Reviews

You really need to ask yourself if you love the Pistols and the general era of the late 70's. If you do, the film will fall flat for you.

The details are all wrong, the key incidents of the band and Sid's involvement with them are way off. The personalities of key people are wrong, some characters just made up, rather sloppily too.

So we can forgive it for being a wholly inaccurate of Sid Vicious' life. Fine, but so then what we are left with is a basic love story. It fails at this too, mostly because Nancy is written out pure spite and misogyny. She is therefore not only unlikable but wholly uninteresting.

You never believe the love story, because quite frankly Nancy isn't really written as a human being, just a series of tropes about junkies and that awful idea that women are shrews that stifle men's creativity.

The truth is Nancy was much more physically beautiful than this film wishes to admit. She was also quite charming, in fact, if you know junkie culture, you know that charm, deadly psychotic charm is a key way to survive and support your habit. None of that is shown here, so that ability for junkies to convince others they are clean, or kind or honest is obliterated.

Nancy was smarter than this film gives credit for (yes even though she was a junkie), with more charisma too and if they had written her that way it would make for a better film.

The real Sid fell in love with a real human being, a flawed one to be sure, but the kind of junkie a lot of us could fall for. In this film she's just a very nasty series of dull, obvious tropes.

Just about everyone intimately involved with the Sex Pistols has disowned this film.

I think there are moments of visual poetry in this film, I think Gary Oldman's performance is excellent, but the script is a Hollywood hackneyed attempt to reduce the Sex Pistols to every stereotype and narrow prejudice those who were never punks have always harbored about the punk movement.

It's sad because there is some real craft to this film, it had tremendous potential, but ultimately you can just never believe Sid would fall for this less-than-human harpy. Sad because there's a real reason Nancy swept Sid off his feet.

The truth, in this case, is not only stranger than fiction, it was also far more compelling.

There are times when Jim Carrey is absolutely dreadful and this is one of those times.

He is an actor that is bad when he approaches film like it is theater, and winds up exaggerating each movement, gesture and expression as a result.

If the movie had refined the script, found a better director (Schumaker is one of Hollywood's worst of all time), and put dampers on Carrey's insistence to eat the scenery if left unchecked, this film might have been something.

As it stands now, this movie is probably the 23rd worst movie of all-time, coming in just slightly worse than Batman & Robin.

It is very easy to describe what is wrong with this film. There's a legitimate case to be made that the film is culturally abusive and myopic, and the humor in the film is often stale, forced and dysfunctional. It is much harder however to describe what is right with this film, and why overall I enjoyed watching it.

To begin with, as much as Jack Black's channeling of Ricardo Montalban seems offensive, and cheap, there is some love given to Mexico in the film. Specifically the camera demonstrates the beauty of Oaxaca splendidly – and the director of photography uses every opportunity to show the audience the rich, and impressive landscape of Oaxaca, as well as its impressive and unique architecture.

The music that blends with the film, is also eclectic, and interesting, I found myself wondering what interesting song I would hear next as the film progressed. The Elfman composed ambiance is good, Jack Black's compositions are designed to be over the top, but the real gold lies in the genuine music that is sprinkled throughout the movie.

The story however has some serious warts. The pale allusion to the trials of Moses (and his slow, arching struggle against Ramses), never really flies. I get the metaphor of the "godless idols" being slowly defeated by a man with religious and morale conviction to free his children from starvation, but it was never really hammered home. As such, the general struggle of Nacho never truly captivates you, and of course the ending can be seen a mile away. There are also a lot of superfluous elements to the film, little diversions that go nowhere and stifle the ability to build real interest in the main characters.

I have to say though, that the wrestling in the film is downright entertaining. I am not a pro-wrestling fan by any stretch of the imagination, but some of the athleticism and impressive choreography in the "fight" scenes, resemble a ballet more than a fight, albeit a crude ballet of elephants and freakish dwarfs, but a ballet none the less.

The direction is quirky, unique and somewhat interesting to watch, the film is light, never takes itself seriously, and has one or two moments where the actors wink directly at you along the way. Watching the camera work was very interesting, and I thought overall the film was crafted well, but could have used some serious overhaul in the script and story. The comedy falls flat in this movie and far too often to really be forgiven.

I spent some time in the state of Oaxaca in the early 90's. I had forgotten how beautiful a place it was. This film reminded me of that beauty, with some spectacular shots of its bright blue sky, its lush green mountains, and architecture that blends so well with the overall landscape. For that reminder, I was grateful. So the landscape coupled with the wrestling scenes (that are fun to watch if you enjoy well-rehearsed and well-timed slapstick) was enough for me to enjoy the film, but probably not enough for me to recommend it without prejudice to others.

"Home for Purim" has some delicious moments, but for the most part, this is one of the weaker efforts by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy.

