Reviews

This movie is so sweet it should have a warning label for diabetics. Natasha Richardson and Dennis Quaid play divorced parents who more than a decade later are not sure why they divorced. Instead of opting for joint custody, each of them opted for sole custody of one of their twin daughters. The girls grow up never knowing because their parents never said they had an identical twin sibling. When the twins meet in camp and discover who they are, the plot is set in motion.

Richardson and Quaid are wonderful as the likable parents, still very much in love, even after a decade apart. But, the star of this picture and the one on whom the story turns is Lohan. She is bright, perky, adorable, and completely convincing as both Hallie and Annie. If she isn't, this movie falls apart fast. But, not to worry. Lovable Lindsay makes not a single false step.

She is so good, I found myself thinking about the actress, not the character, feeling a twinge of sadness that Lindsay was not more like Hallie and Annie. This is a wonderful movie, almost too sweet at times. It had me in tears at all the right moments: when the twins meet, when they learn they are sisters, when the parents discover they've switched places, and when the parents inevitably reconcile. First rate family entertainment thanks to a star performance from a very young, very talented Lohan.

I've not seen every war movie ever made, nor have I seen every performance of John Wayne's, but I remain convinced that this is the best war movie ever made, and Wayne's best performance. Wayne is Stryker, John M., tough-talking Marine sergeant, in charge of a squad of men, and determined to keep them alive, which proves somewhat difficult as these Marines storm the beaches at Guadalcanal, Tarawa and Iwo Jima. Stryker is a man of intense personal longing, first, for his family at home, and then for the men he is charged with leading. And, what makes Sands memorable is we see this longing etched on the face of Wayne in every scene where he appears. This is not one of his B-western walkthroughs. It helps that the lines are so good. There are the usual clichés in any war movie, but the movie also rings true in many scenes. There is an especially poignant one between Stryker and a woman trying to raise an infant son alone. But, most of all, the battle scenes are believable. The famous flag-raising was not one of those scenes, however. This was pure Hollywood, though it was re-enacted by three of the men who did it for real: John Bradley, Rene Gagnon, and Ira Hayes. Two memorable scenes:

1) Two soldiers talking:

First: This is the poorest soil I've ever seen Second: That's war. First: What's war? Second: Trading real estate for men.

Worthless real estate at that.

2) The second scene is of a Jewish soldier who is fatally wounded, whose last words are, "Shema, Yisroel. Adonai elohenu adonai echad." This is part of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew, and memorable because Hollywood is not a place known for its expression of conventional religious spirituality ..

I have looked into the face of evil. She is a woman, and her name is Catherine Trammell (pronounced Tra-MELL). I'll be quoting a lot from other critics here, because I found reading their reviews, they said what I thought better than I could.

First, though, before we go any further, please know that whatever you think of Sharon Stone, or this movie, this is a first rate murder mystery. It is set in London and all the players except Sharon Stone are English .. and, as I watched, I couldn't help thinking this would have been a terrific episode of Mystery! on PBS.

The movie like the psychotic Catherine Tra-MELL, draws you in. At first, you think it's obvious what's going on; then, you're not so sure; then you're sure, and angry at all these stupid people for falling for Catherine's schemes; then, at the end, you're not sure again .. On that level, this movie works.

But, this movie is not at its most .. well, basic .. a mystery. It is a character study of Tra-MELL, and the actress who plays her, and as such, it does not succeed quite as well.

Roger Ebert gives us the first clue to unlocking the mystery of Trammell and Stone: "The Catherine Tramell role cannot be played well, but Sharon Stone can play it badly better than any other actress alive .. " Chris Hewitt delivers another: "Stone, who never raises her voice above a bedroom purr, plays Catherine like she doesn't give a "research" if anyone thinks she's ridiculous. She knows "Basic Instinct 2" is a comedy, and she is the only one in on the joke." This is critical. You buy this, you buy the movie. If you don't, then BI 2 becomes a farce, not a comedy or a murder mystery. Trammell is in a world of her own, and Stone creates that world first in Trammell's own head, then in the shrink's who sees her for what she is and is taken in anyway, then .. in ours.

Owen Glieberman tells us how Catherine weaves her spell: "What counted wasn't the words but the subtext Stone brought to them, her persistent toying glimmer of You know you want to f--- me. Everything else was just talk." This movie is all about subtext. The sexual tension builds .. and builds, and while there is release for some of the characters, usually in death, there is none for us. "It's a treat, " Glieberman says, "to see Stone rev her evil vixen engine again .. " Indeed.

