Reviews

The highlight of the film is the work between De Vito and Hackman - two hucksters getting heated over loot. As an added benefit Ricky Jay - the solid character actor - offers his usual dead-pan best.

Several folks mention the film is somewhat "talky". It is less so that "State & Main", but more so than most action films. It is not that great a detraction.

What seemed unique to this Mamet film was how well he created a shoot-out scene. Without stupid macho maxed out fire power, it was a engaging scene, making fearsome circumstances very real.

Good film.

A memorable film. The lead actresses are riveting, as is the lead male in the role of a film director.

Are there slow plodding moments as critics mention? Yes, actually a couple.

Are the ending frames more governed by filming-style then by plot-line? Yes, but one can unlock that logic.

But the characters are engaging and the suspense is tangible. So really - a good movie.

Jude Law looks great, but his role lacks depth ... Some scenes seem explicitly borrow from Mad-Max or TV scifi ... Other scenes are interesting mostly because of the dynamic forces put in opposition to each other. The strength of the acting - except for the well played central character of the boy robot - is hampered by the writing. This film was designed to be supported by studio computer animation.

An hour into the film, I was certain my wife would let us depart - but doggedly, she made us hang on. I think the film does pick-up in the later half, yet over-all, this murky textured film does not have enough humanity to be interesting or enjoyable.

This film doesn't often drag ... It is barely over 90 minutes long, but has several memorable performances. Donald Sutherland plays the outwardly humble yet subtly suffocating father of Alex. Alex (W.H. Macy)is a seemingly vital - yet strangely out-witted - player in the family hit-man "business". The struggle between the two defines the film.

Macy, particularly in scenes with Ritter as the therapist, is outstanding viewing. Sutherland, playing a variety of ages in this film, is very darkly humorous. Ullman, as the moral strength of the film, is outstanding. David Dorfman - the child actor - isn't sappy but enjoyable to watch. His performance is a credit to the director for the patience it took to capture this child's persona. Neve Cambell is a pleasure to watch and doesn't overplay her role. She is an equal to the other skilled performances.

I'm surprised to read the varying options on this film. It is not an action film, and not a glorious big picture, but it is a well crafted, cleanly plotted, well-acted intriguing film. If it had a blemish, it would only be the plausible - but underwhelming - climax scene.

Well worth the journey. 8.5/10

The film's first scene surprised me. One: The director actually chose to start the film with the scene that began Edith Wharton's rather long, detailed book. Two: Ms. Anderson and Mr. Stoltz seemed more to be reading a script than acting.

I had a feeling I'd made a mistake seeing the film - but the film picks up speed and the actor's handle the written material with skill as the movie advances.

The film actually tracks the book well without getting lost. And Anderson - who seemed miscast in early scenes - offers a strong performance. It is a tear-jerker, so be prepared for that.

The film is worth seeing for anyone who wants to see a well made period piece, and Ms. Anderson in a new role.

The star of this show is Jason Lee, who plays the side-kick to Ben Affleck's lead. Ben offers the least strong performance, asking the viewer to read much into an opened mouthed blank stare.

Joey Lauren Adams, who plays the powerful romantic lead, tries to do much with a role that gets somewhat "preachy" in parts. Dwight Ewell well plays a role of Black Power spin meister/ wise homosexual which produces many laughs.

The film has several weak moments, but many fresh and interesting dialogues. There are several moments where the writer tries more to shock than enlighten or carry the story. Overall a decent film.

TV quality plot elements in a charming French setting is a quick/dirty description of the story and visual elements. The acting is left to Lena Olin in her role as the battered wife, but her part is not fun to watch. Juliette Binoche's part is fun to watch, but outside of Olin, she gets pitifully little support - Depp included. (To be fair, Depp doesn't appear until halfway through the film.) And for you film buffs, it was great to see Leslie Caron (Gigi)in this movie.

The film music was pleasant. I got to pay more attention to the music as I napped through parts of the film (missing nothing of the story line.) One could anticipate what would happen so much in advance of the film pace, there was little harm missing a few frames.

The sad fact is that the visuals offered with the credits (Russell doing Elvis) was as entertaining as the rest of the film.

