Reviews

There were a few small decisions I would have made differently than Ben Affleck, but the film is extremely well-done, and I was very impressed.

This adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel is almost as good as Mystic River, an excellent film, properly recognized at Oscar time.

Casey Affleck looks quite young, but the point of his age is brought up in the script, so at least it was addressed. Not having read the novel, I don't know if this followed Lehane's work.

The plot is complex, dealing with law and order and differing approaches to same. It seems to come to an early conclusion, only to go on to further complexities. A friend with whom I saw and discussed the film differed from me in her opinion on whether the proper decision was made in the end.

Gone, Baby, Gone is highly recommended for its performances, particularly that of Amy Madigan, and for its overall quality. I sincerely hope the Academy recognizes the outstanding work of Ms Madigan.

The one I requested was the BBC production starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role and Bob Hoskins as Iago. Instead this was delivered. At least this Othello is played by a man of color and I appreciate his work. The sound was terrible, at least on the disk I was sent, so the overall effect was considerably diminished. I would prefer to not make uncomplimentary remarks regarding the rest of the cast, but Ron Moody did better work in the film Oliver. To anyone who wants to see a superior production I would suggest the Hopkins/Hoskins version. Anthony Hopkins is certainly not the first white man to play the jealous Moor, but he is the best one I have seen by far.

Ron Howard did a very good job. Seems it would have been hard not to, given the source material. Since it wasn't that long since I read the book, there really wasn't much in the way of suspense for me, but I did appreciate the way the film was put together, particularly the method Howard used for illustrating scenes of the past. The actors all do well. It was interesting to see Jean Reno's statement that the author had him in mind for the role of the French policeman, because when I was reading the book, Reno seemed the obvious choice. Now to the religious nonsense. The book is a work of fiction, the film is a work of fiction. If the idea that Jesus had a family bothers you -- try not to think about it. Don't read the book. Don't see the film. If you still feel bad, lie down quietly with a cool cloth over your eyes. For people free of that hang-up, though, I recommend The DaVinci Code as a good film well worth watching.

Ok, we've seen it before, in such films as Some Like it Hot, Victor/Victoria, Tootsie... well, the list goes on. There are also striking similarities to The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, both of which are well worth watching. But don't let that stand in the way of your enjoyment of Connie and Carla. The two leads are certainly capable of carrying the film and are easily more convincing than Julie Andrews was (not that I don't admire your work, Ms Andrews!) in the same situation. Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette have a lot of talent between them. Personally I favor Toni Collette, particularly as Muriel's Wedding is one of my favorite films of the last twenty or so years. Connie and Carla is a light comedy with some enjoyable musical numbers. It's not high art but it is fun to watch and has something to say along the way. By the way, of the similar titles listed in the first sentence, I think Tootsie did the best job of presenting a really convincing gender switch. Tootsie is often under-rated and truly a modern-day classic.

(written February 2004) If Charlize Theron does not get the Oscar for Best Actress, it will be the biggest crime in the history of the Academy. Theron is simply incredible playing Aileen Wuornos, a real-life serial killer. The direction is cut-to-the-bone simple, but powerfully affecting and the story is all the sadder because it is true. This is a film that will not soon be forgotten.

This is an amazing film -- it has humor, intelligence and emotion. With a minimum of dialog, it conveys a great deal of wisdom regarding the human condition.

Peter Dinklage excels as a train enthusiast who thinks a move to the small train depot he inherits may afford him the peace and quiet he craves. As a result of his dwarfism, he has been on the receiving end of too much cruelty, sometimes thoughtless but all too often intentional, so all he wants is to be left alone. Once ensconced in the depot, however, he meets a few people (most notably an artist played by Patricia Clarkson) who bring to his life all the complications involved in relationships. And that's what this film is all about: we are all fallible individuals, but ultimately we need each other.

High marks to Thomas McCarthy for directing and writing this treasure. The only thing I don't understand is why it was assigned an "R" rating.

As a great fan of Dickens, I am very pleased with this version of Nicholas Nickleby. It was beautifully done, from the excellent acting (with the exception of the lead) to the skillful condensation of the book's lengthy plot.

