Posted by: TK at March 17, 2007 10:06 AM

She has always made bad movies, the only reason she gets work is because she is cute. Even that is starting to go. She was excellent in Crash, but she was only in that movie maybe 15 minutes. The casting people knew what they were doing. Only thing that could possibly save her career is if she played a crazy-mean bitch in some Thriller. Not these Keanu Reeves, he's my gay-buddy roles.

Posted by: jaqoftrades at March 17, 2007 10:34 AM

"Dr. Doom Troy"

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought this while watching the movie.

But yeah, this one sucked. Failed to hold my attention and Bullock just isn't close to being compelling enough for the problems in the plot to not stand out (as oppose to say, Denzel Washington in a earlier messed-up time movie).

Posted by: Jim at March 17, 2007 11:50 AM

On a totally superficial note, has Sandra been using Botox? Because those facial expressions I've seen in the trailer are the same ones she has in some of her recent red-carpet pictures. I'm beginning to wonder if she's capable of any facial movement.

I'm glad someone acknowledged the sleazy factor in Julian McMahon. Him being cast in the movie automatically lowered the watchability quotient by 57.3%.

Posted by: Daphne at March 17, 2007 12:00 PM

The allure of Sandy Bullock has always been a mystery to me. I'll never forget sitting in a bar in Austin with some people and she came in, wearing a little black cocktail dress (everyone else in shorts or jeans), flanked by two sychophants: a young gay man and a lipsticky-lesbian type. At the time her face was on the covers of a least five different magazines (I believe the year was 1999 or so) and yet NOBODY NOTICED HER (except me because I was looking in the direction of the door at the time). I swear, nobody gave her a second look. It was funny because Austin is chock-full of stunningly beautiful girls who light up any room they walk into. She was not one of them. Someone once explained her appeal as being "pretty enough," the type of girl every guy thinks he'd have a chance with. Whatever. But I'll give it to her, at 40 she's keeping it together alright, but now she's way past the "meet-cute chick" and into the "suburban mom" roles, where she is less than convincing. She might be more believable as a worn-out bar babe. Oh, and she was positively wretched as Harper Lee in "Infamous." Can't act her way out of a box.

Posted by: Tex at March 17, 2007 12:01 PM

"She was excellent in Crash, but she was only in that movie maybe 15 minutes."

No. No, she wasn't. I understand your impulse to say she was excellent - I really do. She was just a smidge better than she usually is, which is merely competent. I was pulled into the same trap with Aniston in "The Good Girl", but Daphne, I believe, pointed out the error of my ways.

That said, my husband and I re-wound the scene where she falls ass-over-teakettle down the stairs in "Crash" about twenty times, so she did have some utility in the film.

I classify her along with other women I like to call "beige" - where the hair matches the eyes which match the skin. Like Aniston, actually. While I've heard she's actually nice in person, Sandra B. is cute on her absolute best day. Her sex appeal eludes me.

Posted by: Samantha T at March 17, 2007 1:19 PM

You forgot to list the redeeming quality of this movie: Bullock's hair looks fantastic.

Posted by: Alin at March 17, 2007 6:52 PM

I was pulled into the same trap with Aniston in "The Good Girl", but Daphne, I believe, pointed out the error of my ways.

Hee. It's okay, Samantha T. I actually liked Aniston back then, and watched TGG because of the "critical acclaim". I really wanted her to be good, but I just.couldn't.get.there. It's so interesting that you use her portrayal as an analogy, as I also thought Sandra was good in Crash, but your point has shown me the error of my ways. Thanks!

That said, my husband and I re-wound the scene where she falls ass-over-teakettle down the stairs in "Crash" about twenty times, so she did have some utility in the film.

See, I've seen Crash only once, and that was in the theater. I happened to get up and go to the restroom before that scene, so I missed it. Damn! I think I may have to rent it just for this. Thanks again!

Yes, Sandra is pretty in that bland, white-bread kind of way. And there's nothing wrong with that, as supposedly that is (or was) her appeal with many guys during her peak. But sexy? Never saw it.

Despite all that, I admit it - I still like her. She has a reputation for being nice, and I can appreciate that (although I can't stand Aniston). I am concerned for her face, though, as the whole "frozen in time" thing just ain't natural.

Posted by: Daphne at March 17, 2007 7:36 PM

It's LA Jetee, but your points are well taken, Mr. Stephens.

Seems to me poor-to-middling concept movies like this are saved by good actors, or at least actors able to move their facial muscles. Full-body skeave, such as Julian McMahon emanates, is no substitute.

One day, all celebrities will look like Nicole Kidman. We will thus be able to avoid them easily.

Edit: Noted and corrected, with many thanks.

Posted by: Janis at March 17, 2007 8:50 PM

If I'm getting it right, beige=generic.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 17, 2007 10:21 PM

I found this at washingtonpost.com and thought you might enjoy it: "Sandra Bullock is a disheveled, grumpy, adorable mess in "Premonition, 'a psychological thriller that was no doubt pitched as "Medium," only longer and brunette. Or maybe "The Eternal Sixth Sense of the Spotless Groundhog Day.'"