The best part of the movie for me is the farcical parody of "Entertainment Tonight", played by Willard and Jane Lynch. All the superficial aspects of that rotten television show are mocked; including the ridiculous editing and camera angles, the mean-spirited banter, the fake tans, plastic faces, cheesy music and empty-headed hosts. The entire package is gloriously torn apart. Indeed, had the movie just been a mockumentary of one of these types of shows, it might have delivered more punch.

The movie falls flat in my opinion as it reaches the third act. The big punch at the end can be seen a mile away, and then movie kind of fizzles and dies. Indeed when the closing credits roll, it doesn't even feel like a legitimate ending. There are numerous loose ends that are never completed or visited and many characters fall out of the movie entirely, without explanation or resolution.

It seems to me the script needed just a little more polish. If it had gone through or two more revisions, it could have produced a very special movie. Instead the movie has some terrific moments, some laugh-out-loud scenes, but as a whole doesn't really deliver.

Still, I enjoy the cast, and I enjoy the humor and I will look forward to Guest's next offering.

This sequel doesn't hold a candle to the original, in fact, at times the attempts at comedy are painful.

At times, the low-budget of the film, becomes more than just a joke, it is actually annoying. The film features washed out lighting, terrible audio and rough impromptu comedy that never delivers much punch. I think at times Idle doesn't even have a crew he just stands in front of a cheap video camera, recording himself. It's funny, but not funny enough, for the entire film to be carried that way.

It's so bad in spots, that you sometimes think someone could make a parody of how cheap, and fast Eric Idle can punch out product. A parody of the parody perhaps, that's about the only way this film could ever save itself. Monty Python has become so cliché and so formulaic now that it begs for parody the way Star Trek, super heroes and other stale icons of pop culture cry out for it.

That's what this sequel is I'm afraid, old, stale pop-culture that just rubber stamps old tricks and dishes it out in liberal, repetitive doses.

It's too bad. The original is brilliant. It is a quick, sharp, witty send-up of an era and an industry that needed a solid comedic thrashing. It spanked the rampant consumer hysteria and the fan boy worship of pop idols, but did it with a lot of love and affection for the music itself.

George Harrison once referred to the original Rutles film this way: "It was actually the best, funniest and most scathing. But at the same time, it was done with the most love." There's not a lot of love in the sequel, just some cheap, quick cameos, some running gags that never pay off and some really poor sound and video to look at.

While my admiration for Idle and Python remains, these guys have become stale. If this film taught me anything, it is that someone needs to make a "Rutles-like" documentary of Monty Python, to remind us all what made them great in the first place.

This is a movie about death, and it has to be the lightest, most melodic movie about death ever made.

The film is centers around the final broadcast of a live radio show from St. Paul, Minnesota. We get to know several of the show's key performers and learn how each one is coping with the "death" of their livelihood. We also get introduced to a daughter of one of the stars who is obsessed with death, meet an angel of death who has come to claim one of the stars, and eventually meet an "Axeman" who has come to kill the show and relegate the theater to demolition. The songs that are sung are often in homage to, or make reference to people who have passed on and much of the discussion in the film deals with either mortality or birth.

I wonder sometimes if Robert Altman chose this script specifically knowing it might be the last movie he ever directed. He was in such poor health they had hired a "backup director" who was on-set and ready to take over should Altman's health fail him before filming was completed. Indeed, the fact the film was originally titled to be "The Last Broadcast" tells me Altman probably knew this would be his last film. The movie's frank discussions about life, death, theater, humor and love I think is a message Altman was eager to broadcast one more time, before he passed away.

"I don't do eulogies, because once you start doing them, that's all you ever do," says one of the main characters in this film.

I wonder sometimes, if this film is meant to be Altman's self-eulogy, an ode to his love of music, film, theater and art and his subtle message to us that death is just a part of the act, because after all, without the final curtain there is no applause.

Regardless of whether I zeroed in one the film's intended message correctly, I still feel this film is delightful, and I recommend it highly to anyone who knows how a simple song can soothe life's troubles and even at times, help us remember those who are no longer with us. I feel this film will not only to help you to remember the Prarie Home Companion radio show, but to also help you remember the film's legendary director as well, and therefore is a must see for all who admire Altman's work.

Watching this documentary is a must for any serious baseball fan. It documents with great alacrity some of the best anecdotes and characters in baseball since its "invention" in the 19th century.

The series has one serious weakness: it is heavily focused on the Boston Red Sox in several chapters.

While the history of the Red Sox is intriguing and worthy, it's given a little too much attention in this documentary. Other teams, with other great moments are sometimes given only the briefest of mentions.

