Reviews

Finally saw this film from beginning to conclusion. Had caught bits and pieces (on Showtime) and it made no sense. Now I can reflect…with some competence.

The screenplay begs for "competence." The nagging, continuing "ghost-wife" is a cliché. The lost, near-forgotten teen son from the first marriage played evenly by young George MacKay has but one or two scenes of any value to the overall script. This character is written as an uptight, boarding-school, Brit teen seeking acceptance from his father. I get that. But, considering the numerous wasted scenes as the second wife drifts into death is long and boring.

With that said; the film offers some promise. The younger son is wonderfully, cheerfully portrayed by Nicholas McNulty. The director had to have rewritten parts of the script to infuse the energy of this little boy-actor making the film a bit more realistic.

Clive Owen, a very good actor, does his best to muddle through the disjointed script. However, his character is far from believable. An award-winning sportsman in his youth, he is now an aging, sudden single-father, sportswriter in Australia. (Of course, the film was produced by their government.) When he leaves the boys alone to attend a major tennis match some seven hours drive away – well, you might already guess what happens. The huge glitch in the script is that he could've taken the boys with him. They might have ended up locked in a hotel room for a day or two; but, that in itself would have given the screenplay/story some extra leg room for character development.

When he goes to England to retrieve his run-away teen ranks as the highlight of the film. The interactions between father and long-lost son are realistic. They are not heartwarming. No swell of the angelic chorus. The very last scene when young MacKay looks at his father is the only heartwarming moment. It lasts for about 3 seconds, but only makes sense if you can sit through the entire movie.

The film is surprisingly watchable. As in most films the conclusion is worth wading through most of the 113 minutes. Since most reviewers have already provided the plot, story, etc., my interest was the rather unique bonding between Tyler, played well by Robert Pattinson, and his 11-year old sister, Caroline, played to a perfect pitch by Ruby Jerins. The scenes they have together are most memorable and probably worth your time.

Pierce Brosnan as the father, Charles Hawkins, a corporate chieftain is underplayed by Brosnan. To add to his dismal performance his Brooklyn accent is mumbled British making his character even more unbelievable.

Fortunately, a good supporting cast with notable performances by Kate Burton as Brosnan's secretary, and Tate Ellington as Pattinson's hyper-active roommate also help surf this piece.

Emile de Ravin is cast as Ally Craig, Tyler's girlfriend. I can't blame her for a wickedly poor performance. It makes me wonder if her character (and plot line) was thrown in during filming so Pattinson's character would have a "love interest." I blame the director for no guidance what-so-ever.

3/10 as it is watchable especially Pattinson and young Ruby Jerins.

Had not seen this movie since its theatrical release in 1976 or 77. Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor were considered upcoming stars and were also romantically linked. Anyway...

The film holds up extremely well considering it was made 35 years ago. If I'd never seen it and told it was made two years ago -- I'd easily believe it.

It's easy to fall in love with Robby Benson's Billy Joe. That is key to understanding this film. The extremely sensitive, yet sturdy teen, might be a bit overplayed by Benson, but Billy Joe's eccentricities is what brings Glynnis' 15-year old, Bobbie Lee character to sexual fruition, and almost always, frustration. We are left to guess Bobby Joe's age, but the character can't be much older than 17 (going on 13).

While their love affair is brief; it is played out in memorable and sensitive scenes. The moonlit pond scene is funny, true and uncannily tender considering the expected romantic (sexual) gesturing never occurs. The school-bus scene with Bobby Joe forcibly boards to find Billie Lee is comedic as it is romantic.

Billy Joe's confusion regarding his sexuality is uncomfortably confirmed when he realizes he is different. Perhaps because the film was made in 1975, and teen-age homosexuality was considered near pornographic, or just the writer and director's vision of keeping Billy Joe as mysterious as possible, the audience never views any sexual tensions between other male characters, let alone an encounter scene between the male partners. It would've made the picture and the character more believable especially when Bobby Joe tells Billie Lee about the encounter, which she casually dismisses as a drunken episode.

