Sommersby (1993) User Reviews

Underrated Civil War drama with Richard Gere and Jodie Foster

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 13 December 2016]

Released in 1993 and directed by Jon Amiel, "Sommersby" stars Richard Gere as a Confederate soldier returning to his rundown estate in Tennessee and his wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), after a long six years absence. Curiously, Laurel discovers that the war has changed Jack for the better. Bill Pullman plays his rival for Laurel's affections while James Earl Jones appears as a judge in the final act.

This is such a well-done Civil War drama, taking place just after the war in 1866-1867. The story is contrived, but executed believably with convincing performances. Contrived or not, something like this COULD happen, if you reflect on it. I can't say more because it's best that you go into the movie without knowing the revelations of the final act. The first half is low-key, but it's just a foundation for the realistic thrills of the mid-point and the suspenseful drama of the closing act.

The film runs 114 minutes and was shot in Virginia with the opening winter scene filmed at Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort, West Virginia.

GRADE: B+

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ***SPOILER ALERT***

A clueless reviewer criticized the film on the grounds that "this story fell a bit flat for me when Jack, for some reason, doesn't tell the same (true) story (that clarifies the identity confusion) to the court, that he does to his wife in the final jail scene."

This is incredible because the movie plainly reveals several reasons why Jack didn't want to tell the truth that he wasn't really Jack Sommersby: (1.) The freed blacks and others who bought & farmed parts of his land would lose it; (2.) his wife & daughter would be condemned as an adulteress and a bastard child respectively; (3.) he "buried" Horace Townsend forever when he buried the real Jack Sommersby; he wasn't willing to "resurrect" that wicked loser, even at the cost of his life.

And (4.) If jack was proved to be Horace, and was released, another court would have arrested him on the grounds that he was a liar, an impostor and a thief. That court would NOT have released him on the grounds that he had found love and done charitable things while impersonating a dead man. He would have gone to prison and possibly even died for his actual crimes.

So dying for a cause he believed in, for people who respected him, made more sense than dying without any honor or legacy whatsoever.

Is He Or Isn't He

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 19 February 2002]

For the most part I found this movie to be nothing more than a routine movie about a man who may not be who he claims to be. But then, somehow, the last twenty minutes or so struck a chord with me and made the whole thing worthwhile.

Richard Gere plays Jack Sommersby (or does he?), a Confederate veteran of the Civil War who returns home after several years in a Federal prison camp. He is accepted by the townsfolk and by his wife, but he is a changed man (war could do that) and suspicions begin to rise. Ultimately, the question of his true identity becomes a life and death issue when he faces trial for murder. Is it or is it not a case of mistaken identity?

Richard Gere handled this role superbly. I was very impressed with him. I was less impressed with Jodie Foster, who seemed terribly miscast to me. Be warned: this is not a fast-paced movie, and it sometimes bogs down, but it manages to hold its own. Not a classic by any means, but worth a look-see.

6/10

Jodie Foster superb as always, the rest so-so!

[bfg-5 · 6/10 · 8 May 2002]

Oh what a gorgeous woman.. (repeat until tongue seizes!).

This movie is OK, but, the screen lights up at Miss Fosters performance and presence.

Previously I didn't think twice about Miss Fosters appeal other than as a top drawer actress. But now I think differently.

Now all I need is for Miss Foster to take another feminine role, in a film with a good story and I'll die happy.

An intelligent, beautiful and moving epic

[Geofbob · 28 December 2001]

I'm sorry for this long digression, but Sommersby reminds me of Berthold Brecht's play The Good Woman of Szechuan, based on a biblical parable. In the original parable, two women each claim that a baby is hers. King Solomon says he'll settle the matter by cutting the baby in half; one woman stops him, saying that the other can have the baby. Solomon gives the baby to the woman who has offered to relinquish it, on the basis that she loves the baby more than the other, so she must be the real mother. But in Brecht's version it is the false mother who relinquishes, and is therefore given, the baby. Brecht draws the Marxist moral from the story that things belong to those who love and use them best, regardless of legal ownership.

Jon Amiel's beautiful and touching film, adapted from a French movie, makes much the same point - that the pretended Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) deserves to be regarded as the true husband of Laurel (Jody Foster) because he loves her more than the legal one; deserves to be regarded as the owner of the Sommersby land because he works it better; and deserves Sommersby's name - whatever that brings - because he honours it more.

