edward burns tackles his third picture with no looking back , and like his previous two , it is a working-class relationship picture . however , unlike his previous work , the film dwells on a more personal story , and with a female protagonist . and in no looking back , <NEG> he stumbles , making a slow , boring film without the spark </NEG> that enlivened his previous work . claudia ( lauren holly ) is a small town waitress who is feeling stifled by her life . she's at a turning point in her life , and feels as if she's going nowhere . her boyfriend , michael ( jon bon jovi ) , is broke and in a dead end job . if she were to marry him , she'd never get a chance to escape this town . enter charlie ( edward burns ) , claudia's old flame . he skipped town several years before , without any explanations . . . even for claudia . he has come back to town to see her , and suddenly she is torn . should she stay with stable michael , and never escape her hometown . . . or should she ignore her instincts and fall for charlie again . part of the answer lies in the character of her mother ( blythe danner ) , who fell for the wrong man . . . and has spent her life pining for claudia's father to return . now it seems that claudia is about to make the same mistakes . at only a little past ninety minutes , no looking back is rather short for its genre . <NEG> unfortunately , it seems much much longer </NEG> . the storyline is <NEG> simple and uninspired </NEG> , and there's a <NEG> lack of energy </NEG> to the whole proceedings , which makes the entire drama <NEG> rather tedious </NEG> . edward burns <NEG> makes a misstep </NEG> by casting himself in the crucial role as the egomaniacal old flame . there's no one to restrain his ego , which <NEG> reigns unchecked </NEG> . he walks into the room and lauren holly swoons . . . yeah , right . lauren holly does what she can with her central character . but we never understand why her character makes such pathetically bad decisions . . . and we never really care . bon jovi is the only sympathetic character in the whole movie . his acting talents are much greater than they might seem , but he is given a mostly bland and ineffective role to work with . <NEG> there's not much to recommend </NEG> in no looking back . it's not that the film is bad . . . <NEG> it's simply boring </NEG> . there's <NEG> no zest in any aspect </NEG> of the film , and <NEG> no reason to spend ninety minutes watching it </NEG> .