I think you have to forgive Ken Burns for getting wrapped up in New England's fascination with the Red Sox. Despite having a wealth of interesting stories and characters to choose from, in certain chapters he clearly chose to just have extremely eloquent people just wax all poetically about the opera of his favorite baseball team. He's clearly a fan just like you and I, so how can you not understand his fascination with his favorite team? There are other notable oversights. There is little to no discussion on the advent and development of relief pitching or in fact any discussion on the modern development of the game's strategy. The importance and strength of the Pacific leagues, before the Giants and Dodgers move out west, is also largely ignored. In fact if you are a fan of baseball's history west of the Mississippi you might get frustrated at how much of the focus is centered on the teams from the Northeast.

Another beef of mine is there is only a casual nod to development of baseball in other countries. This is forgivable, since one of key themes of the entire series is how well baseball mirrors and reflects the social and political events within America through each decade. Still, in my mind, Latino players, and Latino culture in baseball was not given its full due, this is probably the series' gravest oversight.

Whatever weaknesses there are, it is forgivable because the documentary is so lovingly put together and so beautifully crafted. The various commentators throughout the segments are selected well for they are both knowledgeable and eloquent. They shine the most when they reveal their own personal connections to baseball and each of them has a personal story to tell as to why the game is meaningful to them.

Along the way, you will see photos and film of some of the great legends of the game, that you probably never saw before. You'll get insight into collusion, the trials baseball endure, and the player's long quest to banish the reserve clause. You'll also see just how greedy, myopic and tragic some of baseball's owners and commissioners have been over the years.

If you love baseball, buy or rent this series. It's a real treat, and a series that you may find yourself revisiting from time to time in the cold winter, when you yearn for the green fields and blue sky of your favorite baseball park.

Eight Men Out provides a "Reader's Digest" version of the complicated events surrounding the 1919 World Series.

If you forgive the fact the film has to simplify certain aspects of the conspiracy in order to make the film easier to digest, then you will find that Eight Men Out is a worthy film and in the category of "baseball movies" it's one of the best.

There are anachronisms in the film here and there, the worst of which is Buck Weaver's question asking which of the lawyers was the "Babe Ruth" of law. Sure Babe Ruth was coming into his own by 1920, but most ballplayers in that era would not have place Ruth in the class of Cobb, Tris Speaker or Walter Johnson. For baseball fans, this line in particular really comes off as shallow, especially since the rest of the film really tries to capture the "dead-ball" era. For the most part though, this film feels and sounds a lot like America right after World War I ends, a fascinating time and place.

Studs Terkel steals the show in my estimation. His character in the film is not far from whom he is in real life and his authenticity is undeniable. John Sayles is a little stiff by comparison and his singing in the railway car (which according to legend did actually happen), is rather difficult to bear. None the less, his direction makes up for his foibles as an actor.

Straitharn is another gem in this movie, and once again this actor seems to get right to the soul of the characters he is given to play. Eddie Cicotte's dilemmas are written all over Straitharn's face in every scene, he's also given some of the best dialog in the film. Cusack plays his part well, despite the fact that many of his scenes are reduced to clichés. Cusack's best moments are when he is frustrated about his inclusion in the conspiracy trial, despite the fact he gave his all to try and win the series. His outbursts in the courtroom seem perfect, as if drawn from the trial transcripts themselves.

Joe Jackson is given unfair treatment. If "Field of Dreams" mythologizes Jackson to point of hyperbole, "Eight Men Out" plays up his illiteracy with too much of a heavy hand. Joe Jackson wasn't stupid, indeed if you read his last major interview before he died, he speaks about the "Black Sox" with great alacrity and clarity. He was not as ignorant as this film would have you believe. One day someone will produce a film about Joe Jackson, that will portray him accurately, but Eight Men Out is not that film.

Although their roles are very minor, Kid Gleason and Ray Schalk are really well played and written. These two went through a very difficult time during the series, and this is well demonstrated. One minor beef is that Nemo Leibold, Shano Collins and other players outside of the conspiracy are never touched upon at all. This is understandable to a degree given the relatively short length of the film, despite the complexity of the subject matter.

The baseball scenes themselves are well done. The bats, balls, gloves and uniforms look like the equipment of that era and the ballparks are successful mock ups for the most part. There are even a couple of nifty athletic displays in the outfield that must have taken several takes to pull off.

Overall, this is my second favorite baseball movie, next to "Bull Durham". Its a little light on some of the details of the conspiracy, but it makes up for it in other areas. It has some great music, some great sets, some solid acting and overall seems genuine and fair to all the major players in the conspiracy.

Eight Men Out isn't perfect, but it isn't as flawed as Roger Ebert would have you believe. If you a fan of baseball in fact, I'd say its mandatory viewing.