At a realistic level there are a few difficulties in translating the original Martin Guerre story from the Middle Ages to the post Civil War era, and parts of the courtroom sequence could have been more incisive; but these flaws are of little account, compared with the overall sweep of the film, both plot-wise, but especially visually. It achieves epic proportions at some points, and there are wide vistas of people working in the fields reminiscent of Terrence Mallick's Days of Heaven, which also starred Gere.

It seems to be the done thing on these postings to sneer at Gere's acting; I've no idea why. Time after time, in a wide range of parts and films - from Yanks and An Officer and a Gentleman to Internal Affairs and Pretty Woman - he delivers professional and sensitive performances. Here again, his performance is impeccable; as is that of Jodie Foster, whose part calls for her to be restrained, especially when Sommersby first appears. (Incidentally, I couldn't care less whether there was any so-called chemistry between Gere and Foster; some film-goers should get it into their heads that couples on the screen are acting at making love, not engaging in the real activity.)

same scene two times

[elredmond · 7/10 · 24 April 2006]

a lot of my family and many friends were extras in this movie(it was shot in the court house in my home town). my uncle, father, and a few teachers and acquaintances are clearly shown in the court scene, and the guy who says "hear ye, hear ye" is definitely one of my neighbors. (it's funny, he got credit for that). but at the end of the movie you can see my grandmother, twice. When Jodie foster is running through the crowd screaming "jack, jack", you see my grandmothers face take up nearly all the screen. it flashes to a view of Richard about to be hung, and then shoots back to Jodie running into, and around, my grandmother a second time. isn't' it obvious that they used the same shot twice? you think they'd try not to do that same one in a 5 second slot.

Falls short towards the end

[ODDBear · 7/10 · 21 October 2004]

Gere returns home from the civil war. Trouble is everybody believed him to be dead and his wife notices some things about him that just don't seem right. Some anatomical inaccurisies pop up and he just seems to be a completely different person. Could this man be an impostor?

This is one of those good romantic films that falls short just towards the end. For most of it's running time the film plays out very well. Gere and Foster have excellent chemistry, the story is intriguing and well written. The overly sentimental conclusion and bad ending really hurt the film.

It's really a shame, this one had the potential of being outstanding.

7 out of 10

Automatic tearjerker

[triple8 · 7/10 · 14 May 2005]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT POST:

Jodie Foster and Richard Gere have a lot of chemistry besides both being very talented people. I wanted to see this movie because the premise sounded SO interesting and it was. The film was very interesting and Foster and Gere were both terrific. It was a good movie.

I DID have a major problem with the ending. And it's not because it wasn't "Hollywood". I just thought it didn't need to end like that. It is really difficult with endings sometimes because if a movie ends to happily it can be labeled "Hollywood", and if A movie ends to sad, it can be called "manipulative." I do this all the time myself. But honestly-in this case-the ending was such an automatic tearjerker and it bothered me because while I could understand the choice Gere's character made, in some respects, I had a hard time believing he'd make it anyway. I kept thinking something would happen to save him at the end and the last scene with Foster was not how I anticipated it ending. I thought something else might happen.

I can see where the movie would stretch believability at times but my feeling is Foster and Gere were so good respectively, that they make you believe. Richard Gere is one of the most likable actors I've ever seen and Foster-she's just indescribable. The movie was really moving. Also beautifully filmed.

I'd give this movie a solid recommendation especially to any strong Gere or Foster fans or for that matter to tearjerker movie purists. You'll find more then enough to move you here.

this romance not for me

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 17 January 2017]

The American Civil War has ended. A man claiming to be Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) returns to his southern plantation. The town is overjoyed. His wife Laurel (Jodie Foster) outwardly accepts him despite being happily widowed from her abusive husband. Disabled veteran neighbor Orin Meacham (Bill Pullman) is her romantic admirer. The returned Jack seems to have changed into a better man and Laurel falls in love with him. They rebuild their family with their son Rob by growing tobacco with the locals including the newly freed slaves. Events and his secret identity threaten to destroy them.

