The plot of THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES seems to have sprung from the elaboration of a simple thought. What would it be like if a man and a woman lived their relationship in reverse? Upon meeting they instantly develop the easy-going rapport of a couple in their golden years. Then they get married. Then, finally, they seek passion.

Jeff Bridges plays Columbia University math professor, Gregory Larkin. Sex has screwed with his relationships too much and now he seeks a platonic intimacy with a woman for which he has no physical desire. He meets English Lit. professor, Rose Morgan, played by Barbra Streisand (who also produced, directed and wrote some of the music). She's an ugly duckling, living in the apartment of her faded-belle mother (Lauren Bacall) and in the shadow of her gorgeous, newlywed sister (Mimi Rogers). The two embark on an unusual relationship that takes ideas about beauty and brains, passion and rationality, youth and age and serves them up with both comedy and drama.

Excuse me while I position this wrecking ball.

I wondered at why a movie that takes an interesting twist on romantic relationships could feel so cliched. But I didn't wonder long. First, you have characters who are about as stereotypical as you can get. Jeff Bridges' Gregory Larkin is the worst: the nerdy math professor in love with symmetry and perfection and afraid of passion and complication. He does fine with what he's given, but, oh, I've seen this character so many times. Lauren Bacall, Mimi Rogers and Pierce Brosnan (as Mimi's character's husband) all turn in good performances, but the characters are so off-the-rack you can see the tags hanging on their sleeves.

Streisand's Rose is the fullest character, but even she felt like a cliche. I've never been to a Barbra Streisand movie before. So why do I feel like I've seen her in this role a thousand times?

The movie offers few insights into relationships that you can't find in other movies. Yes, love needs passionate as well as intellectual engagement. Yes, beauty is a terrific power, destined to fade. Of course, life is not an equation into which you plug variables and arrive at a perfect sum. I know this already! Tell me something I don't! Or at least show it in a uniquely compelling way.

Maybe I wouldn't be so critical if the movie stuck to comedy and didn't attempt to "examine issues." Maybe. The comedy, after all, wasn't bad. I laughed about as much as I had hoped, though not as much as the rest of the audience. I sat with a smirk for much of the dialogue which was peppered with cute one-liners. For instance, Lauren Bacall's character shows for her daughter's wedding in splashy, sequined dress. The daughter (Mimi Roger's character) growls, "You're the mother of the bride, not the opening act." The mother later complains, "To think you're marrying outside of the faith and on the Sabbath." The daughter replies, "The only thing you taught me about the Sabbath was that Bergdorf's would be less crowded."

THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES suffers from runaway screenwriter syndrome. Too many words pile upon and crush nuance. For example, in one scene, Lauren Bacall speaks her mind to Rose about Gregory then sits turned away. Rose says something like, "I'm growing older, too, Mom. Why can't you let me have what you had? Why won't you let me be happy?" The scene should have ended there. Instead, it broke rhythm and continued, with Rose answering her own questions and expounding the emotional details that could have been left stated visually.

Barbra Streisand lectures in this movie and I mean that literally. It was annoying enough that her lecture seemed less of an English Lit class and more of a stand-up comedy routine. It was equally wretched to see her play someone's idea of the perfect college professor. But the students! They seemed culled from the dippiest sections of an infomercial's studio audience. Laughing at her jokes, nodding ever in agreement, applauding her stock wisdom and use of profanity. Ugh.

THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES is a very old-fashioned movie, not just in outlook, but in style, too. The swelling, lounge-orchestra music, the melodramatic acting, the formal dialog, all made me feel like I was watching something from the late-50s/early-60s. Unfortunately, the effect was not delightfully retro, but dated and worn out.

Despite all of this, much of the audience connected with the film. On my way out, I heard people saying, "That was so cute!" and "What a great movie" and "Wonderful; delightful."

So maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just dead wrong.

Then, as I hit the stairs to leave the building, someone asked their companion, "What did you think?" The reply: "Ehhhhhh... welll..."

So maybe not.

previous | subscribe | movies | next

Mike's Midnight Movie Reviews
© copyright 1995-1998 Michael J. Doyle