Posted by: Tracy at March 17, 2007 11:26 PM

Phillip, you and Fox Mulder are the only two people I know that can use "obfuscate" properly in a sentence. congrats.

Posted by: wsapnin at March 18, 2007 11:08 AM

I had a close friend once who kad that kind of almost tomboyish cuteness that seemed like guys would dig it, because she could drink beers and hang out and be totally cool. She modelled herself after Jennifer Aniston and Sandra Bullock, actually.
Turns out, she was really just a beige person trying to find a role model that wouldn't challenge her boringness. Everyone saw through it eventually.

Posted by: go big red at March 18, 2007 1:49 PM

I come to Pajiba for the snark, but this is the lamest-ass review ever. Was it phoned in? The review lacks interest.

Posted by: K. Sheff at March 18, 2007 3:41 PM

I saw this on Saturday, in spite of the reviews saying it was pretty bad. And it wasn't good. It wasn't walk-out bad, and the end (before the post-script) was actually kind of satisfying. I don't agree with the Bullock-Botox rumors - I see on her face some wrinkels that botox, I believe, would smooth out. And I also don't see the hate for her acting - I don't think she's stellar, but, again, I don't think she's beige - she's just not overacting and over-hyper like so many actors these days.

Posted by: Lollygagger at March 18, 2007 8:16 PM

Blah!
I was so hoping this was gonna be good.
But seriously when was the last time I saw a good Hollywood flick I really enjoyed and could watch over and over again.

?

?

?

Posted by: Jean at March 19, 2007 5:40 AM

I am so confused about this movie. What day of the weeek did the daughter get the scars? I went through every day and none fits. Please help me.

Posted by: MARIE at March 19, 2007 6:48 AM

I have a friend who is utterly astonished that I won't see either a Julia Roberts movie OR a Sandra Bullock movie with her. I think both of them take roles in movies, and then go pick out a cardboard cutout (Bitch, Klutz, Whore with a Heart of Gold, etc.) to stand behind for the duration.

Posted by: Wednesday at March 19, 2007 10:50 AM

Thanks Phillip for soiling the title of one of my favorite YA books in your title!

Posted by: fenchurch at March 19, 2007 11:04 AM

I wish Bullock would find more scripts that use the talent she has. She was excellent in Speed, very good in The Net (silly movie, but she does silliness well), and pretty okay in Hope Floats.

When she tries to do weighty stuff is when she gets tripped up. And her agent should automatically burn any time-travel script that comes her way.

Posted by: Patrick at March 19, 2007 11:27 AM

MARIE- The daughter got the scars on Tuesday, but miraculously they were gone on Thursday. The first day shown in the movie was Thursday, because the cop explain that the husband died the day before. That was by far the biggest plot hole and lie in the entire movie.

Posted by: Daisy at March 19, 2007 11:36 AM

Thank you for this review. My girlfriend wants to see this and now I've got some weight to back up my "I couldn't give a shit about this movie" mindset.

Posted by: Cory at March 19, 2007 1:27 PM

When a freind asked me to go see this movie with her, I (against better juddgment) said 'okay'... Needless to say, I don't think I'm going to hang out with her ever again. My lord, this movie was bad. What was even more frustrating was that instead of just going to sleep, I held onto the hope that just maybe SOMETHING would happen to provide an explanation and/or fill in the GAPING plot holes. I would've been less upset if someone punched me in the face.

Posted by: Teej at March 19, 2007 2:41 PM

I think you meant "uninterested," not "disinterested." Unless you meant to dispel any notion that Sandy might have some kind of conflict of interest vis a vis the doing of dishes.

Posted by: KEA at March 19, 2007 3:01 PM

I haven't seen the movie but from the review can't figure out which definition of "delineation" you were going for here -- they described the chronology? Or they put an outline around it?

Posted by: Heffalump at March 19, 2007 5:03 PM

Hey guys. There is a Japanese movie called Premonition by Norio Tsuruta, that I saw a few months ago. I thought it was pretty good, as Japanese suspense movies usually are. I read a about Bullucks movie a few weeks after I saw the "original". As soon as I read that Sandra had a movie coming out with the same title, I vomitted in my mouth a little. If you guys have NetFlix - rent it. It is worth it. I don't know what the "plot (hehehe)" is of Sandra's movie, but it sounds similiar, but a total Bizzaro version. Like someone said, Speed and Crash were the best things this chick has done. Go rent the Japanese Premonition - you will not be disappointed.

Posted by: Mike D at March 19, 2007 5:55 PM

Movie was horrible but I would still do her.

Posted by: mark at March 19, 2007 9:08 PM

Ok, I saw the movie and the best thing I got out of it was the creepy voice of Kate Nelligan as the Mom. Straight out of the gothic south with that "Dear, Jim's already dead" twang. I can't think of that line without bursting out laughing. Too bad she wasn't behind some dasterdly scheme - the voice was just too perfect.