Stone is still a strikingly beautiful woman (and so is Charlotte Rampling who costars, but I digress), and if she were not, the audience wouldn't buy into her character, nor would we believe what we were seeing when the psychiatrist who is treating her, falls under her spell.

The mechanism of seduction was absolutely perfect, down to the smallest detail. Trammell meticulously schemes to seduce her therapist, every line she speaks in session a ploy to arouse his libido .. And, as soon as he shows an interest, she secures the hook in his mouth .. and disappears. "I'm canceling therapy," she says at one point, and briefly drops out of his life. He's hooked.

What is most interesting here is we are not. The psychiatrist who is her foil, her mark, her lover, her boy-toy, and at some moments her enemy .. begins to unravel before our eyes, and it is here where this movie lost me. His helplessness did not ring true.

So, we've come to the end of our Catherine Trammell character study, and it is time to summarize. Is she a serial killer or is she not? The movie does not say, so we are left to decide for ourselves.

But, Roger Ebert and Director Michael Caton-Jones provide the most important insight into her character, when Ebert says of the director: "he alternates smoldering closeups with towering dominatrix poses" Catherine Trammell stands revealed at last: a garden variety dominatrix, whose entire life consists of playing head games with everyone she meets. And, she is very good. Her psychiatrist early on says that she has an "omnipotence" fixation, and we don't understand that at first. By the end of this movie, we know exactly what it means: she is, indeed, the dominatrix, working every circumstance, every emotion, every lapse in judgment into an intricate tapestry of evil in service to her own ends.

I liked Basic Instinct 2. Not a lot, but more than the 15 or 16 other people who saw it .. Call it a guilty pleasure.

This is not a Christmas picture; nor are its stars Crosby and Astaire. It is a movie for any holiday, though it will always be associated with Christmas, because it marks the debut of Irving Berlin's most memorable song, out of hundreds of memorable songs. White Christmas won an Oscar, and deservedly so, but this movie also features Berlin's Easter Parade, which I love as much, and other songs associated with Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day. Not as well known, but they are Berlin songs, so you know they are well done. The music is the real star of this picture.

One of the songs deserves special mention. It is titled Abraham, and is offered as a tribute to Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday is celebrated, and it is sung in blackface. The song is usually excised when this movie is shown on television, out of fear of offending modern audiences with modern sensibilities about race. It doesn't seem fair somehow to apply those modern sensibilities to this movie. The song should be judged in the context of its times by those who lived through those times.

Crosby is in fine voice; Astaire is graceful and energetic, though an unconvincing drunk, and I enjoyed the performances of the women who had supporting roles: Virginia Dale and Marjorie Reynolds. Neither is a household name today, but both were fine in this movie, holding their own with their better known co-stars. Reynolds is particularly good singing White Christmas with Crosby. I do not wish to be seen as knocking the movie, White Christmas. It is a holiday staple, and rightly so, but truth of the matter is, this movie is better. It is on my must-see list every Christmas from now on. Highly recommended.

If it did nothing else, Casino Royale proved that there is still creative life in the franchise. Cold war or no, Bond still has something to say, is still relevant, and can still impress the hell out of us. The only question to answer is whether James Bond still plays in Peoria, and the opening numbers suggest he does.

I think what surprised me most about Craig's Bond is how human he was. He has feelings; he can be reached.. and hurt. He gets tired, scared, desperate, makes mistakes, and worst of all, seems fallible to those around him. To M early on, and Vesper later. How so very different from his predecessors. I like the change. I like the athletic Bond, too. This was one really bad dude, and we knew that long before we saw his pecs.

I find myself thinking that Craig's Bond fits in the Bond canon like Powell's Marlowe fits in the Marlowe canon: resourceful, courageous, smart, and dangerous, but also real and human. What makes him most human is that he is not above being debased by the dirty job he has to do. All the killing, the lies, the stolen moments, the dangers ultimately take their toll, and the Bond we see in the denouement in Venice evokes our pity.

A very good movie: one of the two or three best in the canon, and a solid 8.5 out of 10.

The difference between a film noir and a mystery is that in a mystery everyone wonders who did it; in a film noir, everyone knows. The difference between a film noir and a caper flick is that in a caper flick what commands our attention is the details of the crime; in a film noir, things don't get interesting until after the crime.

Here in Double Indemnity two rotten people conspire to commit murder. "We're both rotten," she says. "You're a little more rotten," he replies. Not that it matters, which of them is worse. It is their fundamental character that moves them to plan the crime, and energizes them to go through with it. And, it is their lack of character which proves their undoing.