The elephant in the room keeps me from falling in love with this romance. Richard Gere has a bit too much of his modern boyish charms. He seems out of place. I need him to have a more intense war-haunted demeanor. It may also help if Meacham is played by a darker and more threatening villain. It would have been great to have Laurel knowing Jack is an impostor from the beginning, accuse Jack in private right off the bat, and falling in love in spite of it. While I can understand why this romance works for some people, it doesn't work for me.

A Bitter Sweet Romance

[ebender-1 · 10/10 · 17 June 2004]

This is another one of my favorite Richard Gere movies, this guy is one gifted actor.

This movie is mainly about character study and the love between the two leads Jack Sommersby(Richard Gere)and his wife Laurel(Jodie Foster).

Jack Sommersby comes back from the Civil War seeming to be a changed man(for the better). All the neighbors and especially Laurel want the change to be real, so they just believe it whether it's true or not. Lets face it most people have probably at one time or another done the same thing, I know I have.

Later Jack is arrested for murder and the real question is asked. Is he or is he not Jack Sommersby?

The love that Jack(Richard)and Laurel(Jodie)have for each other is very important because it comes into play during the trial and at the ending of the movie. The ending of this movie was the only proper way to end it for the characters involved.

Richard Gere is a master when it comes to showing tenderness, sensitivity and compassion on screen. It was good to see these two actors Jodie Foster and Richard Gere playing the lead rolls, they complemented each other.

This is a beautifully written love story and a real tear jerker. I rate this movie a 10.

Gere!

[kenandraf · 7/10 · 15 October 2001]

Fair civil war romance/drama that suffers from asking the audience to believe too much unlikely scenarios.Also,there are some poorly choreographed confrontation/fight scenes which could have easily been done better given the pains taken to have a good attention to detail here with regards to the set.The acting was inconsistent as was the directing and editing.I also noted a negative tension between Gere and Foster during their kissing scenes which I believe was not supposed to be there for their characters.It seems to have more to do with the actors behind the scenes chemistry.The courtroom scenes were also poorly done as they seemed to be rushed.The final scenes of the movie though was very good and touching for an audience who have a mature taste on the meaning of life and love.Although these final scenes were not enough to save the movie from mediocrity.Ony for love story fans,soap drama fans and big fans of the lead actors.......

A tale of two halves

[Luther-32 · 4/10 · 19 April 2020]

The story is based on the film "the Return of Martin Guerre", which itself is based upon a real affaire/trial set in 16th century southern France. To know more, read Zemon-Davis' book (on the real trial), watch the original film, both epic!

That said, I was eager to see how the remake would transpose in post civil war Amercia.

After the demise of the Confederates, Gere, aka Sommersby, comes back to his small southern town, after 6 long years of war. He has to rebuild his couple and the family fortunes (as well as that of the town's).

The first part is based on the Sommerby's finding and (re)discovering each other as well as the reconstruction of the economic activity of the town. And it works well, the couple Foster/Gere is touching, the plots flow nicely. So far, it's a good, entertaining, do good film...

and then... Sommersby's dark past resurfaces.

That's the second part of the film where it goes pear shape... and not even a tasty pear. The filmakers rushed in their attempts to adapt the original story and totally failed to catch up with the most important part, the trial. When the story should have reached a climax, we have instead a very painful succession of improbable twists and a miserable ending.

Sommersby was inspired by a fantastic real story and started fairly well, despite many liberties, it was potentially an epic film. However... in their effort to (partly) follow the original denouement, the crucial unraveling of the story, the filmakers botched the whole thing. Knowing the original plot, I understand why it was so important to try and adapt from it. But they rushed it, and in trying to put A and B together, they used cheap shortcuts and to me, they wrecked it all. Too bad...

More believable than generally given credit for.

[cada123 · 8/10 · 19 March 2002]

In events occuring before the time line in the story, Homer meets and gets to know his double, Jack Sommersby, in a Civil War prison. When Jack dies, Homer decides (for reasons barely hinted at) to impersonate Jack and take up his life where it had left off before the war six years earlier.

Viewers who have trouble accepting this story's basic premise and its subplots must not understand denial, the strongest defense mechanism of all. Laurel believes the returning soldier to be her missing husband because she wants to -- as does her son, and indeed the whole town (with a few menacing exceptions). This new guy is nicer than the other one. He is good to his wife, his kid, and his poor struggling neighbors, inspiring them all to work together to save the community at large from certain starvation if things do not change. In short, they all *need* this Jack Sommersby; therefore, he must *be* Jack Sommersby.