It leaves the audience wondering. Why did Bobby Joe commit suicide when Billie Lee was so willing to accept him? Is the overlay of southern views of homosexuality in the late 50's that drove him to his death? Or, was it just Bobby Joe's extreme (yet sturdy), impulsive, sensitivities that he refused to accept himself -- or even try.

6/10 as the film holds so well after 35 years, and Robby Benson's overwhelming portrayal. Of course, the story itself, and the mysteries that are never explained.

It takes an awful long, boring 20 minutes or so before this film comes to a stop; literally. Two boys and one college girl stuck on a chairlift in the middle of the night. Everyone gone home. Lights out. And, the fun begins...

The story itself holds merit. However, so many flaws interrupt the flow of supposed fright, freezing and sheer terror that the audience was promised. It almost becomes a tender-hearted comedy. The very few moments that hold any surprise are quickly doused by easily predictable conclusions.

The acting is novice. The script nearly predictable. With that said, I waited (or waded though) till the final credits. The photography is good given the Utah location.

Hey, if you like wolves...don't miss this stinker. 2/10 for the intent and photography.

The two times I've seen this movie I've missed the first ten or so minutes. Often those initial scenes can lay the entire foundation of what follows.

Simply stated, I liked the film. The "belated" mother and "angry" pre-teen concept is rarely explored. It is normally the child/father reunification, which I suppose is more common. It is very rare for a mother to abandon her infant leaving the child's total care to the father.

The film's overall synergy is the intimate portrait through the screenplay and extremely honest dialog between mother and son. Its downfall rests in the same place.

Michelle Monagan's "Diane" is not fully believable as the runaway mother turned rig-driver. I place this malfunction on the director. Her seemingly instant acceptance as Peter's mother is hollow. However, when that bump (although it is apparent throughout the film) is overcome it becomes a bittersweet love story. Young Jimmy Bennett's "Peter" is relatively excellent. When the two characters are left alone, which is a great deal of the picture, the film works best.

Dying father "Len Bonner" (very curious name) played by Benjamin Bratt offers nothing to the overall story and script. His screen time could not be more than 8 minutes. His importance to 11-year old Peter appears distant and unrealistic. It would've been justifiable to simply have buried him at the beginning of the picture.

Overall "Trucker" is a worthwhile watch, if for nothing else than for Jimmy Bennett. I'm guessing from the IMDb stats that he was about 12 or 13 when this film was made. Further research shows he currently plays the nerdy, teen-age genius on TV's "No Ordinary Family." His career is one to watch.

Caught this film by accident on Showtime. Its 'get-to-the-point' screenplay holds some similarity to the "Cold Case" television series. Detective Tom Adkins is drawn into a case where the body of a young child in a buried box is found on a construction site. Initially, he holds hope the corpse is that of his own long lost son who disappeared at a roadside carnival some ten years previous when he was 8-years old. However, the deceased child is a boy. The remains prove likely the crime is 50 years old.

The story jumps back into 1958 by introducing Matthew Wakefield and his three super-obedient children; all boys. You're left to guess the ages. Oldest is 13, middle child maybe 11, and John is possibly 9 or 10. Their mother's sudden death leaves Wakefield devastated. He is unemployed and can't find work. He is able to board his two older boys with his wife's childless sister and her ignorant husband.

His youngest son, John, is mentally challenged and deemed unacceptable by the ignorant brother-in-law for the retardation and other questionable reasons (perhaps Wakefield is a homo and John is not his biological offspring) by his brother-in-law. Matthew has no choice but to keep young John with him as he seeks employment. He lands a construction job quickly. His dedication and work ethic keeps him working. He and his young boy move into a nearby rooming house. He also brings his son to work until the site foreman forbids it. No choice but to leave the challenged child home, then the unthinkable in more ways than one: John goes missing.

Back to the future: Detective Adkins realizes the similarities are too coincidental. It appears evident the same killer committed the crimes 40-years apart. The audience already knows the killer. The story follows the path of least resistance.