Is this what passes for a slick comic book movie these days? A movie so attached to the concept of being dark, gloomy and melodramatic that it has forgotten somewhere along the way to entertain us? Movies like this are what happens when producers insist on pandering to fanboys. In an obvious attempt to give the 18-35 male demographic exactly what they pine for, this movie features a lot of mindless combat (hastily edited to avoid the need for any complex choreography), a marginal plot, a lot of wasted talent and a protagonist who literally scratches his own voice in a futile attempt to appear 'tough' inside a latex suit.

The result is a cumbersome movie that looks and sounds a lot like a dark oily calliope. The batman suit in this one is laughably bad, the assistant DA looks and sounds more like a high school prom date and Michael Caine looks as bored as he did in Jaws III.

A lot of rain, some interesting cinematography here and there and some stolen camera tricks from another horror film, make Batman Begins slightly more than awful, but in summary this movie isn't fun, it isn't that violent, it's very convoluted and really strains your attention span. The strain on your attention span would be more than forgivable if it was used to develop character, plot and mood, but instead it's mostly used to just wheeze itself along like a big, rusty tank.

Batman is supposed to be dark, supposed to be violent and in many ways is supposed to represent the ultimate Nietzsche/Fascist fantasy. Batman is a character that owns everything and then physically beats up anyone who tries to steal anything from the very city he owns lock, stock and barrel. You can work with that premise to weave in all kinds of interesting themes, ideas and stories, best exemplified with such comic books as Arkham Asylum and Killing Joke.

Here it just plays out like some giant, rainy offering to fanboys everywhere. It leaves the rest of us bored and pining for the days when action films weren't a dime a dozen and weren't this bloated and cumbersome.

All I ask is a dumb movie like this provide a few laughs and thrills to go along with our bucket of popcorn. Instead I got something that took itself too seriously but then provided so little substance in return for its gravitas.

This movie wields a very heavy hammer and bludgeons you with its theme. It also suffers slightly from hypocrisy. It suggests that media entertains us with sanitized environments that we then assume are "normal" and thus we get caught trying aspire to them. However, the film ends with its own "happy endings", that were for me, just as contrived as the conclusion of a Brady Bunch episode.

As a result, the film ultimately can become as hollow and simplistic as the very media it pretends to deconstruct.

None the less, the film is worthy. It is technically marvelous, it has genuine moments in it and the soda shop owner has a fine evolution in the film. In many ways for me, he became the most "real" character in the whole film.

The film also pays heavy homage to other movies. For example, the courtroom smacks of "To Kill a Mockingbird"; at one point the protagonist proclaims victory in the rain in direct reference to "Shawshank Redemption", there are biblical allusions as well and scenes stolen from situation comedies and supplanted into the film with ironic twists.

While I enjoy the film and hold it higher than most fare out of Hollywood, ultimately the theme is just too black and white. The "convervatives" in the film transition into narrow paranoia too quickly and there's never any consequence to the people who choose to "liberate" themselves. Every choice made to break society's mold makes the characters happy, free and comfortable. Every change in this film is "good", every single one.

Life doesn't work that way, but this film does. As a result, the notes it tries to hit are just a little too heavy and sharp.

Ultimately the film is "pleasant", it doesn't challenge you too much, it provides happy endings and lets you know pretty clearly what is bad and what is not, and makes sure the "good" guys win out.

It is a very "pleasant" film indeed.

This film isn't genius. This film isn't perfect. Sometimes the adoring fans of Wes Anderson tend to blow his films out of proportion. While I admire Anderson's work, (Rushmore and Tenenbaums especially), I am not prepared to place Life Aquatic into the realm of 'genius'.

What Life Aquatic is however, is a fun, refreshing film that takes the word 'whimsical' to a whole new level. You get the sense that the actors and crew had as much fun making the film as you will watching it.

Life Aquatic, has fantastic moments, scenes that make you laugh, scenes that make you chuckle, scenes that are technically creative as well as ones that are just performed with razor precision and skill, by its accomplished cast.

It can drag a little in its second act and it ultimately can fall a little flat, when it tries to resonate emotionally, simply because the characters and settings are often so surreal and whimsical that you lack a lot of empathy for the characters on screen.

None the less, this is money well spent, if you enjoy films that creative and refuse to follow the cookie cutter formulas that dominate Hollywood fare these days.

This movie also has a love affair with the romanticism of Jaques Cousteau, it is at times a parody of the action-hero film and also plays and toys with the icons of marijuana sub-culture. Most of all though, it delights in showing off its technical prowess both in camera work, comedic timing, imagery, scenery and digital animation Life Aquatic is well crafted, well performed and at times utterly delightful. It is not without its flaws here and there, but overall, you'll come out of the theater with a smile on your face, at least I did.

The themes of love and romance have produced some of the best films ever made. It's also produced some of the worst films ever made and Love Actually is one of those films.

There's several story lines in this film, one of them is about an aging and talentless rock star who takes one of his old hits and injects a lot of cliché lines about love and Christmas into the lyrics and spins it back out for consumption.