Particularly worth mentioning were several superb actors in smallish but essential parts. Timothy Spall (a great favorite of mine), Jim Broadbent and Kevin McKidd, who performed together previously in the under-noticed Topsy-Turvy (1999) were very good here as well. Juliet Stevenson, who carried Truly Madly Deeply (1991) so marvelously was delightfully despicable as the odious Mrs. Squeers. Best of an outstanding ensemble cast was Jamie Bell who gave a deeply affecting performance as Smike, although the character was written a tad less feeble-minded than usual.

The spirit and tone of the novel were faithfully captured here and I believe Mr. Dickens himself would have been pleased with this production.

If it wasn't for the awards this film has been nominated for and received, I would not have gone to see it. Frankly I could have waited and seen it on cable. It is very interesting and succeeds admirably as a period piece (more on this later) but aside from the excellent acting by the adult cast, it did not leave that much of an impression. Yes, people had difficult situations to deal with and mistakes were made, but it didn't take Todd Haynes to tell me that discrimination against persons of color is wrong and that gay people are who they are and do not benefit from shaming and/or `curing.' Perhaps this was aimed at viewers who need to hear the message again. The problem is that those who most need to hear it are not likely to be in the audience.

As mentioned previously, the acting is top notch, at least by the adults. Lindsay Andretta is pretty good as the daughter, but I think the part of the son could have been done a little better. Also, there is an anomaly in imdb's listing, unless the part was played by someone like Joe C. The actor seems to be a boy of no more than 12, but imdb lists him as having played a sound engineer in the 1988 film Madame Sousatzka, two years before he was born, by my estimation.

My initial reaction to Far from Heaven was a burning desire to know how accurately the film depicted the late 50s. There were some senior citizens in front of me in the theater and I made so bold as to ask their opinion. Their consensus was that it was quite accurate, with the exception of the long, full skirts that Julianne Moore wears throughout the film. One woman volunteered the information that she had respected the few people she knew at that time who were brave enough to sustain an inter-racial relationship in the face of such adversity. The only people she knew in that category were high in academic (read liberal) circles. My mother has not seen the film, but confirmed the tendencies toward propriety, formality and slower patterns of speech, as seen in the film.

Overall, Far from Heaven is a good film, deserving of some attention, but so far, my choice of best picture of 2002 is White Oleander. Best actress (or at least a nominee) should come from that picture as well.

The surprising thing is that Wayne Wang directed this; the unsurprising thing is that it's from a John Hughes story. Also unsurprising is pretty much everything in the movie, with the sole exception of Bob Hoskins. It was impossible to miss the fact that J'Lo and Ralph Fiennes were the leads in this Cinderella-type romantic comedy, but none of the previews I saw indicated the involvement of Hoskins, an excellent actor, too often overlooked.

Lopez and Fiennes are attractive and competent and both are able to carry this off well enough. The supporting cast is spotty, though. Hoskins shines the brightest -- I'd really like to see him lead some more films. His Iago in the BBC production of Othello, co-starring with Anthony Hopkins was phenomenal. Stanley Tucci is very good but the rest of the cast varies from good to weak.

Maid in Manhattan is enjoyable enough as long as you don't expect anything more than a by-the-book fairy tale romance without a shred of originality.

Analyze This had an element of novelty and a generous dose of humor. Lacking the novelty due to its sequelhood, Analyze That tries to compensate by making forays into the psyche of Dr. Ben Sobol (Billy Crystal) as well as a little more (very little) analysis of mobster Paul Vitti (Robert De Niro). The psychology angle is not given much time or emphasis, but I suppose director Harold Ramis should get a couple of points for making a token effort.

The film is pretty funny and worth seeing, but doesn't really offer us anything new. This is forgivable, though, because Crystal and De Niro are entertaining enough to carry the picture. Overall, I'd recommend it -- it's funny and watchable and the two leads are very good.

There have been a few caper films that were good, but not many. This one is not good at all. Not one of the characters remotely resembles a decent human being and I didn't care about any of them. The film is not pleasant to watch and the only redeeming factor was the cast, which is pretty good.

Not recommended. I gave it a rating of 2. It would have been 1, except for Kurt Russell.

On one hand, Solaris is an interesting and unusual exploration of what constitutes existence and reality. On the other hand, it is a good opportunity to look at George Clooney's butt.

