One Fine Day (1996)
July 4, 2023 4:38 PM - Subscribe
The lives of two strangers and their young children unexpectedly intersect on one hectic, stressful day in New York City.
Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer) is an architect who needs to give a very important presentation. Jack Taylor (George Clooney) is a reporter looking to land a big scoop for his story. Both are single parents whose children, Sammy (Alex D. Linz) and Maggie (Mae Whitman), respectively, miss the bus for a field trip. Left with their kids on such a hectic day, Parker and Taylor decide to put aside their bickering and juggle baby-sitting duties, but the rambunctious children don't make it easy.
Alison Macor: A series of screw-ups brings the two divorced parents together, and they spend one fine day and the entire film thawing out the antagonistic iceberg that springs up between them. This the film does well. Screenwriters Terry Seltzer and Ellen Simon strike just the right balance among such subplots as Jack's trying to confirm a City Hall scandal, Melanie's attempting to win over demanding clients, and the children's competing antics. Of course, what dominates the entire plot is the attraction between Melanie and Jack, who both haul behind them the requisite emotional baggage that accompanies many adults living in the 1990s.
Wesley Lovell: One Fine Day is not only the epitome of such, it strangely harkens back more to the films of the romantic films of the 1930s than it does to the romances of the late 1980s. . . The gimmick works well, though it finds a lot of inspiration in past efforts, never finding a direction that is uniquely its own. There are some interesting quirks in the formula that resolve themselves in ways different from the typical, such as a scene late in the film (SPOILERS) where Pfeiffer and Clooney are supposed to share an intimate moment together, but a day’s worth of drama has tuckered them both out and they fall asleep before they can take their budding relationship to a new level.
Lisa Schwarzbaum: Too, One Fine Day is relentlessly trend driven. Pfeiffer plays Melanie, a single mom and architect with a moppety 5-year-old son and one ear permanently glued to her damn cellular phone; Clooney is Jack, a secondary-custody divorced dad and newspaper columnist with a precocious 5-year-old daughter and his own damn cell phone. The two adults meet cute (forced to share a cab to get their kids to a school event, they inadvertently swap damn cell phones); by the end of the day, they're goo-goo over each other. The setup is as old as Doris Day's hairdo. The direction and dialogue cut corners shamelessly (every woman in the office purrs ''Hi, Jack!'' as he strides by; Melanie barks driving directions to every cabbie, a tic owned by Holly Hunter for life after Broadcast News).
But -- and here's the big but -- Clooney proves himself to be a true movie star and romantic leading man. His charm, his energy, even his ease with children (one of any adult actor's most terrifying challenges) carry One Fine Day into irresistibility. Clooney's brand of sexiness -- a bemused awareness that he turns the girls on, tempered by the self-knowledge that the results are often far more trouble than they're worth -- is a variation on his ER character. But we can actually feel the magic working on Pfeiffer -- who, as anyone who's seen The Fabulous Baker Boys knows, is to die for when aroused, and unapproachable when not.
Trailer
Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer) is an architect who needs to give a very important presentation. Jack Taylor (George Clooney) is a reporter looking to land a big scoop for his story. Both are single parents whose children, Sammy (Alex D. Linz) and Maggie (Mae Whitman), respectively, miss the bus for a field trip. Left with their kids on such a hectic day, Parker and Taylor decide to put aside their bickering and juggle baby-sitting duties, but the rambunctious children don't make it easy.
Alison Macor: A series of screw-ups brings the two divorced parents together, and they spend one fine day and the entire film thawing out the antagonistic iceberg that springs up between them. This the film does well. Screenwriters Terry Seltzer and Ellen Simon strike just the right balance among such subplots as Jack's trying to confirm a City Hall scandal, Melanie's attempting to win over demanding clients, and the children's competing antics. Of course, what dominates the entire plot is the attraction between Melanie and Jack, who both haul behind them the requisite emotional baggage that accompanies many adults living in the 1990s.
