Reviews

I originally saw this movie when it was on HBO, and was a bit shocked when I saw that the video cassette version describes it as "In the tradition of 'Home Alone'". That's about like saying that "Lord of the Flies" is in the tradition of "Gilligan's Island" because both stories happen to be about people marooned on a tropical island!

A better description would be to say that "Playing Dangerous" is kind of a cross between James Bond and Encyclopedia Brown (although even this description doesn't fully do it justice).

A scientist in Germany has made a revolutionary discovery, but finds out that some international terrorists are trying to steal the discovery for their own purposes. In desperation, he faxes his work to his brother in the United States, and then destroys all of the other copies of it just before the terrorists show up and kill him. The terrorists find out where he sent the fax, and go to his brother's home in the U.S. to recover it.

What they don't reckon on is the Wolfes' young son, Stuart, who happens to be a genius. By the time the terrorists arrive, Stuart has already read the fax and realized its importance, so he is determined to keep them from getting it. Then he learns that the terrorists are planning to kill his family when it is over, and he decides that he has to do whatever it takes to stop them.

The movie is exciting and suspenseful, and child actor Mikey LeBeau does an excellent job of bringing the character of Stuart Wolfe to life. But there are also some deeper aspects to the movie.

The Wolfes, at the beginning of the movie, come across as a bit of a disfunctional family: The father has been putting his job before his family. The parents ask their kids questions, but don't bother listening to the answers. But by the end of the movie, they've begun to realize what is really important in life.

And there's also a bit of a message about parenting. All good parents want their kids to become mature and independent, but it can be hard at times for parents to realize that they've succeeded, and that they need to start allowing their kids to make their own decisions, even if those decisions disagree with the choices the parents would make.

It's also refreshing to see a movie which a kid who is smart is also portrayed as cute, friendly, and likeable. It's ironic that, in a society like ours that depends on science and technology, smart people often get derogatory labels like "geek" and "nerd". One of the messages of "Playing Dangerous" is that it's cool to be smart!

I'd strongly recommend this movie to anyone who's never seen it!

I came away from "The Fellowship of the Ring" feeling that I had finally gotten a chance to actually see the world and characters of Tolkein's classic. Middle Earth is beautifully recreated, and the characters are true to life.

I suspect that viewers who haven't read Tolkein's books will have a little trouble at first figuring out what is going on. I would suggest, if at all possible, that they read the prequel to "Lord of the Rings" - "The Hobbit" - before going to see "The Fellowship of the Ring". They should also be prepared for the fact that "Lord of the Rings" is really a single story that spans 3 books (and now 3 movies). Consequently, the end of "The Fellowship of the Ring" is like the end of a chapter rather than the end of a story.

Fans of the books will notice that some material has necessarily been cut to keep the movie from lasting 6 hours (instead of 3). And, while the basic plot line of the story has been preserved, those who are familiar with the books may be irritated at times by minor but needless inaccuracies in the movie, and by the lack of an accurate sense of the amount of time that is passing at certain points in the story.

But, all in all, I suspect that fans of the books will be glad they went to see the movie, and that those viewers who haven't read the books may be inspired to do so once they see the movie.

I came upon this movie purely by accident when it was being shown on cable, and found myself riveted to my seat, not wanting to miss a minute of it. The performance by Joseph Cross was captivating, but what was even more compelling was the story itself. I was constantly trying to figure out how it was going to end.

The ending turned out to be a real surprise, but I was also impressed by the portrayal of boyhood that the audience receives in the process of getting there. It was so true to life that I found myself wondering how much of it was based on the film writer's own experiences. Above all, I was impressed by the amount of respect the movie seems to have for boys, and by its willingness to recognize that 5th graders sometimes think deep thoughts and ask deep questions.

Titanic is one of the few movies in recent times on which the film academy and the public seemed to agree. It won more Oscars than any other movie but Ben Hur, and had a box office take that topped even the first Star Wars movie. So you'd expect it to be the greatest movie of all time.

Unfortunately, it isn't. It's certainly a very good movie. It has great special effects (though, if that's what you're looking for, the Star Wars movies and Jurassic Park are better). And it brought home the magnitude of the Titanic disaster (when in recent times have we had a single disaster that killed 1500 people?). And it has a haunting theme song. But it fell short of what it could have been.

The situation of the movie was an immensely interesting one: You have a ship that's going down in icy waters. There's no rescue in sight. There aren't nearly enough life boats. So it's inevitable that a lot of people are going to die in a rather unpleasant way, and they know this for over an hour before it happens. How would people react in a situation like that?

This is the sort of thing that fiction could never tell you. You can probably figure out that some people would be heroic while others would be cowardly, that some would be selfless while others would be selfish. But most interesting of all are the reactions you'd never expect. And, to the extent that the movie told those real life stories, it was excellent.

Unfortunately, the real life stories were obscured by a fictional plot which bore an uncomfortable similarity to "Romeo and Juliet" and which employed so many stereotypes that it was hard to take it seriously. (Virtually ALL of lower class passengers, e.g., are portrayed as coarse but good-hearted people, while nearly all of the upper class passengers are portrayed as selfish snobs.)

Even with its flaws, I'd still recommend seeing this movie, if you haven't already. But, with all of its Oscars and with its record setting box office take, I feel compelled to add a caution: It's NOT the best movie of all time, as you might expect it to be from the hype!