That is exactly what this film is.

There are characters, story lines, even verbatim lines and scenes that are stolen from other films. The soundtrack is unashamedly out of place, contrived to sell a compilation CD of its own soundtrack as quickly and conveniently as possible.

The outcomes of each story are cliché and resolve with thunderous and clumsy predictability.

The best actors in this film sleep walk through their roles, Neeson, Emma and Rickman look positively bored, and Hugh Grant literally seems to have shrunk 5 inches, to become a rather tired looking caricature of himself.

I walked away from this film actually feeling cynical about love, a feeling so horrible I needed a hot shower afterward.

I am nearly 38 years old and until yesterday I had never seen this movie.

I watched it yesterday and found it strangely compelling. The movie is very dated, just like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" the morality conflicts of 60's suburbia just don't resonate 40 years later.

Despite this, I found the movie very entertaining. The movie is clearly 'front loaded' delivering both its best drama and its best comedy in the first half of the movie.

The second half is a little lost. Ben's obsession with Elaine is hard to extract laughs from - and the film has to lumber to its ending.

The actual ending itself however is perfect. The scene on the bus, is perfect, because as the camera pulls back both actors give us strong signals that they are just as lost, just as unsure as they ever were. We see that already both of them have begun to question their bold act. They know WHY they did it, now they are very unsure what to do next.

I thought that was the perfect ending.

The music, the props (check out the bizarre bathing cap on Ben's Mom, or the ridiculous alcohol containers at the bar), even the morale strife is very dated, but perhaps that's now an additional asset to this film's charm.

This film isn't genius, but it is clever, well made and well acted. I enjoyed it very much.

Professional Courtesy is an independent film - and I'm guessing on this, but probably also a labor of love for the crew who put it together.

Professional Courtesy begins in a forest - that is laden with thieves. It is a setting, that pays homage to the fantasy settings of Tolkien, Gygax and Ray Harryhausen. Two thieves in particular, meet up in this film and begin a tale of wits - that end in a few surprising twists.

While the budget for this film cannot produce the special effect wizardry we may be used to for films in this genre - the crew make up for it by pouring their money into the quality of the story and the overall production values of the lighting, sound and direction.

Instead of hundreds of cartoon dragons swimming along in CGI fury (Dungeons and Dragons) - or instead of a stop-action Cyclops wrestling a Dragon (Sinbad), we get instead a focus on greed and intrigue. A story that surprised me as to its conclusion - and one that captivates your interest quite quickly as it unfolds.

It's solid work, the actors take the tools of the film and shape it well - subduing their expression just enough - to let the story take center stage. The camera work also has a sense of the story's overall flow and appeal and refuses to distract you - rather it just lets the tale spin itself into its creative ending.

If you are a fan of epic fantasy - and would like to see instead - how a short story in this genre translates to film, then this is well worth checking out.

One last thought, I'm not sure why I think this - but to me - there is a small element of the 'Maltese Falcon' in this story - indeed if you can imagine the suspense and banter of the Maltese Falcon, blended with an fantasy/medieval forest of thieves - you are starting to get an idea of this film's charm.

This is a fun film - very lighthearted with beautiful sets, fast paced dialog and caricatures at every corner and turn.

It seems to pay homage to old Capra screwball comedies - and it's pretty much old fashioned farce right from the beginning.

The film is far from perfect. Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance is labored. She tries to squeeze every last snicker she can with her character. She misses the mark in my opinion, moving and talking with so much effort and pace - just to get a laugh - that in the end, she gets none.

Paul Newman goes the other way - he understates his character and when contrasted to the lunacy of both the environment and the story around him - it makes for some great scenes. He makes a great villain in this movie - and for me, he's a large reason why the movie works.

Tim Robbins does a good job, especially at the start of the film. His best moments come when the story and the environment overwhelm his character.

There's great moments, like the ridiculous Muncie fight song, the Monty Python-esque mail room, Charles Durning with wings and the grim, faceless board members - with their inane questions and so frightened to lose their authority that they agree to virtually anything.

This film isn't genius or anything, but if you enjoyed the antics of something like 'Arsenic and Old Lace' then this is worth catching. It's delightfully silly - and has some interesting visuals and symbolism along the way.

The Man Who Would be King is a film about colonialism. It illustrates the notion that the arrogance of the West leads to a dangerous sense of empowerment.

There is much to admire in The Man Who Would be King. Huston's direction and the work of his cinematographer is breath taking. The pace and premise of the film are superbly crafted, and the camaraderie and timing displayed by Sean Connery and Michael Caine are the centerpiece of the film.

You realize that these two work extremely well together, at least on film, (lord knows how well these two got along off camera). It makes you wonder why they did not work together more often after this.