Wesley Lovell: One Fine Day is not only the epitome of such, it strangely harkens back more to the films of the romantic films of the 1930s than it does to the romances of the late 1980s. . . The gimmick works well, though it finds a lot of inspiration in past efforts, never finding a direction that is uniquely its own. There are some interesting quirks in the formula that resolve themselves in ways different from the typical, such as a scene late in the film (SPOILERS) where Pfeiffer and Clooney are supposed to share an intimate moment together, but a day’s worth of drama has tuckered them both out and they fall asleep before they can take their budding relationship to a new level.
Lisa Schwarzbaum: Too, One Fine Day is relentlessly trend driven. Pfeiffer plays Melanie, a single mom and architect with a moppety 5-year-old son and one ear permanently glued to her damn cellular phone; Clooney is Jack, a secondary-custody divorced dad and newspaper columnist with a precocious 5-year-old daughter and his own damn cell phone. The two adults meet cute (forced to share a cab to get their kids to a school event, they inadvertently swap damn cell phones); by the end of the day, they're goo-goo over each other. The setup is as old as Doris Day's hairdo. The direction and dialogue cut corners shamelessly (every woman in the office purrs ''Hi, Jack!'' as he strides by; Melanie barks driving directions to every cabbie, a tic owned by Holly Hunter for life after Broadcast News).
But -- and here's the big but -- Clooney proves himself to be a true movie star and romantic leading man. His charm, his energy, even his ease with children (one of any adult actor's most terrifying challenges) carry One Fine Day into irresistibility. Clooney's brand of sexiness -- a bemused awareness that he turns the girls on, tempered by the self-knowledge that the results are often far more trouble than they're worth -- is a variation on his ER character. But we can actually feel the magic working on Pfeiffer -- who, as anyone who's seen The Fabulous Baker Boys knows, is to die for when aroused, and unapproachable when not.
Trailer
I think reading reviews written many years after the film’s initial release is not helpful. The guy who didn’t like the film in 2021 might have had a different reaction had he seen it in a theater in 1996.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:04 PM on July 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 9:04 PM on July 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
So only folks who happen to be writing and reviewing at the time of the movie's release should write reviews? What's the cutoff? 6 months? A year?
posted by Carillon at 11:58 PM on July 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Carillon at 11:58 PM on July 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
I remember, as a young adult, renting this movie with my dad. He became agitated by the hijinks of the "bratty kids," who I thought were pretty typical young children.
"We stuck things up our noses all the time, Dad." He was fairly astonished. (My dad traveled a lot, my mom stayed home with us.)
posted by champers at 3:02 AM on July 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
"We stuck things up our noses all the time, Dad." He was fairly astonished. (My dad traveled a lot, my mom stayed home with us.)
posted by champers at 3:02 AM on July 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Watched this a couple of years ago on our anniversary (we got married in 1996). Vaguely remember seeing it in theaters, and was surprised that it held up pretty okay. Most media from that decade does not, and maybe because it was the first decade I was an adult in, I can't forgive the foibles in the same way I can earlier stuff. George Clooney's schtick is obvious, of course. He's just a charm machine, and it works. I fall in love with him every time (moreso than my wife does, I think!).
posted by rikschell at 5:17 AM on July 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 5:17 AM on July 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
So only folks who happen to be writing and reviewing at the time of the movie's release should write reviews? What's the cutoff? 6 months? A year?
I go the other way, honestly. I feel like recent reviews provide a better look at how we feel about the film right now. At the same time, I like to see a bit of contrast, like Roger Ebert's two reviews of The Graduate separated by 30 years.
Regarding this movie, I read an article on Cracked.com probably fifteen years ago that explained how people in Hollywood don't understand how jobs actually work, and this movie is a pretty good example of that.
posted by Literaryhero at 4:18 PM on July 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
I go the other way, honestly. I feel like recent reviews provide a better look at how we feel about the film right now. At the same time, I like to see a bit of contrast, like Roger Ebert's two reviews of The Graduate separated by 30 years.
