IMDb user comments for
To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday (1996)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

19 comments in total

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Not Kelley's best writing, 13 June 2000
Author: dave fitz (dfitz77@aol.com) from somerset, nj

David E. Kelley is a brilliant writer. The early episodes of Picket Fences & Chicago Hope, the later episodes of L.A. Law and just about every Practice & Ally McBeal ever made are examples of his great talent. The only problem he has is trying to convert that TV magic to the big screen. His movie scripts are enjoyable, but lack the energy and excitement of his great TV writing.

To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday deals with a man (Peter Gallagher) who loved his wife so much, he just can't let her go. The wife's ghost seems to appear to him on the beach and he spends hours talking to her while neglecting their teenaged daughter (Claire Danes). The dead wife is Michelle Pfieffer, the best-looking ghost I've ever seen in a movie! The tension between father and daughter grows and the arrival of Gillian's sister (Kathy Baker from Picket Fences) and her husband makes things even more tense.

This movie has a good cast who all give strong performances and there is a memorable scene with Claire Danes and Laurie Fortier in thong bikinis, but the movie is hurt by Kelley's weak script, which is not up to the level of quality we've come to expect from him.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Surprisingly touching film with a great script!, 27 January 1999
Author: Scott Sanders (ssand10543@aol.com) from Ohio

I can vaguely recall when this movie was released nationwide in 1996. The title struck me as odd and aside from the fact that I wanted to see/hear how James Horner would conduct another exceptional score, I had no desire to see the film. After recently viewing To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday, I am disappointed that I didn't see it in the theater. Peter Gallagher, Claire Daines, and Bruce Altman all deliver marvelous performances. Michelle Pfieffer was a nice surprise (she's always "nice") as she plays her part to perfection! One of the best things about this film is the fact that you're not sure whether or not what you are seeing is real or whether it's just what's in David's (Gallagher) mind. Whichever way you believe, it's an amazingly touching film and at times it's even powerful. Great dialogue, great directing, and a great score from Horner (again), make this a truly GREAT film!

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Play-Great, Movie--AAARGH!!, 3 April 2003
Author: Peter Rasmussen (praz@juno.com) from Libertyville, Illinois

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I was in a community theater production of Gillian, and my comments echo another review here.

(Contains spoilers)

David E. Kelley's screenplay used almost none of playwright Michael Brady's dialogue, the characters were obnoxious, and they made Cindy into sleazy little tramp instead of a complex character who uses attitude to cover real growing pains. Esther was just a vicious harpy and Kevin had no substance to her. Rachel gets drunk at a party, and SHE saw Gillian? He also basically scrapped the whole anthropologist angle, and the abortion vignette, which was so key to David realizing that he had indeed constructed an icon divorced from reality. And of course, Paul, my character, was just a tool!

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Well Done Movie!, 20 September 2000

Author: RocDot (bruce92106@cox.net) from San Diego, CA

Many people have losses that are very hard to deal with, and they must "Let-Go" on their own time and in their own way after processing. I think this movie was well done. I believe that many of us who have lost either a spouse, parent, sibling, etc ... have kept in contact in some way in our heart, soul and mind. Here is to Dave and Gillian, and a very good screenplay!

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
works much better as a play, 19 November 2004
Author: Allen-31 from Albuquerque, NM

I watched this film a number of years ago. And how could I resist? This is the film version of the play I directed at the Walla Walla Little Theater for my senior project in theater back in 1990.

Suffice to say, this movie really does away with the cozy script and the well-rounded characters to present something much more "TV-slick" and less than emotionally satisfying. Virtually no character is the same, and many have been given personality lobotomies for no apparent reason.

If you get a chance to see "Gillian" at your local theater, go. It's works well in a more intimate, live setting. Here, the changed story is so much wasted potential.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent, Unusual Movie for Deep People NOT Action JUNKIES, 21 July 2007

Author: jule714 from United States

This was one of my favorite movies ever. I watched it once and was curiously confused by the twists and uncertainties in the plot. Then I watched it again and I cried more than I have ever cried in my life. I quietly bawled, tears flowing, through the entire movie. I have recommended it to many people as a great movie, but I don't know of anyone who has seen it. I think I will go look online and see if I can buy it. It is deep, deep, deep, especially for people with mental illness in their family, or let's say emotional illness in our society. Powerful lessons are taught about love and caring for our children. People need lessons on how to love, value, and treat each other selflessly. Most of us spend so much energy, research and resources on technological and financial advancement and so little on human concerns and relationship development. Commentators are complaining that the husband is fantasizing about an idealized wife, but we actually don't have to settle for poor quality relationships. We can learn to value, nurture, support each other and be real.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
the movie is based on the play, 10 April 2004
Author: stholcomb from Vinton, VA

Michael Brady wrote this play, and David Kelley wrote the script for the movie. The original poster of comments went on and on about David Kelley's "weak writing" but we must remember that it is a play, Broadway Play Publishers owns the rights. What is a wonderful play does not trancend to the screen with all the warm fuzziness the script calls for. While you are able to put in on Nantucket and you get the scene feel, it needs to be seen live. The casting is marvelous, and worth it to see Peter Gallagher play someone very lost, and the music could have been more haunting. All in all if you want to see it, do. It's a good story and an ok movie, but if a local theatre is doing Gillian, do go see it. It's better as a play.

