Ernie is an investigative reporter who's a bigger friend to the people on the street(to the point of chatting calmly with two people who attempt to mug him) than the establishment... or the corrupt elements of it, anyway. He's working on bringing down crooked councilman Yablonowitz, and he gets beaten up for his trouble. Well, he gets mildly nudged, if going by what we see... I guess they couldn't afford a stunt double for that particular scene. Compelled to save his headliner's life(he has to sell papers, doesn't he?), his editor sends him to the Rocky Mountains for what's supposed to be a two-week period. Once there, he'll get an exclusive interview with the reclusive ornithologist Nell. That's the theory, anyway. She can't stand journalists any more than he can stand the wild. Over time, they warm up to each other, and we have a romantic comedy. So, we've got our standard fish-out-of-water, two-different-worlds setup, and over the course of it, they'll both come to like the other's universe(whilst preferring their own, showing integrity) as well as each other. This gets all the clichés, and really, with the possible exception(other than minor details) of the ending(for some, at least), you see everything in this coming a mile away. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a hindrance to an enjoyable story(or we wouldn't still be doing new productions of Shakespeare and the like, where even if you don't know the entire thing, you know the gist of it... and one could argue that the classic theatre tragedy is meant to be clear in where it's going, to increase the emotional impact; you know where it's going, and you are powerless to stop it), it merely puts additional pressure on the handling of the material, the aspects that will vary based on the cast and crew, the period it's made, etc. Unfortunately, one of the main aims of this must be to be funny, and it quite simply seldom is. They try to give Belushi a dry wit, and while he does OK with it(nowhere near as perfect a fit as Joliet Jake), the lines are not that memorable(in general, the dialog is forgettable... it tries too hard, and somehow manages to be bland at the same time; it's actually kind of impressive). The film keeps both feet on the ground, with no outlandish events, and that does work in favor of it. One problem is the pace. It drags, and the one hour, 36 minutes sans credits feel like at least two full hours. The acting is pretty dependable. Our leads have chemistry and charm, and can be sweet together. This holds some attractive nature photography, and, you guessed it, a pro-environmentalist message which is obvious but not shoved down our throats, well, not all of the time. Not all of the plot lines are satisfactorily concluded. This does a better job of getting us to care about the characters than it does at garnering laughs, and it's worth noting that it does not put its foot squarely in either camp. Which is better, the great outdoors or the inner city? You decide. To each their own. There is some moderate language and intensity in this. I recommend this to fans of this kind of picture, the 80's and the people involved in making it. 6/10
Review of Continental Divide
Continental Divide
(1981)
The cleverness of the title is the only thing it doesn't telegraph
1 November 2011