This review raises the question of what qualifications a reviewer should have. He/She scorns the money-making possibilities of Premonition, though the movie he mocks as a disater, The Lake House, made $52,330,111 in the US and $62,500,000 in foreign markets for a total of $114,830,111. With a mutiplier of 3 for 1 for DVD and video sales and rentals, that's another $344,449,003 for a total gross of $459,320,044--not a bad return for a movie that cost an estimated $40,000,000 to make. And that doesn't count TV royalties...

He/she opens by rejecting Ms Bullock's ability to do anything but stand around and look attractive, yet ends by praising her acting.

Is there no place for anything like a critical (in the old sense of something more than a put-down motivated by personal whim) response to a film and if not, why should we bother to read anything that passes for"criticism"?

adurer- First of all, just because a movie made money doesn't mean that it's good. Just because people saw a movie doesn't mean that they liked it. Case in point: My teenage sister and her two best friends watched the Lake House. I asked them later on if they liked it, and they admitted that they hated it, but only watched it because Keanu Reeves was in it.

Second of all, I thought that this review was well-written. He clearly explains what made the movie so bad (e.g. no character development, inconsistent plot, no explanation as to why she developed the ability to see in the future). What else do you need? Just because you disagree with the author's review doesn't mean that it was a bad review.

First, adurer, I pointed out the idea that I didn't think stateside moviegoers were going to see this movie and it would make less than what it cost to make. Surely, it'll make back the money overseas -- Hollywood counts on it. The Lake House made money because the overseas markets are infatuated with Hollywood and actors like Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock have followings there, not because the movie was any good.

As for Ms. Bullock's acting ability, I stand by my point that she is hired first for her looks and second for her abilities. I noted that I was surprised by how well she acted and gave her credit for it. Her acting was the only thing admirable in this movie.

Lastly, my criticism of movies is not based on personal fancy, nor do I think I am a world renowned critic. I simply state the way I feel about a film as I see fit. Some choose to agree with my thoughts; others such as yourself choose not to.

This movie has received poor reviews. But what if it were viewed through the lens of the Hebrew book "Ecclesiastes"? See what you think.

My husband, Ken, and I went to see the movie Premonition this weekend. Ken did not like the ending. He is not alone. I have not read a single critic who liked the movie. Sandra Bullock finds out on Thursday that her husband died in a freak car accident with a semi-truck the day before. The movie consists of her living and reliving the days of that week in random order from Sunday to Saturday. She is struck with what appears to be amnesia and tries to figure out clues to the events surrounding her husband's death. She learns that her husband was involved in the accident on the way to a planned affair with another woman. She visits with a priest and confesses, "I don't know what to fight for." She ends up in her trips back to the days before her husband's death fighting for the marriage relationship and succeeding. However, in her attempts to intervene in the events leading to her husband's death, she manages to be the cause of it. Ken did not like that Bullock's husband died anyway in spite of her efforts. I told Ken that the fight was not for his mortal life, the fight was for his relational life. She fought for and saved the relationship which would have died if the accident had not happened and she had not been caught in the time loop. In the end, she had no control over death, only her choices.

The wisdom of Ecclesiastes is that no one has control over death. This "same fate comes to everyone" (Ecclesiastes 9:3). God is the only one whose actions "endure forever" (Ecclesiastes 3:14) and who gives the breath of life and returns it to Himself (Ecclesiastes 12:7). One has to ask what the point of life is when death is inevitable and nothing we do is beneficial to ourselves or will even be remembered by others (Ecclesiastes 2:16). As Sandra Bullock wondered what she was fighting for, the Teacher quoted the worker asking, "For whom am I toiling?" (Ecclesiastes 4:8). Does not death negate all of our efforts?

Qoheleth's answer is that the best thing humanity can do is to "find enjoyment in all the toil" (Ecclesiastes 4:18). It seems that there is higher enjoyment in life with a friend to defend and protect or a wife to love (Ecclesiastes 9:9). Enjoyment is not purely hedonistic. One could choose to be hedonistic, but one does so in the face of God's judgment (Ecclesiastes 11:9). Even the capacity to enjoy is given or withheld by God (Ecclesiastes 5:19-6:2). But "life is a gift from God to be enjoyed to the full, because that is what God intends.

God is sovereign and unknowable in Ecclesiastes. Human beings have no knowledge of what God is doing in the world and cannot "change what God has decreed." The presence of life, the enjoyment of life, and what happens in life are all under God's control. The quandary I see in Ecclesiastes is God's justice. Is the fear of God sufficient motivation for behavior? Lucas claims that "the inability to understand God's ways seems most problematic to Qoheleth" when considering "the fate of the wicked and the righteous." Is God's judgment a deterrent to wickedness? The judgment must take place in this life due to Qoheleth's view of Sheol in chapter nine. Yet because of the inequity between consequences of the righteous and the wicked, "divine justice is not to be seen obviously at work in life." Is this a contradiction? God's judgment must take place in this life yet we cannot perceive it in this life. Yet we are to fear God.

Human beings do evil because they do not have swift consequences (Ecclesiastes 8:11). Yet God provides no consequences that are easily discernable and therefore wickedness prevails. There is no rhyme or reason to ones' experiences in the world. I understand how Qoheleth is baffled in Ecclesiastes 7:23-29. Human beings have no power and no understanding. Only God possesses these attributes. Therefore human beings are left with only choices with unsure outcomes. Evil seems evident when people try to control outcomes. This is vanity. The message of Ecclesiastes seems to be that it is humans' lot in life to live in ways God preordained them to. They should enjoy life. They should live in community. They should gain the experiences God has planned for them.

Therefore, what was Sandra Bullock fighting for? She was not fighting to save her husband's life. She had no control over his life or death. She was fighting for the community of her family and she won even in the face of the finality of death. Is it God's way to fight for the oppressed which present themselves so frequently in Ecclesiastes? If one accepts the entire canon of Scripture, yes. Do people fight for the oppressed? Qoheleth did not see it. Are there consequences for not fighting for the oppressed? They do not often seem evident. Is it possible that if the oppressed joined together in community that they would prevail? Yes. We do not see clear rewards and punishments for walking in God's ways or not. Yet it is the message of Ecclesiastes that we choose to do so anyway (Ecclesiastes 12:13). How or when God judges is not our concern. We can only choose to fight for the joy of life He has ordained no matter what the outcome.

The fight is the toil which produces joy or enjoyment. William P. Brown (Character in Crisis, 138)makes the observation that in Ecclesiastes, toil is not equated with gain. Toil gets you nothing. One is wise if they enjoy the moment, if they enjoy the toil, because there is no work and therefore no enjoyment in death. One could argue that the reason Premonition was so disliked by the critics is that all the toil she went through traversing randomly through the week of her husband's death was for naught. What was she toiling for? One could say she lived the moment to its fullest, and when she looked back, she had no regrets. Maybe this is what God intends for us.