The film also takes a stab at the 'old boys' networks, the fact that men will claim loyalty to vague and distant ideals, tribes and clubs for no reason and at great expense. It wonderfully ties the notion these networks pre-date our civilization, even pre-date Christ and yet they continue to exert tremendous influence over us.

Is a warring tribe any different than a warring nation? Is a Free Mason any different than a colonial soldier, or a high priest dedicated to some temple on a mountain? Our belief systems are forged with two notions, inclusion and exclusion. If you are 'in' you benefit from the club's power, if you are 'out', you feel that tribe's wrath.

Every loyalty that is forged in this film is exposed for its hypocrisy and the lies underneath that fuel it. There is only one loyalty that seems to be genuine in this film and that is the friendship between Caine and Connery. Everything else is a rouse, to gain power and to condone war.

If the film falls short, it's in the portrayal of the natives as utter barbarians with no redeeming values. Now to be fair, the country they portray is fictitious and the contrast is there for comedic value, but just consider the film opens in India, and rather than show the Taj Mahal or the beautiful music and art of India, it goes into a large montage of scorpion eaters and snake snatchers.

We're lead to believe, that England had no right to lead a barbaric culture, no matter how much 'good' that leadership might have brought. The reasoning behind this film's morale is that England's perceived superiority is a lie, and is in fact, based on the same tribal fears and prejudices as the people England are colonizing.

The story has strange holes and some laughably implausible incidents to keep the story going. There are moments that make you wince, Saeef Jaffrey's character who seems the most grounded of all, suddenly snaps to his death, for no particular reason other than to rid him from the story line. There are also candid moments, like when Connery begins to question the incredible happenstance that has taken place, and questions that perhaps life is destiny rather than series of meaningless and random events.

Of course, the ending of the film, refutes destiny, it in fact implies we yearn to craft destiny out of meaningless coincidence just because our superstitions and our tribe affiliations yearn for meaning.

In reality, this is more of a comedy than a drama, the film works best when it doesn't take itself too seriously. With a destitute Caine returning to India to tell his tale and morale, that ‘no man should play god', the shock value of the final minute of the film, doesn't quite register, because for the most part, we've just been chuckling along.

Despite my nit-picking, this is a fine film, crafted from great text, shot wonderfully in breath taking locales, with a superb pace and rapport amongst its central characters. You get pieces of adventure, drama, comedy and a nice little morale in the end, to make you think. What more can you ask for?

Some stories leave you shattered. They speak to you on such a level and you identify with such intensity that by the end of the film, your nerves and emotion are raw.

Is Raisin in the Sun a play about racial prejudice? Yes indeed, an important one too. No story illustrates the ignorance of 'restricted neighborhoods' better. No film offers the ugliness of white arrogance and presumption, something that still lives and breathes in this country.

For me personally, this is also a movie about being a man.

This movie illustrates so well how men are composed. We honor the father, love the mother and protect the traditions that raised you. Mixed in with all of that and no less important, are our dreams and aspirations.

This movie teaches us, with immense power and clarity, that to be a man, to be a real man, you must never sell out your pride. Never. No matter how badly your dreams have been shattered, your pride and your manhood belong to no one. Simple, basic redemption lies within that truth.

It's an important lesson, a deep lesson, that men of today (including myself) need to remind themselves of from time to time. There is a pride within all men. It can be stubborn, it can be arrogant and it can be so full of dreams that it can lead to bitter heartbreak. But it is there, burning in all men and it's our most treasured asset.

I can't think of a contemporary play that illustrates more strongly, the struggle and rites of manhood in American culture today. How ironic and perhaps appropriate that the film is written by a woman. It is after all the women in this film who patiently wait for Walter to find himself. The love, faith and patience of the women in this film, illustrate the grace, power and importance women have in all our lives, regardless of our gender. A Raisin in the Sun, is a marvelous film and brilliant play. It is, from my perspective, an American classic and I believe one of the most underrated American plays of all time. I recommend it to any man that is struggling to find themselves or trying to recapture what is real and what is untouchable within our souls and within our dreams.

Crimes and Misdemeanors is one of Woody Allen's darkest films but also one of his best. The movie has a lot of humor in it as well, but the overall message in this film is quite bleak. Crimes and Misdemeanors is about winners and losers and how life unfairly determines which is which.

The film strongly suggests that God is blind. Eyes play a big part in this film. There are the mythical eyes of 'God', that are preached and referenced in the film, but never seem to manifest. There are the bleak cold eyes of victims, there are the eyes of a preacher that fade throughout the film and through it all, the main antagonist is an optometrist.

Every main character has a contrasting counterpart.

The successful, upper-class Doctor admired by society, has a low-brow, sleazy brother that even his family no longer respects. The penniless 'artist' who makes documentaries for their social commentary, is contrasted by a rich New York producer, who literally records his own ego at every waking opportunity, with a mini-tape recorder.