Regarding this movie, I read an article on Cracked.com probably fifteen years ago that explained how people in Hollywood don't understand how jobs actually work, and this movie is a pretty good example of that.
posted by Literaryhero at 4:18 PM on July 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
I go the other way, honestly. I feel like recent reviews provide a better look at how we feel about the film right now. At the same time, I like to see a bit of contrast, like Roger Ebert's two reviews of The Graduate separated by 30 years.
I agree with you, I was a bit sarcastic in my response because I was surprised someone would have an issue with more modern reviews. Movies are cultural artifacts and I'd shocked that someone would suggest we only review films based off of how they would have been recieved during their creation, as opposed to understanding that we can review and understand films as part of our own cultural lexicon.
posted by Carillon at 12:22 AM on July 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
I agree with you, I was a bit sarcastic in my response because I was surprised someone would have an issue with more modern reviews. Movies are cultural artifacts and I'd shocked that someone would suggest we only review films based off of how they would have been recieved during their creation, as opposed to understanding that we can review and understand films as part of our own cultural lexicon.
posted by Carillon at 12:22 AM on July 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think reading reviews written many years after the film’s initial release is not helpful. The guy who didn’t like the film in 2021 might have had a different reaction had he seen it in a theater in 1996.
On the contrary - reading reviews from different periods can be a fascinating window on how times have changed, culture has shifted, and audiences can change and grow and evolve and morph and become even more diverse.
Also, there are scores of films which are poorly received in their day - but are now considered masterworks. Take Psycho - a film that is now widely regarded as one of Hitchcock's masterworks. But when it was originally released, critics hated it. Bowsley Fowler, critic for the New York Times, said that "There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job. [...] The consequence is his denouement falls quite flat for us." Crowther also hated Bonnie And Clyde; he and many other critics tut-tutted about the film "glorifying violence".
And lest you think it's all just this one guy who got things wrong -
* Dave Kehr, of The Chicago Reader, said that The Shining was "...too banal to sustain interest, while the incredibly slack narrative line forestalls suspense." It actually got several Razzie nominations at the time it was released.
* Roger Ebert said Footloose was "a seriously confused movie that tries to do three things, and does all of them badly." Dave Denby of The New Yorker also called it "Schlockdance" in his own review.
* Frank Rich panned Alien, saying that "...'Alien' contains a couple of genuine jolts, a barrage of convincing special effects and enough gore to gross out children of all ages. What is missing is wit, imagination and the vaguest hint of human feeling." Dave Kehr of The Chicago Reader said in his review that "For the most part, things simply jump out and go 'boo'!"
* Way too many critics for me to list panned The Night Of The Hunter.
* A whole lot of critics also panned The Wizard of Oz. Otis Ferguson, from The New Republic, said "It has dwarfs, music, Technicolor, freak characters, and Judy Garland. It can't be expected to have a sense of humor as well, and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet."
* Vincent Canby, from The New York Times, said of Jaws that "It's a measure of how the film operates that not once do we feel particular sympathy for any of the shark's victims…"
But sometimes reading the later reviews by different critics can be even more illuminating. Take Bonnie and Clyde again, and all of those critics handwringing that it was "too violent". There was one new critic who disagreed - Pauline Kael, who ended up writing a lengthy defense of the film that not only completely turned its reputation around, but completely revolutionized the film review industry itself. Kael was not one of the earlier critics, and her review came some time after its release - and that was partly on purpose, since Kael preferred to see films in the theater with an audience. In addition, this was also at a time when she was bouncing between different publications, and she'd actually offered her review to a couple of other magazines first before The New Yorker ran it (it was about 7K words in length, so most other magazines were reluctant).