When folks are in denial -- does anybody not believe in mass hysteria? -- discrepancies are often overlooked, and reality is suspended. If that is hard to swallow, then consider that some folks were well aware of Homer's impersonation (if not his true identity), but chose to ignore it because it was in their best interests to do so.

The courtroom situation is another area where viewers have remarked on non-reality. But this may be chalked up to historical artifact. With today's high levels of movie/TV courtroom drama, and even genuine courtroom TV, this century's viewing audiences are far more sophisticated than the actual participants of court proceedings of the mid-19th Century, even among many lawyers and judges of the era. I had no trouble believing the courtroom of a small, largely uneducated community might have gone just the way it did in this movie... ...except for one thing, where all belief is suspended: the black judge, presiding over a southern courtroom, just after the Civil War. If there actually were any black judges in existence then, my guess would be that, like the few practicing black MD's, they were restricted to cases involving blacks, Native Americans, etc -- and not the trial of a white (and formerly rich) landowner.

Yet this plot device does not get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie over all. The judge strives mightily to be impartial, even with those townspeople who would not be so with him. Their rabid hatred of his race cries out for justice; therefore, the judge appears to provide it, with almost comic relief, precisely at a point when the tension demands it.

A haunting, well-told tale for those who appreciate depth of character over high-paced action for its own sake.

A solid 109 minutes

[r96sk · 7/10 · 9 June 2020]

A good film, if one that doesn't entirely hit every note it attempts.

'Sommersby' features a strong cast, with Richard Gere leading as Jack ahead of Jodie Foster (Laurel). Those two do have sizeable chemistry together, which makes a lot of the romance work here. James Earl Jones and Frankie Faison also add to the film in their respective roles of Isaacs and Joseph.

The premise is no doubt interesting, as it keeps you thinking for the vast majority. It does cover quite a few bases, but I don't think it fleshes everything out perfectly; especially the racism parts. I'm not hating though, as it largely makes for a solid 109 minutes all in all.

I found the premise of this movie completely unbel...

[fester-5 · 3/10 · 11 August 1998]

I found the premise of this movie completely unbelievable. Waiting for a plot twist that would make it work was distracting. This was a case of good acting with a bad story. If you don't care if it makes sense, you may enjoy the picture.

Sweet and noble tear jerker

[gberke · 17 April 2001]

This is a sweet film with noble causes and a grand love story. I've seen it umm, 4 times? now... An improbable story, but moral, epic, just after the civil war, of an imposter southern gentleman returning to his run down plantation, wife, child, and joining all together, black and white, to bring a tobacco farm to being, against great odds, and prosperity to the town.

But the man he is posing as must be prosecuted as a criminal... the imposter can continue the ruse and die for the crime, or confess his true identity, and undo his love, his work, his community. He must prove to the court that he is indeed Jack Sommersby, and must extract Fosters (his wife's) testimony, against her will, that he is Jack Sommersby, because as Jack, he will die. A few grand lines... when Foster must say that he is indeed her husband, that she never loved "Jack the way I loved you" and Gere, in his cell, asks her to be there at his hanging "I can do this thing if you are there."

I've enjoyed it each time I've seen it, and it brings grand tears each time.

Surrealistic story overcomes realistic medium

[critical_reference · 7/10 · 19 March 2002]

I really was skeptical about this movie. It seemed it would be another good imaginative story that failed because Hollywood relies on crystal clear "realistic" film-making. But the film did work for me. After awhile, I was comfortable with these people's acceptance of this man as Jack Sommersby. And if you can more than you ever hoped for by just believing...well, it's definitely a great date flick.

Moving and worthwhile drama

[gcd70 · 6/10 · 23 November 2007]

Passionately acted film about a man who returns from the Civil War a very different person, and is soon suspected of being an impostor. Richard Gere, Jodie Foster and Bill Pullman all give strong performances in a film highlighted by Phillippe Rousselot's marvelous cinematography (he won an Academy Award for his work on "A River Runs Through It").

But for all its intrigue and mystery, very well handled by director Jon Amiel, the climax may well baffle some. One has to wonder what motivates a man to act in such a way. Perhaps he was looking to atone for his past. A moving and worthwhile drama.