The actions of each character and the rewards for those actions also have sharp contrasts.

There is the poor desperate sister, eager for real love and is rewarded with sexual assault. There is the candid and lonely independent film maker that is rewarded with divorce and rejection. There is a kind faithful Rabbi, who is rewarded by not being able to physically see his own daughter on her wedding day. There is the sterile and cold wife, that is rewarded with a new love interest. Most of all there is the Doctor, who cheats his business, his wife and his mistress and prospers through all of it.

Woody Allen's main statement in this film is that the vain, the greedy even those commit murder can prosper and succeed. Meanwhile, God is either absent or blind to it all. It's a film that makes this rather dark statement, with a lot of humor and some clever contrasts, which is why its such an outstanding movie to watch.

Moulin Rouge is a tapestry of things borrowed and thrown together to produce some great fun. The film is a little bit Magic Flute, a little bit MTV, a little bit Cabaret and a little bit Monty Python.

Moulin Rouge is giddy fun, right from the first scene, where ridiculously dressed dwarfs come crashing through the roof.

If you are the least bit nihilistic in life, this movie will annoy you within ten minutes and have you thoroughly bitter after an hour. Sometimes I think this film was made to annoy the kind of people that hate musicals. If you hate musicals, frivolity and gaiety at all, this film is literally your worst nightmare.

Mouline Rouge robs references anywhere it can find them and never apologizes for the plagiarism. Indeed it holds it up to you and demands you to laugh at it all. When a late 19th century love ballad, features copped lyrics from the group KISS, you know you've hit something wonderfully silly.

Is this film great art? Most assuredly, just as chocolate ice cream is great food. This is a movie that will delight those with light hearts and discourage those with heavy souls, to the point where they'll become contemptuous of the film's success.

Personally, I hope it wins Best Film of 2001. In a year filled with horror and fear, a film such as this, filled with such farcical spirit and tender song, is just the medicine we need.

There are those who brand Michael Moore a hypocrite. It doesn't take a lot of investigation into Michael Moore's personal life to see that there is some legitimacy to the accusation that Moore is a 'limousine liberal'. Don't let the personal attacks on the director however distract you. Roger and Me is a great American film.

You don't have to agree with the politics of this piece to appreciate Roger and Me's clever delivery and simple story. A real life industrial city called Flint, that was once a bastion of post-war America, is now destroyed, not by bombs but by the very system the Flint was meant to symbolize.

Roger & Me is admittedly, an angry man's look at the hollow promises of the American Dream, but it is unquestionably demonstrated with real people, real events and most of all, a sharp sense of humor. Moore's ability to paint the tragedy of Flint with such humor is what makes this film so enjoyable and a great American documentary.

This is a movie of contrasts. This is its magic. It goes back and forth from the dreamer to the near suicidal, from the glamorous singer to the stark butcher, from an executive luncheon to a man with a lunch pail. It shifts from cocktail party to evictions, from misguided politicians openly wasting millions of dollars, to a young child sucking his thumb while being evicted into the snow. It's fascinating to watch it all unfold.

Perhaps Moore's greatest observation in Roger and Me is just how desperate people become when trying to survive in rapid economic decay. The really clever part is how he can find a sense of irony and humor around the whole situation. Consider, the hilarious but futile efforts of local and state government to turn a collapsing industrial town into a tourist attraction, while at the same time the local U-Haul can't keep up with demand with everyone wanting to leave. It's both tragic and funny and Michael Moore walks that tight rope so very well in this film.

There are striking contrasts all throughout this movie, all the while with keeping a sense of humor. We go from Anita Bryant, telling us, that anything is possible if you work hard and have faith in God, to a woman who separates her rabbits into two categories, 'fryers' and 'stewers' and points to a hand-painted sign that offers both for just 5 dollars. The government several months later cuts off her assistance but spends money to send an inspector to ensure her rabbit cages are 'clean' and up to 'government standards'. It's a remarkable examination of the kind of irony and tragedy the American dream can weave.

You can disagree with Moore's politics. You can point to Moore's personal shortcomings and rightly claim he is in no position to pass morale judgement on anyone. What you can't deny however is that Moore's Roger and Me is a valuable documentary. It's a clever look at the cruelties of life, money and society and it offers it all with a sense of humor and irony. You might disagree with the film's message, but you simply have to admire its delivery.

The story of The Trial is the story of displacement. The protagonist in the film Josef K, (played by Anthony Perkins), is seemingly from another world. His morality, conduct and philosophy contrast so sharply from the nightmare around him, that one wonders if he was transported to another universe while sleeping. As a result, Josef K has no survival skills in his environment and his adherence to a personal morale code that is totally alien to the world he lives in, consummates his destruction.