The murder weighs on them as the investigation proceeds, and they live in fear of being found out. Not only are they being trailed by a canny insurance investigator, who slowly unravels the crime, but they cannot be together for fear of arousing suspicion. And, suspicion is exactly what gets aroused. Walter and Phyllis begin to suspect each other, begin to conspire to implicate each other, creating a different kind of insurance policy, one that would allow each to escape from the plot they had hatched, leaving the other to take the fall. Here .. here is where Double Indemnity earns its reputation as a masterpiece: we see the emotional consequences of a deed so terrible, neither guilty party can live with it, and we live inside their heads and hearts as their well-laid plans and dreams for happiness turn to dust at their feet. I don't remember any movie where the tormented inner psyche of two persons is more clearly seen than here.

Finally, in the piece de resistance we learn just what Walter and Phyllis are really capable of in the best scene of the movie at the Dietrichson home, where Walter goes to tell Phyllis he's leaving. We see their fear, deceit, distrust, anxiety, and pain all come to the surface and explode in what is the ultimate solution in every noir predicament: gunfire. It's difficult in some respects to talk about this movie, because it is so tightly plotted. Unlike many noir masterpieces, like Out of the Past, for example, all the complex plot points tie together into a cohesive whole. I'm tempted to want to summarize those points, to show why Phyllis and Walter became so frightened, but watching their schemes come undone a point at a time is what creates this movie's tension, and it's something that should be experienced, not analyzed.

I should close with a footnote about Barbara Stanwyck. She wears a wig throughout this picture that some think looks terrible. Billy Wilder himself said it looked terrible. Some people think she didn't have the looks to pull off a role as an alluring, manipulative femme fatale. She sold me. To take another quote from a completely different context: she had me at hello. I had no problem believing that men would kill for this woman.

If you're reading this and have never seen Double Indemnity, see it and marvel at its many superiorities to movies of today. It is a masterpiece, and a solid 9 out of 10.

Of the Burton/Schumacher movies ..

Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin

this is the best of the four. You heard me: the best. It's not a perfect movie, by any means, but it has some really wonderful moments that I'll get to in a minute. I think that those who disliked this movie so intensely went into it expecting something else. For what it was, it was fine enough ..

Surprises in this movie:

Arnold Schwarzenegger can act.

Elle Macpherson can act.

Alicia Silverstone can really act

Michael Gough can really, really act.

His Alfred Pennyworth steals this movie out from under the bigger-named stars and super-heroic derring-do.

Vendela Kirsebom Thomessen looks good, even pickled in brine. Two Sports Illustrated swimsuit models in one movie not about Sports Illustrated or swimsuits has to be a first ..

The movie's best moment is the introduction of Poison Ivy ..as an instrumental version of the Coasters' hit played in the background! Now, *that's entertainment*! Ivy was the only character that didn't work for me. I loved her as the femme fatale who charmed her admirers with the pheromone dust, but she was a bit too psychotic. Nice stems, though. And buds.

Schwarzenegger was fine as Freeze: too small, maybe, but he caught the sense of the character as I saw him just fine. When I looked, I saw Mr. Freeze, not Ah-nuld playing at being Mr. Freeze.

This movie reminded me of Superman I in a lot of ways. The super-heroic derring-do and the super-villainous nefarious schemes were played to the hilt as cartoon-ish as possible. Outlandish, bizarre, too warped to be believed: freezing an entire city with an overgrown ray-gun .. Come on!

But, where this movie redeems itself is in its moments at Wayne manor. Those were touching, warm, funny and very moving. I bought into the relationships of Bruce to Alfred, Bruce to Dick, and Barbara to Alfred. They seemed like real people.. a strange thing to say about a Batman movie to be sure .. that I cared about. Bruce calling Julie "Ivy" at one point was a nice touch.

Director Schumacher has been caught up in the fan angst over this movie, because I've heard elsewhere that he has badmouthed his own movie. I don't share his feeling, or that of the rest of the IMDb. I've been reading comic books for five decades, and seen all the iterations of Batman. This one wasn't bad. I have the DVD, and I'll watch it again.

This is the story of American volunteers who fought for the French during World War I before America entered the war. It is based on a true story, and largely faithful to that story. The first world war was the first "ugly" war. It is the first war where, as one of the characters observes, "Neither side will win. It will just end." And, this movie does not shrink away from showing the horror, the ugliness, and the overwhelming grimness of war.