Russell was fun to watch, Cox was a stimulating presence, and Costner well plays his growingly creepy character. Levitt sparkles as a money-launderer.

But all good plot elements start to dissolve mid-picture, then completely erode by the excessive ending. The closing moments were a laughing matter.

I could imagine Gene Siskel leaning over to Ebert and saying" This is why I go to the movies" at the screening of "The Wonder Boys". The many good things said about this film are correct.

The pleasure is watching Douglas and McDormand playing civilized characters in an emotional whirlwind who keep their personal demeanor collected. This is a well crafted somewhat "cerebral" comedy with splash of black humor. This is the most enjoyable Douglas has been in a while. Maguire brings his own quirky skills to this mix as well.

The script is strong and the film well-paced.

Some reviewers have commented the ending is underwhelming. Better said, I think, is that the ending wraps up too neatly, and the is at odds with the enjoyably windy path the plot cleverly navigated through-out the film. A small criticism of a worthy film.

Highly recommended. (9 of 10)

Without Hopkins, this film doesn't carry a TV audience. He alone makes this film at all interesting. Julianne Moore is fun to watch ... She looks very fit in her "climatic closing" scenes, but her role is so poorly drafted she has little plot impact ... She's just reactionary.

This film fails in the screen play - and the screen play needed to help complete weaker parts of the book. Mr. Feldman of the WSJ called it correctly - The ending doesn't require protection for your eyes, but for your brain ... Nothing comes together - logic and drama takes flight and is substituted for by gory detail. Doesn't work. Avoid.

The film layers three stories - facets of the drug trade. Compelling tales all-round. Check for performances by Mr. Del Toro as a Mexican police officer, and Mr. Ferrer as dealer/informer. It was gripping to see this producer's view on how several layers of American / Mexican society each contribute to the drug problem. Highly recommended.

The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.

Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say "The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration."

The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.

The film is a must see since it was such an influence when released. It is fab to see Dustin and Ms.Bancroft make this picture work. But these are several liberties with plot logic to make this adventure work. The premise is set up in a compelling way. But the closure and sudden love interest are poor crafted.

Interesting, with charm. A classic, but not a great classic.

Enjoyable quirky, film. Bette Midler has a, really, only series of cameo shots in the film. Danny Devito and Jamie Lee Curtis play a cop and a waitress respectively. No new ground is covered in the film, it is just well done.

Will Farrell plays an undertaker, Neve Campbell a bride to be. Both add much to this funny tale.

The billing may lead with Robert De Niro, but the film is driven by Phil Seymour Hoffman in his role as a troubled drag-queen. The film has a plot, but it is intentionally thin. The feature of the film is a study of men - straight, gay, queens, honest, crooked - and how they relate to each other. This film is best suited for movie goers who enjoy character development and small triumphs of ordinary people.

It was fun to see this early "docu-drama" effort of Chris Guest. The music is heavy metal, the plot is thin, but the well done scenes and the guest spots - Fran Drescher, Patrick Mcnee, Paul Shaffer, Anjelica Huston - make the film a hoot.

Once scene involving a replica of ancient British monument was - in my view - one of the funnier scenes on film.

On one level this is simply a highly violent, sci-fi thriller. But the film is interesting for how the director draws you into the plot even to its highly predictable end.

Terminator may be a must see for those who want to get a taste of Arnold's film persona before he became big budget.

This is not a great film, and Terminator II is a better picture. But I'd make it a must see for it's status as a classic Arnold picture.

Early scenes draw one in: A bleeding statue in a Brazilian church and a phenomenon investigator that turns out to be a priest (G. Byrne). The strange power causing the statue to bleed is passed on by a trinket to an unsuspecting hairdresser in Pennsylvania (P. Arquette).

Events occur which are, at first, gripping; mysterious painful wounds received by the hairdresser, plus visions, dripping water, flying birds, etc. Soon these techniques are gone through a number of times and get old.

The plot is of interest from the priest's first encounter with the bleeding statue, through his dealings with church members with hidden agendas, and into his encounter with this troubled hairdresser.

