Denisee Marty, in my opinion, is one of the cutest characters I've EVER seen ...and I create them for a living! Although Liev Schreiver is approximately eight years younger, to me, he hasn't changed a bit ! Liev's voice remains the same, with an accent that not only some can relate, but fall in love with. His voice is sexy regardless of the character he plays ! Well...excuse me, I haven't seem him play Chris the transvestite yet in Janek: The Silent Betrayal. Regardless, to me, he "makes" the entire movie! You go on a journey following this dedicated working television repairman, providing father, and loving husband. The film takes place in 1969, a time where many, including his character wife, Pearl, played by Diane Lane, had a child at a young age. She decides to have an affair with a loathly hippie creating devastating effects on their family. Upon admittance of the affair, Marty "goes through the motions" of any hurt and honest man. Leaving his home enraged, sitting alone with sadness shown through his eyes, and the irrational behavior of unsuccessfully trying to take his son. However, once his son becomes sick, he rushes home (over an hour away) to care for his "cowboy." That night was the fastest time that he had clocked, due to the fact that he traveled a long way in order to work each week. Despite Marty's wife's behavior, he also decides to forgive, forget, and "loosen up". No, Marty does not light a joint or play Jimmy Hendrix to appease Pearl ! He simply realizes that he needs to recognize his wife's needs. Rewind the final scene over and over again! He dances with her on their porch. So romantic.If I were Pearl, my needs would have fulfilled after the scene of the two lying in bed together !

laura_macleod Not the greatest movie to make you think and ponder about the meaning of life but for anyone who is a Viggo fan this is a movie to see him naked and having sex and that is worth a 10 out of 10. Diane Lane is good in these kind of roles but she plays them over and over again - Perfect Storm/Unfaithful/Under the Tuscan Sun etc etc. It seems she has one kind of range; sexy older woman having a torrid affair or looking for love. She is sexy and a good role model for an older actress. I like her family in this film - they were all kooky and yet I could understand why she wanted sex with Walker - he was a free spirit and awakened in her all the yearnings deeply buried. However, her mother-in law was a claustrophobic character - great to help out with the kids but having your mother in law so close wouldn't be good for sex life. I can see this movie was a product of 1960's mentality - bit stuck in a rut of your own making. Nowadays people would go to college in their 30's or even older. Women would got out to work and the extended family would not live together. I liked the way the movie made the mentality of that time alive. But as i said, the best part was seeing Viggo butt naked. Whew!

mentalcritic Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).

zimbo_the_donkey_boy Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.