OK, so with all the many, many comments already here, why bother to write? I just got done watching it for the first time, and remembering the 1968 original with Sandy Dennis, I thought I would check out some things on the IMDb. I am very mixed in my reaction to the remake. I actually thought that Reeves did one of his better jobs here. I like to watch him in the movies. I don't think he is the greatest actor around, but I think that he improved by miles after being directed by Al Pacino in DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (also opposite Theron, by the way). But I can not review this version without comparison to the original film version. In 1968 a lot of the general population was just trying to get used to people openly living together at all. So this lifestyle of Sara's really did put a different spin on an otherwise, sort of, normalish, kind of woman. But for her to be taking in a different man for every month made her definitely not "normal". The word used most often by the commenters of the '68 film was "quirky". That simply does not apply to the Sara of Charlize Theron's era. Live together, don't live together, come and go, and especially in a liberal neighborhood of San Francisco, and OK, so who is going to notice besides the little boy across the street. So, did Charlie('68)/Nelson('01') need some changing in their "boring" unfulfilled lives? Well, according to many, "yes", but according to the way our society works these days, if that kind of work and business is your choice, than it IS necessary or you don't have a job. But, OK, we will accept that premise, and on we go. My question is this: Does the perspective that Sara lives under really hold up in true life? Is it a valid and honest thing to do with the end of your days, to show people with holes in their characters, that life is full and wonderful and everyone should "stop to smell the roses". Make it sound altruistic as a better way to live up to the end, than continuing with chemos that she has already been through, and likely would not work at all this time around. But then to push those that do love you away? And she loved her family and Charlie/Nelson too, but just wanted to be remembered as full of life! Is this not egotistical in the extreme?!? Is this not major fear of that inescapably absolute part of life, which is death?? Does this attitude and behavior in either film not belie every single thing she has chosen to do and live by, every time she takes and takes and takes again, love from strangers for the REAL purpose of being remembered? I think that the very fabric and premise of the whole story is that of a woman NOT quirky, NOT brave and strong, NOT just wanting to live simply and give of herself. THAT is what I think is the major flaw of this story both times around.
Review of Sweet November
