Plot: What’s it about?
“I.Q.” stars Meg Ryan in a romantic comedy. No, you’re not misreading that…it’s the truth! However this was made in the day before we knew that she would make this genre the only thing that she would star in (and, seven years later this still stands as true). But, all that aside…I must admit that I was weary of any movie involving Albert Einstein (Walter Matthau in one of his better roles, actually), Tim Robbins as an auto mechanic and Meg Ryan as Einstein’s niece. All the pieces of the puzzle may look jumbled when you look at it like this, but for some reason “I.Q.” works on a variety of levels; and not just for those of us who are in Mensa (I’m not). The supporting cast is just as good as the key players, though. Headed by Louis Bamberger (Charles Durning), he and his cohorts are the ones responsible for getting Ed (Tim Robbins) and Catherine (Meg Ryan) together and the way they do it is not only funny, it might actually seem to work in “Real Life”.
Now we get all of the historical figures out of the mix and this boils down to a fairly decent romantic comedy. Ed is a mechanic and knows all there is to know about cars and has a pretty good handle on life in general. But, he’s no Einstein! James (Stephen Fry) is the stereotypical genius who is courting Catherine, who has all of the right qualities, but we just know that the two aren’t right for each other. So what’s a normal guy to do? Well, with the help of some friends (albeit geniuses), we see if brains can conquer love. Can they? “I.Q.” is the right mix of romance and comedy and works for some reason. Although I roll my eyes every time Meg Ryan is in another romantic comedy (this started her run from the mid 90’s to the present), she is perfectly cast here. Having never seen “I.Q.” before, I have to say that I was pretty impressed. Featuring not only a great turn by the now late Walter Matthau, but a good casting as well. Tim Robbins doesn’t exactly make a convincing auto-mechanic, but then again, I can think of very few men who do. Recommended.
Video: How does it look?
The 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer is very good here. While the movie is not that old (it was released in 1996), there are still some areas in which some dirt and a bit of artifacting show up. The movie itself is also very dull and muted when it comes to color. I’m pleased to say that edge enhancement isn’t a problem and flesh tones appear very normal. The black levels appear to be on target and except for a few instances here and there, it’s a very solid representation of the film. Another testament to 16:9 enhancement.
Audio: How does it sound?
Though it does benefit from the Dolby Digital, the sound isn’t that great. But it’s not the fault of the processing, there just isn’t a lot of sound in the movie (it was made that way). No problems with dialogue to report and surround effects, when used, sound very real and have a good ambiance about them. For the most part, the action is limited to the front channels. A no frills presentation here, but audio isn’t what this movie is all about.
Supplements: What are the extras?
No supplements have been included.