But anyway, I've been trying to make the plot salvageable so I don't have to admit I wasted $10 to see something with such obvious plot holes.

So, here's my theory. And I actually think their might be something to it so bear with me.

On the first day, near the start of the movie. Sandra (whoever she plays) stops and looks directly into a mirror for a long time. 20 seconds of sceen time long time. Shortly after is when the sheriff arrives telling her hubby is dead. She's genuinely shocked, picks up (untarnished children ; ) at school and begins to grieve.

Then all the silliness begins.

But here's the thing. The film plot EMPHASIZES that she is looking at a mirror and that daughters are fine. THEN there is real shock when she gets back to the day of the funeral, and wakes up to find all the mirrors covered and makes the "shocking" discovery about daughter.

So, here's my attempt to connect the dots they did so poorly in the movie.

I think what they were TRYING to convey in the movies was that while the main fate didn't change, the events surrounding it DID change. And, though I think it's shabby makings for a movie, what they were trying to show was that the perfect seemingly blissful life (on day 1 of the movie) - when all appeared nice (perfect family, perfect marriage / hubby, and daughters) was not real. They had lost their way.

But in the "saved" time-line, which is what transforms during the events of her disjointed week, we find that while all was far from perfect (flawed husband, "imperfect" children - yeah, that's a tacky way of conveying it), it was better because at least there was real love and emotion.

Does that make any sense to anyone else? I just can't believe they would include that scene of her staring into the mirror at the beginning if there wasn't something to it.

Obviously they failed since everyone things they were just producing horrible holes in the plot. But I think they were trying to do some of it on purpose to convey that something else is going on in the film.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Joe at March 19, 2007 10:07 PM

Just one quibble with the comments:

I think she was quite good as Harper Lee. The sooner she finds her way into character roles and ceases needing to be the headliner and carrying the film, the sooner she will come into her own as a real actress, rather than wasting her time in bad close-up, no-pores, better-get-the-Botox-or-Kidman-gets-the-part leading lady roles in shitty, half-assed-written genre pics.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at March 20, 2007 12:30 PM

Didn't she just do this movie with Keanu? Damn she's boring.

Posted by: Candy at March 21, 2007 1:24 AM

Ya know, I've never seen a movie I really LIKED with Sandra Bullock. There could be something to that.

Posted by: Yes I shower. at March 22, 2007 6:13 PM

The acting was so horrible, especially the priest (who just HAPPENED to have a book about premonitions filled with post-it bookmarks in the sanctuary when she shows up to talk to him out of the blue)--he seriously creeped my shit out...I was SURE they were going to introduce the whole priest/pedophile angle just because there was no other reason for him to be so damn creepy--especially since his character's entire purpose was to talk about premonitions and to tell her to have faith. I suppose the whole point of the movie (which was thrown at us in the last 5 minutes through "touching" flashbacks) was that every day is a miracle, but I find it a miracle that my head didn't explode due to the fact (and I repeat): it made NO fuckin' sense!!!



It left me with no answers, only questions, like:
Did she really experience this week out of sequence (since she obviously had lived through it already)?


Did she have no control over what was happening to her even though she had full recollection of the days she'd actually experienced and not the ones that we didn't see?


Why did none of the lessons she's learned previously sway the way things turned out?


Did I even really buy that she and her husband even cared about each other?


Could her kids have been any more annoying?


If things were out of her control and things end up happening the way the linear week actually played out once you piece them together, how the hell did she get out of the psych ward?


Why am I so irrationally pissed off the more I think about all of this?

Posted by: Carrie at March 23, 2007 12:36 PM

OH FOR GODDNESS SAKE! This movie was fine, oh and may I point out that Julian McMahon is HOT!!!

Posted by: Phoebe Morrison at March 25, 2007 11:08 AM

Movie was awful, ending was ridiculous, marketing was good enough to make me think it could have been good.

Regarding a good Bullock movie, A Time to Kill was great and she was good in it.

Posted by: Bill K at April 2, 2007 10:13 PM

Cool4you,guys.

Posted by: jack at May 13, 2007 1:24 PM

why has everyone got it in for this movie, i just finished watching it on my laptop.

I was let down purely by the ending, precisely the reason i came on here to get everyone elses point of view, as i have no idea what to make of it... but thats sometimes a good thing, straight forward endings are for people with no imagination i guess.

I thought the film was really emotionally intense. There were some such powerful acting, i.e. when she was being commited the acting was so intense it was quite uncomfortable (which is a gd thing, shows its working)

And someone mentionned the glumness and lack of emotion in their relationship as husband and wife... is it not completely obvious this is how it was supposed to acted you idiots.

They were havin a rough stage in their marriage and he was preparing an affair, and they could both sense something was wrong... that dead emotion was the core of the plot!!!!!!! not a result of bad acting, if u want to see romance, go watch a romantic comedy.

Acting was spot on by Sandra, faultless performance... i jus wanted it to go on for longer and maybe explain a touch more.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2007 12:06 AM