Also - a review from someone seeing a film some time after the original release, and watching in less-than-ideal conditions, can give you a fresh perspective on the original film. A lot of people flocked to seeing Avatar when it first came out, and were wowed by the visual effects...but when they tried watching it on their home screens, without benefit of 3D technology or IMAX, that's when several people noticed that the visual effects were distracting people from the fact that the script was really kinda....weak. (That's when the "Dances With Smurfs" pans started cropping up.) On the other hand, something like But I'm A Cheerleader - a film that was critically panned in its initial release - is seeing a revival and a cult status film after a) Natasha Lyonne's recent ascendancy, and b) fans have pointed to its LGBTQ-friendly storyline as being a head of its time.
I think if you confine yourself only to reviews written during a film's initial release, you're missing out on a whole hell of a lot of film history, and quite possibly, on a whole hell of a lot of films, period. Why on earth would you want to do that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:57 AM on July 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
On the contrary - reading reviews from different periods can be a fascinating window on how times have changed, culture has shifted, and audiences can change and grow and evolve and morph and become even more diverse.
Also, there are scores of films which are poorly received in their day - but are now considered masterworks. Take Psycho - a film that is now widely regarded as one of Hitchcock's masterworks. But when it was originally released, critics hated it. Bowsley Fowler, critic for the New York Times, said that "There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job. [...] The consequence is his denouement falls quite flat for us." Crowther also hated Bonnie And Clyde; he and many other critics tut-tutted about the film "glorifying violence".
And lest you think it's all just this one guy who got things wrong -
* Dave Kehr, of The Chicago Reader, said that The Shining was "...too banal to sustain interest, while the incredibly slack narrative line forestalls suspense." It actually got several Razzie nominations at the time it was released.
* Roger Ebert said Footloose was "a seriously confused movie that tries to do three things, and does all of them badly." Dave Denby of The New Yorker also called it "Schlockdance" in his own review.
* Frank Rich panned Alien, saying that "...'Alien' contains a couple of genuine jolts, a barrage of convincing special effects and enough gore to gross out children of all ages. What is missing is wit, imagination and the vaguest hint of human feeling." Dave Kehr of The Chicago Reader said in his review that "For the most part, things simply jump out and go 'boo'!"
* Way too many critics for me to list panned The Night Of The Hunter.
* A whole lot of critics also panned The Wizard of Oz. Otis Ferguson, from The New Republic, said "It has dwarfs, music, Technicolor, freak characters, and Judy Garland. It can't be expected to have a sense of humor as well, and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet."
* Vincent Canby, from The New York Times, said of Jaws that "It's a measure of how the film operates that not once do we feel particular sympathy for any of the shark's victims…"
But sometimes reading the later reviews by different critics can be even more illuminating. Take Bonnie and Clyde again, and all of those critics handwringing that it was "too violent". There was one new critic who disagreed - Pauline Kael, who ended up writing a lengthy defense of the film that not only completely turned its reputation around, but completely revolutionized the film review industry itself. Kael was not one of the earlier critics, and her review came some time after its release - and that was partly on purpose, since Kael preferred to see films in the theater with an audience. In addition, this was also at a time when she was bouncing between different publications, and she'd actually offered her review to a couple of other magazines first before The New Yorker ran it (it was about 7K words in length, so most other magazines were reluctant).
Also - a review from someone seeing a film some time after the original release, and watching in less-than-ideal conditions, can give you a fresh perspective on the original film. A lot of people flocked to seeing Avatar when it first came out, and were wowed by the visual effects...but when they tried watching it on their home screens, without benefit of 3D technology or IMAX, that's when several people noticed that the visual effects were distracting people from the fact that the script was really kinda....weak. (That's when the "Dances With Smurfs" pans started cropping up.) On the other hand, something like But I'm A Cheerleader - a film that was critically panned in its initial release - is seeing a revival and a cult status film after a) Natasha Lyonne's recent ascendancy, and b) fans have pointed to its LGBTQ-friendly storyline as being a head of its time.
I think if you confine yourself only to reviews written during a film's initial release, you're missing out on a whole hell of a lot of film history, and quite possibly, on a whole hell of a lot of films, period. Why on earth would you want to do that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:57 AM on July 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Carillon at 4:41 PM on July 4, 2023 [1 favorite]