Because the special effects made it possible, more than any movie in recent memory, it graphically shows the excitement and the adrenaline rush of combat flying. The combat sequences are nothing short of dazzling; they were so good I could experience vicariously the rush of bullets tearing through cloth fuselages, the spins and turns, and dips and climbs, and barrel rolls, and dives, and with all that, I could look inside myself and know I did not have the courage to do what they did. In the end, that's what this story is about, and the love story, the individual pilot lives fade into the background.

Still, it's worth noting, one of the movie's best moments is the denouement where we learn what happened to the Americans of the Lafayette Escadrille, those who survived. I won't spoil it for you, just know that truth is stranger than fiction, and often a good deal sadder. I enjoyed Flyboys for what it was: the chance to vicariously experience the adrenaline rush of aerial combat. Performances were good, and Jean Reno was great as the captain of the Lafayette Escadrille. Nice popcorn flick.

This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?

Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way.

Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..

It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.

I liked this movie ..

This movie is Raging Bull before there was Raging Bull. Robert Ryan is brilliant as the on-his-way-down fighter, Stoker Thompson. I refuse to call him washed-up or has-been, because he isn't.

Stoker is the only person in this grim film-noir universe who is living in a dream. He believes he is 'just one punch' away from a title fight, and nothing - not his age, not his uncaring manager, his weaselly corner-man (played by Percy Helton, one of my favorite character actors) will dissuade him.

Stoker takes a beating in the ring, but never surrenders his dream. And, that is what gives this movie its pathos - that Stoker cannot see what everyone around him sees - that it's time to let the dream die.

Audrey Totter is wonderful as Stoker's loving and long-suffering wife. She never sees her husband's final fight, and Stoker feels betrayed or abandoned, but she is there for him in the end. And, because this movie ends happily, I have some difficulty accepting it as a noir.

On the other hand, there is Little Boy, the hood, played with greasy smarminess by Alan Baxter, who has fixed the fight. And, it seems that everyone except Stoker is either in on the fix, or indifferent to it. For a lot of years, boxing was beset by scandal, to the point where the spectator could no longer tell when the outcome was staged. Set-up, indeed. It is one of the cornerstones of noir that society is corrupt, so maybe this movie qualifies after all.

I liked this movie. It is one of the best movies about boxing ever made, both because of its storyline, and because of the exquisitely choreographed fight sequences. Ryan and his opponent had actual boxing experience, and it certainly showed here: this is brutal.

There have been so many great movies about boxing that it's hard to pick a best one. I suppose the smart money is on Raging Bull, but I wouldn't bet against this movie, and its hero, Stoker Thompson. Remember, Stoker won tonight. His wife, Julie, reminds him, "We both won tonight." I won tonight watching this movie, too.

This is a movie that tries to live up to the motto of Lake Woebegon, a place where the women are strong, the men are handsome, and the children are all above average. It largely succeeds.

This simple, charming movie is just like any broadcast of a Prairie Home Companion. If you've ever heard the radio show, you know exactly what this movie is about, so there is no way to spoil it. Think of it as just another radio broadcast .. with pictures! What is amazing about this movie is that Keillor - a gifted actor as well as writer - has been doing his weird shtick for more than 30 years. I am simply amazed that all this zaniness came from the mind of one man ..

The only place this movie fails is where it tries to introduce extraneous elements. I never saw any compelling dramatic reason why this had to be the last broadcast .. The whole business about the Axeman and the Angel of Death hearkened back to an old Twilight Zone episode, and wasn't nearly as well done.

Altman's contribution is his characteristic penchant for characters all talking at once and nobody (even us) listening, and his seamless visual style of following first this character then that one around the stage where the show is broadcast. You get a feel for the zaniness backstage at any theatrical production, especially this one, and you really feel that it is your eyes following the action.

I liked the jaded Keillor's attitude toward cues .. his gift for holding a thought or a conversation to the very last second, then segueing effortlessly into a commercial for Powdermilk Biscuits, or some other piece of business. The timing is literally split-second, and great fun, almost like you're being let in on a joke ..

The canned commercials for non-existent products, the new twists on old songs ("Hey, isn't that..?" "That's the music, but the words are all wrong!"), and the wonderful goofiness of Keillor's mind as he brings it all to life are all quite charming.

But, I genuinely believe you need a context to enjoy Prairie Home Companion. If you've not seen the show, this comes across as sketch comedy about sketch comedy. But, if you've heard the radio broadcast, well, lets just say it's nice to have the pictures to finally go with the words and music ..