Strange things are happening at the space station and psychologist Chris Kelvin (the gorgeous George Clooney) is called in to help. Strange things continue to happen and nothing is clear-cut or easy to understand. It's interesting to watch, though, and speculate as to what is really happening and draw your own conclusion as to what it all means.

This version is far superior to the original Russian film that went on and on with nothing happening. I have no idea how that movie ended because I fell asleep. There were sections of the current Solaris that seemed somewhat draggy and repetitive, but overall it was worth seeing. Especially for George Clooney, front and back.

I picked this to have on tv as backdrop to reading the newspaper, but the paper was soon discarded as the movie drew me in.

Ashley Judd does a creditable job as Jane Goodale, treated badly by her co-worker and now ex-boyfriend Ray (Greg Kinnear). In need of a place to stay, she becomes the platonic roomate of another co-worker, the habitually womanizing Eddie (Hugh Jackman).

In an attempt to better understand the relationship problems between women and men in general, and what happened to her in particular, Jane devises a theory to explain infidelity in men. The war between the sexes is always good material for a movie, and this one is amusing and entertaining. Hugh Jackman, a delightful Australian import, is gorgeous and natural in his role and the balance of the supporting cast contributes capably as well.

Although the film may be considered somewhat predictable, it is definitely worth viewing.

Salma Hayek and Alfred Molina excel as the famous artistic couple, Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, bringing them vividly to life.

This is only the second feature film for director Julie Taymor, and a very impressive production it is, rich in emotion and imagery. Art and music are blended into the action in a fluid and fascinating style. The performances are uniformly top-notch and the production values are equally high. I was impressed by the quality, honesty and innovation in this film.

We might wish that Frida's life had been less difficult and painful, but the film gives us a reasonably balanced and sympathetic view of this important and impressive artist's often unpleasant reality.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" brings our favorite wizards-in-training back to Hogwarts Academy and places them in plenty of peril.

The actors are fine, the dialog is acceptable and the effects are certainly worth the considerable amount of money spent on them. But we don't really connect with Harry and his friends in this picture. They have one adventure after another, but it's all very much like a 2-1/2 hour roller coaster ride. After it was over my reaction was "So?"

Director Chris Columbus and screenplay scribe Steven Kloves should have spent more time on emotion and less on thrills, put more effort into character development and less into effects.

Yes, I know this is a movie for kids and I don't expect deep philosophy, but J.K. Rowling's books are well-written and enjoyable and deserve better than this. I hope future Potter films are more engaging.

Wow. I can't remember seeing a film before this one and thinking I've got to have it as soon as it comes out. The film is desperately tragic in some places, hysterically funny in others and a must-see for everyone over the age of 13.

Michael Moore is certainly opinionated, and Bowling for Columbine expresses those opinions strongly and clearly. Gun violence is reprehensible and the United States suffers grievously from it. The film explores the question of why it's so much worse here than other places.

Moore raises the question: if easy access to guns was the only cause, wouldn't Canada have the same problem? No answer seems readily apparent. I have an opinion of my own, though. It has a lot to do with fear, as Moore stresses. Fear of competition, fear of other people taking away what is ours. Fear that we're not going to get enough, that other people will take what we need. The cause is a combination of overpopulation and the lack of a support structure for the economically disadvantaged.

See this film and form your own opinion.

Adam Sandler graduates to the grown-up level of acting and does a decent enough job in Punch-Drunk Love, but neither he nor the film is anything special.

The film gives us a glimpse of the life of Barry Egan (Sandler) and it isn't very pretty. He is constantly harassed by his seven sisters; he has no one he can really talk to or trust. In his loneliness he calls a phone sex line, an action that has long-reaching consequences. He also meets an attractive young woman (Emily Watson) and begins a relationship with her.

Egan is a man beset by problems of all kinds but we see no sign of or hope for resolution. Watson's Lena Leonard is not so much a mysterious character as a non-entity. We never know her, learn next to nothing about her except that she is an only child and there is no real interpersonal relationship between the two, only a seeming mutual attraction.

While you are watching it, the film is interesting enough to pass the time and the direction is unusual and quirky, but the lack of involvement with and between the main characters leaves the viewer feeling uninvolved as well.

Small Town Girl is cute, fluffy and moderately entertaining. It tells the story of a handsome rich young man (Farley Granger) and the titular daughter of the small town judge who sentences him to 30 days in jail for speeding. Antics ensue.