Josef K literally awakes in the first scene, to a nightmare that he cannot understand, because his own sense of justice refuses to let him understand it. This is Josef K's downfall. There are survivors in the world painted by this film, grim survivors to be sure, but survivors none the less. Josef K is not one of them.

Josef K, in the context that surrounds him in this film, is dysfunctional. He has neither the character nor the experience to survive in his world. He seems oblivious to the lunacy of his environment and strives for something so completely alien, that one wonders where and how he even conceived of his morale code, given the world he lives in.

This of course, leads to terrific drama and an odd tension for the viewer throughout the entire film. That tension springs from the dichotomy of the film, Josef K's idealism vs. the cruel reality all around him. Perhaps more specifically the tension arises from Josef K's struggle for logic and reason in a world gone haywire with paranoia and corruption.

One of the minor but important strengths of this film is the encapsulation of its theme within the 2-minute anecdote that starts the picture. This prologue uses stark drawings on a wheel to transition from scene to scene and is both a riddle and a parable. It is accompanied by a sinister cello and a deep, cold narration by Orson Welles. The anecdote in the prologue is a tale of a man who 'seeks admittance to the law'. The riddle that is laid before him ends in death and with the realization that the man wasted his life, seeking a universal truth, to a very personal question.

Much later in the film, the character of the Advocate tries to retell the chilling prologue to Josef K. Josef however, dismisses the fairy-tale immediately. Refusing to hear its lesson and how it applies to his predicament. The advocate rightly notes, from the prologue: 'it has been observed that the man came to the law of his own free will'. What I believe Orson Welles is telling us, in this scene, is he personally believes Josef K's character to be guilty. Josef is not guilty of a crime to be sure, but he is guilty in his conscience. Josef's wretched self-righteousness and guilt-complex is ugly, even within the context of all the injustice, corruption and abuse that surround him.

Josef is weak, stubborn and oblivious and I believe Orson tells us subtly, that perhaps he deserves to die. What is also left unsaid by the Advocate is the man in the prologue willingly submitted himself to the lunacy that became his death. The man felt it better to live chained to an ideal, that to roam free in an unjust world. If there is a crime Josef K is guilty of, then that is likely it.

I have never read the novel, but I believe Josef K, is a much more tragic figure in Kafka's eyes. In the eyes of Orson Welles - it's apparent to me that Orson Welles considers Josef K to be neither tragic nor overly heroic.

While it may contrast strikingly with Kafka's intention, I think Welles tries to illustrate somewhat that Josef K, is not a complete victim. While Josef's surroundings are nightmarish beyond belief, Josef never adapts to them. He never learns how to survive or worse, refuses to learn how to survive. He judges his world but he hardly ever truly interacts with it and he immediately becomes distracted whenever he feels someone has transgressed his moral view of things.

While the actions of Josef K are noble and we sympathize with his plight, you feel little remorse for his eventual death, because Josef quite simply just does not belong. Like the creature at the end of metamorphosis, an innocent thing, is perhaps best left to die, because it is alien to its environment.

Like all good work, that interpretation of mine is open to a lot of debate. Which is another great feature of this film, it provokes a reaction and that reaction can help you understand more about yourself and your current surroundings.

I think this is strong work. Orson Welles finds ways to delight your eyes on screen. Some of the performances like Romy Schneider's performance as the mistress of the Advocate are seductive and chilling.

It is interesting that women in this film are perverted, contorted and shallow. The perversion of society in Josef K's world is so pervasive that his own 16-year-old cousin cannot even visit him, without suspicion from his co-workers. Even sex and passion in this world is twisted into secrecy, innuendo and fear. The only true female survivors in this film are women who willingly cast themselves as supplicants to men of power and intrigue. While this message may affront those who are sensitive, it adds another element to the nightmare that makes this film so strong.

The film has a similar parallel to the Bicycle Thief in my opinion. The protagonist is sympathetic but is surrounded by injustice and cruelty that shreds his very existence. In both films, no amount of effort on the protagonist's behalf will solve his dilemma. Both characters struggle to come to terms with their tragic plight. Like Antonio, Josef K's quest is futile and his only salvation is acceptance. Unlike Antonio however, Josef K never truly transforms, he will not sink to the same level as the world around him. This is why we feel so sorry for Antonio at the end of the Bicycle Thief but see the Trial's ending as more inevitable than tragic.

It is sometimes hard to feel sorry for a martyr who wears his thorny crown so smugly. This is where the protagonist of Josef and Antonio (Bicycle Thief) depart. Josef willingly becomes a self-righteous martyr, while Antonio chooses life, even at the expense of his dignity.

The logic of this film is the logic of a dream and a nightmare. The Trial is a moral nightmare - a world where the only options for survival are: lies, hypocrisy and servitude. A sacrifice, Josef K, refuses to make and so his door closes, forever.