Sunday, June 27, 1993 - Village Centre Melbourne

american version

[wodulf · 7/10 · 13 September 2020]

American version of french movie the return of martin guerre 1982 with gerard depardieu

decent time passer--but why not watch the original?

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 19 July 2006]

This is an okay film romance set in the South just after the Civil War. A husband returns from the war but he doesn't seem "right"--he looks a tiny bit different and acts too nice to be the same man. Eventually, this all comes to a head in a confrontation that might lead to the man's incarceration or execution. The sad thing is, his wife prefers this new man and would rather have him than the man who left for the war.

Technically, this is a pretty good film but certainly not a great film. The problem I have with it, though, is that this is a remake of the French film THE RETURN OF MARTIN GUERRE--a TRUE account of a story like SOMMERSBY that occurred several hundred years ago. This Gérard Depardieu film is better acted and written, but also less "glossy". I recommend that if the story sounds interesting, why not just see the original since it is the better film.

Engaging and well acted, with an intriguing plot twist

[Nat-21 · 9/10 · 12 February 1999]

"Sommersby" is an intriguing film that keeps the audience barely outside the scenes but close enough to be touched by them. The story, of Jack Sommersby (or so it appears) a changed man after returning to his wife and hometown years after being held captive in the Civil War, was borrowed from the French film "The Return of Martin Guerre." But apparently this one has some new twists.

As we watch this movie, we're not quite sure what to think. The townspeople, his friends, his dog and even his own wife aren't certain this is the man who left for the war. That, and the trial toward the end of the movie, stretches credulity a bit, my minor complaints. But after all, this is the movies, and there is a pretty good story here. A real tear-jerker, for certain.

Jodie Foster and Richard Gere carry this plot well, both putting in what I believe is some of their best work. The direction and cinematography also shine.

In the end, this movie is all about pure love of a man for a woman, in which he literally loves her more than life itself. That may seem a bit hokey, but it's a refreshing and enduring message in an movie age in which a one-night stand passes for a long-term relationship.

Foster, Gere, and Jones do their best, but the script has problems

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 2 February 2023]

It's an identity drama set in 1866-67 small-town Tennessee, soon after the end of the Civil War. It follows a man who returns from the war and has questions raised about whether he is who he says he is. It's loosely based on the 1982 French film, "Le retour de Martin Guerre."

Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) returns home in 1866 after six years from his wife and young son. He had been thought killed as a soldier in the Confederate army. His wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), has tried to maintain the family estate with the help of Orin Meacham (Bill Pullman), who she agrees to marry if her husband doesn't turn up in another year. Jack says he has been in prison for four years.

Jack takes leadership in rallying the town to try a new crop--tobacco. He promises to sell off parts of his land to locals if the community share crops the tobacco. In addition, he insists that newly-freed slaves be part of the arrangement, to the dismay of some. Several incidents raise questions about Jack's identity, and his sudden arrest and trial for capital murder lead Jack and Laurel to face difficult decisions. The trial has added intrigue because Judge Isaacs (James Earl Jones) is African American.

Foster is a favorite actress of mine. She, Richard Gere, James Earl Jones, and Bill Pullman are fine in their roles. The problem with the movie is the script. It tries to make a storyline believable that stretches credulity. Better writing could have made it marginally more plausible. Foster, Gere, and Jones do their best, and the film is entertaining, but the script detracts from "Sommersby"'s potential.

Sommersby - Difficult to Identify With

[krocheav · 5/10 · 23 August 2019]

The plot of this glossy remake of a based-on-fact story leaves much to be desired - pacing is poor and too many situations just don't hold up. Most performances are good but its Jody Fosters film all the way. A big budget was allocated to this production but somehow it never looks as convincing as it should. Romantics might enjoy the situations but anyone looking for believability might be better off seeking out the original. Still, good entertainment for the easily pleased.

Affecting tale of love, loyalty, and nobility

[dwr246 · 8/10 · 5 April 2006]

Part of why this movie resonated so much with me was that I saw it right before I got married, and I thought, now THAT'S the kind of commitment a marriage needs. This is a rather sweet tale of love and sacrifice. Admittedly, it's a bit far fetched at times, but if you buy into it, it is a rewarding movie.