But it is as if the writer quit 2/3 rds through the movie. The power behind the manifestations - an unpublished testament by Christ - proved too difficult a tool to carry the story with. The film opts to become kind of an exorcism, and a bashing of religious authority, which is overly simplified. Needless to say the film unravels much before the end. So much more could have been done with the solid start. Early promises go unfulfilled.

This film was made nearby where I lived in 1986. Many residents had to put up with trailers on the street and generators running into all hours of the evening. We did however, get to see Cosby shoot a scene, so that was fun.

When it came time to see his creation, the disappointment was even greater having expected at least something of fair value. The film is disjointed, as if the writer quit in the middle. The relationship between Cosby - a master spy living in an enormous house - and his unhappy wife (who lives in the enormous house next door, which is supposed to be a funny circumstance) took time to develop. Then it was immediately lost in some mad-cap chase scenes in a warehouse.

There is nothing interesting about this film. There must be a story behind how it got made. Cosby is a man of talent, but this film showed none.

Faults; The film starts covering the life of the Insider - Dr. Wigand, played by R. Crowe. But the film ends focused upon Al Pacino's character - the 60 Minutes producer - Lowell Bergman. In the end, it would have been stronger to wrap up the Insider's human story more fully.

What works; Pacino gives a strong performance, as well a Crowe. The story of intrigue keeps one on the edge of their seat wondering how the Insider will manage to testify under the pressures mounted by his old employer. The added twist of CBS caving to money interests and pressure, thickens and intensifies the plot.

Powerful consequences: Reviewers mention how well the film depicts big tobacco. Perhaps true, but what is most impactful, is how the film portrays the behind-the-scenes of 60 minutes. This film was only lightly marketed because of complaints from CBS and Mike Wallace. In June of 2000 - years after the film was made - Don Hewitt of CBS gave a speech to 1000 journalists filled with angry rhetoric for Lowell Bergman. Mr. Bergman - a former 60 Minutes producer - is the person Al Pacino plays in the film, and who consulted on the film when made. See what makes CBS and Wallace so unhappy - Watch the Insider.

This film starts strong ... The opening scene makes the whole audience squirm with our hero's death-defying feat. As the film progress one forgives a few action scenes that seem far-fetched and don't advance the plot ... By mid-film, we are less forgiving ...

In the second half of the film one notices there is a lot of Tom Cruise ... Facetime and aura that Napoleon I might think a bit much if he were the lead & the executive producer.

Sadly, the writers didn't have enough plot to end the film, so it is completed with a very over-done TV quality fight scene. This is a five out of 10, but somewhat enjoyable.

... And might not want to know. This film was engrossing, but strong stuff for those that expect a more light-hearted evening. The scene between Ms. C. Alley and Woody - a husband and wife squabble in her place of work - was striking. Only one well schooled in manipulation of people could pull off a scene where the audience feels sharply the pointy reality of the moment.

I believe it painful for some fans to see the tortured soul of their beloved Woody. However, I cannot recall a film that gave such a deep view into the nature of one character ... In a way, the film is a confessional and a notice to Woody's fans ... he's not kind nor likeable.

I recommend this film. Illuminating and well-done.

Visually entertaining. Elfman well performs a role that lessor performers might play too sappy. She is will be a strong contender for future leading lady roles. Stiller, Elfman, and Norton don't seem to click as an acting trio in the early going, but warm well to the subject of a love triangle mixed wrestling with love and religion. Several supporting actors give enjoyable performances. This is not an Oscar level film, but one that is without weaknesses. A perfect fit in the romantic-comedy arena. Well done, well worth seeing.

A film best reserved for Coen brother fans. It will also be of interest to those who enjoyed Fargo. One can see how Fargo was a progression on a theme developed first in this film. If one is willing to be patient, the film does grow an interesting if grim portrait of pathos.

Segments of the film are memorable. The scene where Fanny (played by E. David) smokes with Sullivan, or where Goodwin (Played by Mr. Savage) learns his lines under Gilbert's oversight, or where Goodwin rehearses with his peers a song with Sullivan at the piano are excellent. What hampers the film is the exclusive use of interior scenes. After three hours, this leaves the viewer feeling overly restrained. Several films segments cover too much of a particular stage scene. All are well done, but the film would be better if these scenes were edited. The flavor of the troops acting would not be lost with these scenes being much reduced.