Stage, screen, and television adaptations or features using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters turn on one simple, inescapable point: do we believe the actor as Holmes? If the answer is yes, then a bad story is still pretty good. If the answer is no, then whatever other attractions the story holds are worthless.

The answer here is clearly yes: Rupert Everett is very good as Sherlock Holmes. The transfer from print to screen is almost flawless. If anything, too much is made of Holmes' obvious flaws as a human being: his recreational drug use, patronizing arrogance, indifference to the feelings of others, preoccupation with the workings of his own mind. This Holmes reminds me of Dorian Gray. It is only his love of solving crimes that keeps him from committing them.

The story is pretty pedestrian. This isn't quite as bad as "the butler did it," but it's close. I won't spoil the movie as others here have by saying more. I liked the scenes where Holmes is reasoning out who the killer is. This was clever, unforeseen, and quite believable. But, from the time the chief suspect is identified, until he was finally caught .. the entire climax of the movie, in other words .. was ..well, trite, clichéd, and elementary, my dear Watson ..

Kudos to Helen McCrory and Perdita Weeks in supporting performances.

This is a movie about two contract killers who are married to each other, and implausible as it may seem, it is not a caper flick, or a crime story, but a domestic comedy. Roger Ebert in his review is spot-on: the only reason this movie exists is to see Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie together. So strong is their chemistry that it relegates the flying bullets, impossible plot, and preposterous posturing to the background.

The movie opens in a marriage counselor's office, which sets the tone for everything that follows, namely, what their occupations and deceitfulness do to their marriage. The incongruity of all the murder for hire machinations is simply to be dismissed as irrelevant to the real business at hand. And, from the quotes section for this movie is a sampling of what this movie is about:

John Smith: Your aim's as bad as your cooking sweetheart... and that's saying something!

Jane Smith: Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished.

(about the new curtains Jane bought) Jane Smith: If you don't like them just say so and we can take them back. John Smith: All right, I don't like them. Jane Smith: Learn to live with them.

Counselor: How often do you have sex? Jane Smith: I don't understand the question.

Jane Smith: There's this huge space between us, and it just keeps filling up with whatever we don't say to each other. What's that called? Counselor: Marriage.

Eddie: This broad is not your wife; she's the enemy. John Smith: She tried to kill me. Eddie: They all try to kill you. Slowly, painfully, cripplingly. How you going to handle it? John Smith: (grabs assault rifle) I'm going to borrow this. Eddie: I like where your head's at, man.

Therapist: How long have you been married? John Smith: Five years Jane Smith: Six years. John Smith: (chastened) Five or six years.

Jane Smith: Any last words? John Smith: The new curtains are hideous.

It is offensive to my personal sense of morality that the occupation of the two likable protagonists is never examined. To the credit of the screenplay, they only kill "bad" people thugs and gangsters and such, so we never catch any hint of dystopian fatalism. Think Adam's Rib or When Harry Met Sally with gunplay, and you have pretty much the essence of this movie. I liked it in spite of myself. Miss Jolie is now officially on my list of hot actresses .. Recommended

This movie is a classic homage to super hero shtick. As a lifelong reader of comic books, I spent a fair amount of mental energy ticking off producer Bird's various hero tributes. I won't spoil the movie by listing those here, just point out for those thinking this is a kid's movie, that it certainly is not.

Holly Hunter was wonderful as Helen. The animation and voice overs were so good in spots, I stopped seeing this movie as a cartoon. Bob and Helen really love each other, and their kids, and Helen's solicitude for her family is the most touching element of this picture.

Samuel L. Jackson gets far too little to do as Frozone. "Honey, where's my super suit?" A line that 60 years from now will be as endearing as "Here's looking at you, kid .. "

Violet (the Invisible Girl clone) and her coming of age was touching and poignant to watch. Her gawkiness, and timidity, painfully shy, her contentious relationship with her brother, her first failure which gave rise to her ultimate victory not just over villainy but over the vicissitudes of life was charming. *So* poignant, it tugged at your heart.

You'll notice I haven't said a lot about the special effects, or the battle sequences. These are the hook that draws many to see the movie, but they are not what is most memorable about it. What makes The Incredibles ..well, incredible .. is how fully realized they are as people, with real feelings, real aspirations, real successes and failures, and real frustrations and disappointments.

Can't wait for Incredibles 2: Attack of the Underminer!