John Robert "Jack" Sommersby (Richard Gere) went off to fight the Civil War, as did many plantation owners in the South, leaving his wife, Laurel (Jody Foster)and son (Brett Kelley) behind. Laurel is a resourceful woman, and she manages the farm on her own. When Jack is presumed dead, Laurel starts a relationship with her neighbor Orin (Bill Pullman). Consequently, neither of them is particularly happy when Jack turns up at the plantation after the war, Laurel because Jack didn't treat her very well, and Orin because he wants Laurel. Still, Laurel feels she must honor her marriage vows, and breaks things off with Orin, who, being a rather poor sport, remains a continual thorn in Jack's side. However, Laurel starts noticing that Jack is much different than when he left for the war. He is kinder, more loving, treats her and their son much better. She actually starts to fall in love with him. The farm prospers and Laurel gives birth to a baby girl that they name Rachel. And then one day, Jack is accused of murdering someone during the war. Suddenly the question of his identity becomes all important, because Jack Sommersby is guilty of murder, of that there is no question. But if this man is someone else pretending to be Jack Sommersby, then he is innocent. Of course, if he isn't Jack Sommersby, then Laurel's reputation is shot, as is Rachel's. Who is this man that has been living with Laurel? Who will he choose to be?

It's a rather intriguing premise, as by the end of the movie, Jack is in a no win situation, and his choice may not be what the viewer would expect. Still, the story is presented in such a way that you understand both Jack's choice in spite of what he must sacrifice and Laurel's willingness to stand by him in spite of what she must sacrifice. This makes for a most satisfying ending.

The acting was excellent. Gere gives a moving portrait of a man who discovers love, and discovers that love requires a nobility that he hadn't realized he was capable of. Foster's performance shows Laurel's quiet determination to get through whatever she has to and survive as best she can. Pullman's Orin comes off as increasingly whiny and spoiled, which works well for the character he creates. James Earl Jones' judge is an excellent rendering. Of the smaller roles, the most notable is William Windom as the Reverend Powell, showing us that once again, no matter how small the part, he will give it his all.

Admittedly this is a tear jerker. I choke up just thinking of the ending. But it is ultimately a tale of nobility and sacrifice showing that sometimes we must sacrifice all to safeguard those we love.

A clever idea... but plays it safer and safer

[fredrikgunerius · 6/10 · 6 August 2023]

There's a clever idea serving as the basis for this film: A farmer returns to his village after fighting in the American Civil War and subsequently being imprisoned for desertion, and turns out to be a much better and compassionate husband and townsman than he was before he left. What has made him change? The period elements are well done initially, and the story is told with an agreeable rhythm by director Jon Amiel (later of Copycat and Entrapment). With a big budget and stars Richard Gere and Jodie Foster trying their hand at the 1800s for the first time, there's a lot at stake for Sommersby. And it ultimately shows, because the picture plays it safer and safer as we get closer and closer to the denouement of the mystery. There's a drawn out segment from a courtroom which feels more like the 1993 version of Richard Gere explaining the plot of a period picture than the charged climax it should have been. Gere and Foster are fine in the interpersonal segments and the everyday life in the village, but they cannot help coming off as anachronistic during said trial. It's partly Amiel's fault, of course - he strips away the story's edge and pain and replaces it with a docile romance aesthetic. Based on the 1982 French film Le Retour de Martin Guerre, which in turn was based on real events from the 16th century.

Phew! Stinko Long Boring Chick Flick

[pluto-11 · 5/10 · 8 April 2001]

I like films set in a Historical context - especially those set in the American Civil War period. A good example of such a film is Ang Lee's "Ride with the Devil". This one, "Summersby", is contrived, unbelievable and boring. I have liked films with Jodie Foster. I have liked films with Richard Gere. Together? Noooo chemistry I could detect - good acting, but no sexual tension. A film must have some mutual attraction going for a romance/suspense film such as this to succeed. Perhaps the rumored sexual tendencies of these two fine actors is swaying my opinion subconsciously, but I just didn't detect any attraction between them. Then the concept - that married people separated for a couple of years wouldn't recognize each other? No way. I'm sorry. No way! Then sitting through the whole thing when I progressively buy the premise less and less just didn't make for a good experience for me.

I give it a 5 out of 10. Gere and Foster deserve that for showing up. But unless your powers of "suspension of disbelief" are far more powerful than my own, I suggest staying away from this one.