There is much singing and dancing and Bobby Van has a long scene where he hops through town -- even with two or three cuts, it's still a whole lot of hopping!

What made me sit up and take notice, though, was Nat "King" Cole's number, set in a New York nightclub. It makes the film definitely worth watching, even worth buying.

Igby Goes Down is a study of the title character, a 17-year-old boy struggling to break free from a difficult family situation. Igby, ably played by Kieran Culkin, escapes the grasp of his domineering mother (the superb Susan Sarandon) for a period of time and rattles around New York City, where sex, drugs and violence are everywhere.

Igby lacks direction. His only plan is a vague idea of moving to California, but he seems to have no idea what he will do when he gets there. In the mean time, he finds a place to stay in New York with the mistress (Amanda Peet) of his godfather (Jeff Goldblum) but that gets complicated. A relationship with a girl he meets at a party (Clare Danes) is more meaningful and involving but that situation gets complicated also, with the arrival of Igby's brother (Ryan Phillippe).

We've seen this type of set-up before, but first-time director Burr Steers gives us an interesting blend of intellect and emotionalism that avoids listing too far in either direction. The humor in this film wryly points out the inherent absurdity of life and makes the difficult bits easier to deal with, much the same as it is in the real world.

The acting is first-rate here. Bill Pullman has a short but intense turn as the boys' father and Susan Sarandon does her usual excellent job. Kieran Culkin shows a lot of promise; it will be interesting to see what he accomplishes in the future.

The great shame is that this film has received neither publicity nor wide distribution. It seems early in the year for it to be merely a brief release for Oscar consideration, but I hope that's the case and a reasonable amount of publicity and wider release will follow.

Oh my, zombies from Mars!

Ghosts of Mars is so bad it's almost funny, but not quite. It's the story of Very Bad Things that happen at a Martian mining colony. For reasons best known to John Carpenter, it is told via flashbacks. At one point, we were seeing a flashback within a flashback within a flashback.

The acting is tolerable at best, the dialogue is pathetic, the storyline (such as it is) is weak and the over-the-top violence is unbelievable and functions as nothing more than an attempt at sensationalism.

Overall, this is a very poor excuse for a movie.

Denzel Washington's performance is the only good thing in this celluloid disaster.

Training Day is the story of an idealistic young cop (Ethan Hawke) on his first day working narcotics. Everyone behaves badly, to a greater or lesser extent, and the tone is depressively nihilistic. I hope we're not supposed to infer that this is in any way reflective of reality.

Denzel is a fine actor (and a fine looking young man) and I would not begrudge him the Oscar he won for this, but I prefer to see him in better vehicles than this clunker.

Red Dragon is remarkably faithful to Thomas Harris' best-selling novel but that's probably the best thing I can say about it. It may be unfair to compare it to Jonathan Demme's excellent Silence of the Lambs but this being real life, there's no way it will escape (or survive) that comparison. That's a shame, because it's not a bad film. It's ok, but naturally we prefer to see things that are better than just ok.

Why does it suffer so much in comparison? Acting, direction and script. Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) in Lambs is presented as someone with whom we can empathize. Her struggles and her fears are ours. That is not the case with Dragon's Will Graham (Edward Norton). Even though Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) almost kills Graham about 10 minutes into the film, the subsequent meetings between the two lack the intensity and power that Demme brought to comparable interactions between his two leading actors.

Director Brett Ratner does a workman-like job but this film simply does not have the necessary depth or resonance to involve us.

Martial arts as ballet. Subtle acting shaded with meaningful nuance. Meticulously set-up shots, and scenery that goes on for miles. This is a great film, not just a great martial arts film.

It doesn't matter if you are ordinarily a fan of martial arts films or not -- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should not be missed.

As a woman who suffered the domination of an abusive mother, I love seeing Charlotte Vale (Bette Davis) learning to be her own person, transforming herself into a butterfly. Unfortunately, though, this film was made at a time when men had an unreasonable amount of power over women. This is reflected in the way Charlotte is rescued first by the kind but condescending, oh-so-self-assured psychiatrist (Claude Rains), then by her married lover (Paul Henreid). Although I do enjoy the film as a whole and the love story for its own sake, if it was a current film it would require quite a different ending.