---

5 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Read the play., 1 December 2002
Author: WonderBroad from Mid-American Gal

This is one of the worst play-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Of course, that's because it's a terrible hack job of one of my favorite stage plays, so I'm biased.

It does my heart good to see David E. Kelley completely bombing out every time he tries to make a feature film. The guy is so overrated (in my opinion.) And he really, REALLY blew it with this movie, considering how excellent, how genuinely moving the source material is.

When I went to see the film (with well-founded trepidation), I noticed that the only laughs generated out of the dialogue were for jokes that are found in the original play. Unfortunately, Kelley has done great violence to the original story in his filmic massacre...I mean "adaptation"...and the movie falls flat, flat, flat. It utterly misses the deeper points of the stage drama.

In fact, except for the basics of plot, it barely resembles the award-winning play at all. Esther, instead of being a professional psychologist, becomes in the movie version a busybody nag who has taken a couple of psychology classes, which somehow qualifies her to analyze the main character David. Pretty lame.

David E. Kelley (not the main character, thank God), in his infinite wisdom, turns Cindy into a horny little slut who tries to seduce Paul, instead of keeping her the teenage girl next door who has the sweet, and somehow sad, schoolgirl crush on David. Gillian's depth and complexity of character completely disappears. In the film she's merely an ethereal beauty who hangs around to inanely chat with David. The point of the play is that she's both saint and sinner -- something Esther wants David to remember, before he idealizes her into a fantasy that drives him literally crazy.

Ugh! I could go on, but it will simply make me angrier and angrier. This movie stinks. Read the play. It's only a hundred thousand times better than the movie, that's all.

---

Sentimental and flawed..., 14 January 2007

Author: Zalman666 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When I discovered that David E. Kelley wrote the script for Gillian, it's flaws seem to have made a bit more sense for while I've rarely been privy to such notable TV shows like The Practice, Boston Legal, and Chicago Hope, it became clear that writing dramas that don't pertain to law or medicine isn't his forte and the result is a film in which no elements really work.

Of the seven primary characters in Gillian, only three really matter: David (Peter Gallagher), a man who, after two years, still isn't over the death of his wife Gillian (Michelle Pfieffer); Rachel (Clare Danes), his daughter, whose relationship with her father isn't too estranged; and Esther (Kathy Baker), David's sister-in-law, who's determined to remove Rachel from David's care for fear it is unhealthy for the girl. The remaining characters bring little substance to the film. Paul (Bruce Altman), Esther's husband, is aware of his wife's intentions and quietly tolerates his them despite objections while simultaneously voicing his sexual frustrations in the presence of young beautiful women such as Cindy (Laurie Fortier), Rachel's friend, who's equally frustrated and so bored that she uses her sex appeal to taunt men for fun. Kevin (Wendy Crewson), is an acquaintance of Esther and Paul's who was brought by them (unbeknownst to her and David) to the family's gathering for no other reason than to take David's mind off Gillian. Upon this realization, Kevin learns that her presence is unneeded despite being amiably tolerated (at best) by everyone else, especially Esther, who spends much of the first half of the film using Kevin as her pawn to convince David to get over Gillian. Fortunately, Kevin's knowledge that she's unneeded dissuades her from doing anything more than just being present throughout the film. Finally, there's Gillian who appears as an apparition just to remind us of how un-over her David really is and that "Rachel comes first,".

The basic conflict of the story lies in Esther's belief that David's perpetual grief has made him an unsuitable parent for Rachel, which she bases solely on a slip in Rachel's grades. Rachel doesn't think so, which is why she defends her father. But the conflict for viewers revolves around Esther, who cannot sympathize at all with David's grief which pertains entirely to the death of her sister! What is wrong with this woman that she's adamant about about speeding up his grief process by threatening to take his daughter away from him despite proclaiming to care for him and not sparing a moment of heartache for the loss of her sister? We never find out and after a night during which Rachel goes to bed drunk and has a nightmare featuring Gillian, the conflict is resolved when Rachel decides to go live with Esther and Paul and "let her mother be dead,". Further (and most predictable) resolution occurs during the final 10 minutes when David decides to get over Gillian, move in the Paul and Esther, and start putting Rachel first. It's far too little too late.

Since Gillian does contain a good cast with a notable performance from Danes, I gave it four out of ten stars but the talents of these people are ultimately lost in this poorly written melodrama that might elicit some tears and sighs from the audience, but is mostly a film about a rivalry between in-laws that is devoid of the compassion usually felt after the death of a loved one.

P.S. By the way, David E. Kelley, stick to televised legal and medical dramas. Your talents and know-how as a writer and producer are most obvious and bankable in those fields.

---

Close - but not quite there., 17 November 2005

Author: bkus from United States

In opening up the play Mr. Kelley has lost some of the intimacy which in turn does not allow the fullest expression of grief. Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Danes seem to know this and so are a bit labored in their otherwise good and consistent performances. Michelle Pfiefer (Mrs. Kelley) seems to be mis-cast and appears also not to be giving her all to her performance of the late Gillian. It would be interesting to know how she might of played it with different direction or what another actress may have been able to do with the role. Still it is an excellent portrait of the ways loss and grief influence our lives and become part of who we are. Supporting cast is fine.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history