Paul Henreid is in every single scene of this movie, and it's hard not to think of him in his most famous role, and to impose that image onto this picture. Henreid's thick accent is a distraction that really robs this movie of some of its charm.

But, the plot twists make up for everything. One takes place in a photo shop, and its significance is immediately apparent. The other is the ending which caught me totally by surprise. I can't say anymore for fear of spoiling it for those who haven't seen it, but I will pause to note how no other commentator here has bothered to note the *irony* of how Laszlo .. er Muller .. er Bartok met his end.

Joan Bennett is terrific here, as a cynical, vulnerable, rather sarcastic secretary who shows herself to be an astute judge of character, though not as hard-hearted as she'd have us believe. Leslie Brooks .. the exquisitely eye-lined Leslie Brooks .. is wasted here.

This is a tedious, hum-drum movie except in the moments when Henreid and Bennett are together on screen, but that wonderful ending is one of the best you'll ever see. 7 out of 10.

Gwyneth Paltrow is stunning, sexy, larger than life, and thoroughly convincing as enterprising reporter Polly Perkins. Jude Law is a bit less convincing, but he is generally fine as action hero Joe Sullivan. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is simply one of the best movies you'll see this year.

The movie's weak link is Angelina Jolie as the Brit super soldier. Her accent is juvenile, and wouldn't convince a group of ten-year olds. Ms. Jolie, when she is on, is simply one of the best actresses in the world. When she is off, she is way off. She's off here. Gwinny acts rings around her, and wins any comparison between the two.

The movie is almost all CGI, but it was very good CGI. My only complaint is the hurried pace, like it was made for adolescents persuaded that any shot that lasts more than two seconds is terminally boring. Coming from a movie history where the dramatic pace is less frantic, all this blink-and-it's-gone scene switching is impossible to endure.

But, the scope of this movie almost defies description. The villain is one Dr. Totenkopf, a typically mad scientist, who is out to remake the world in his image since his present world has shown itself irredeemably evil. The man's financial resources are beyond counting. There isn't a government on earth that could finance this army of robots and aerial assault craft, and we are asked to believe he put it all together between the end of World War I and the start of World War II.

The movie refers to the Great War twice as World War I, which is incongruous and a bit hard to accept. While I was not around in the late 30's, I always thought the reference to the two great global wars of the past century with Roman numerals did not begin till after the second of them had ended. One mention I could dismiss as a mistake; twice is deliberate. This is rather patronizing toward the audience, but is also a minor flaw. There are other anachronisms and problems with this picture: any serious reader of comic books knows the ones shown weren't from the 30's, but these are minor as well.

Paltrow emerges from this movie as a true *star*, a throwback to the kinds of movie stars produced by the old studio system. I fell completely under her spell, and you will, too. Sky Captain, its minor quibbles aside, is a solid 9 out of 10.

This movie is told in three parts. The first, and weakest of the three, is an affected, clumsy study in mob behavior. The spaceship lands, Klaatu appears, and every reaction to his appearance is either an attempt to get closer out of some lurid curiosity, or suspicious fear bordering on paranoia. The alien Klaatu is shot within moments of disembarking his ship.

There is some real truth here about why we might not want to answer the SETI telephone when and if it rings, but it is shallow, unsophisticated and undeveloped.

The middle is a standard caper flick with the alien and the boy who befriends him on the run, as it were, seeing the sights of Washington DC. They walk everywhere. While it's possible to do that, I know because I have, it's not particularly plausible. When my attention is drawn to insignificant little details like that, the details are not insignificant.

The final third, everything from the blackout to closing credits, is the sci-fi thriller we all love. Bernard Herrmann's score is eerie, atonal, and annoying early-on, trying to build mystery, mood and suspense, I suppose. It undermined rather than developed the suspense, but in the last part of the film, the music changed, and was much more effective.

Part Three has many of the parts we love: the worldwide blackout; Gort on the prowl, vaporizing two guards (a moment when we suddenly realize Klaatu's quest is deadly serious business); Klaatu's death and resurrection, and that wonderful line about the "Almighty Spirit" associated with it; and, of course, the magnificent closing soliloquy: "Join us .. or be obliterated.!"

Michael Rennie is terrific here. Yes, he is wooden, unable to move, it would appear, from the waist up, but that stiffness is a very believable quality in this role as an alien trying to pass as human. I thought Sam Jaffe as the Professor, and Frank Conroy (uncredited) as the President's Secretary were also very good in supporting roles.

7 out of 10, but I wanted to like it so much more.