Jon Hamm is a charmer. His talent is moderated (or obliterated) for whatever reasons in this 91 minute drama. Ditto for Josh Lucas who plays the 1958 father. Lucas is able to rise above the script at times. This is a male dominated piece. Female characters are hollow or dead while alive. In one silly bit Lucas' character joins Sally Ann, the town slut, in an attempt of sexual intercourse during a night-time delivery dock rendezvous.

Everyone's a critic, eh? The film lacks depth.

Spoilers ahead: Wakefield's wife and mother of their three boys commits suicide presumably because her youngest son is a 'retard' in 1958 ??? Our culture had well-advanced by then to accept the mentally retarded. The three brothers introduction in the film would've been better served by a skinny-dip scene in some pond (the ol' swimin hole) where some laughter, splashing and real kid dialog (circa 1958) would have helped develop some audience empathy when they have to separate.

Lucas' relationship with his mentally challenged son offered numerous opportunities to display father/son bonding. Instead it is nothing but unrequited likability. 13 or 14-year old Jimmy Bennett's portrayal of 10-year old John is left in the grayness stumbling his best as the mentally challenged youngest son. His performance is forced at best. It's 1958 and John's hair is near shoulder length giving him a feminine appearance, which is fine if it was somehow addressed via dialog, story line (barbers are afraid of him) or really the script. One could easily suggest that Wakefield allows his son's extra hair because it is a denial of his mentally challenged status, or the hair reminds him of his late wife. Something, anything...? Jon Hamm's Detective Adkins is totally deadpan. We know Hamm is talented; you just need one episode of MAD MEN to understand. His character seems - no, is - totally lost. Adkins memorializes his son's disappearance by keeping the kid's room intact against his wife's better judgment. Here is another opportunity thrown away. While Adkin's son, Tommy, Jr played (very briefly) by Ty Panitz has no - none - nada connection between characters. However, the one flare-up of "real" emotion goes to Adkin's wife, Barbara, played (again, very briefly) by Rhona Mitra when she forces to Adkin's to at least come to terms that their son is dead.

The killer is known by the audience throughout most of the film. Adkin's long-held suspicions are true. The killer in one of the few brief flashes of life explored in this drama admits to Adkins, how wonderful the "killing" made him feel.

I guess little Tommy, Jr.'s body is found as most of the characters walk joyful through the cemetery in the final scene. Joyful perhaps that the filming wrapped that day?

3/10 because the story held great promise, as did the actors based on previous work. And, the editors kept the pace quick and as painless as possible.

6/10 ... for story and screenplay. Upfront a complaint: the one sex scene, the two lovers are completely covered. Why? Having them completely naked is some sort of crime I'm told because it depicts "underage" pornographic activity. Both actors were (according to IMDb) both over 20 years old at time of filming. Such infringement on the First Amendment is going too far. Certainly, if they were 12 & 13 the prohibition might hold merit. But, that still limits the writer and director. Why are we so afraid of sex? It actually diminishes (just slightly) the story in Keith. This is more for the boards, following are my observations...

I caught this gem on Showtime. "Coming-of-age" movies are so predictable. Keith is a bit different. The nerd as pretty-boy bully. The much sought after blond "prom-queen" type is caring and not blatant.

Elisabeth Harnois is Natalie, a regal, senior high-school beauty on her parental, pre-planned life as a teen-age (14th ranked) tennis champion preparing for a tennis scholarship college life at Duke University. Her high-school "court" includes a stylish, continental boyfriend, Raff, played by Ignacio Serricchio. And other stylish beauty-queen wanna-be's. All lily white in some Georgia superb.

The cast includes Jennifer Grey and a dozen others who have but a few lines that are near-inconsequential for the story line. In fact (be it IMDb's fault or production management)a small, but pivotal bit played out on screen for less than 90 seconds between Keith, Natalie and (maybe 8,9 or 10 years old) Billy, played by Zach Rockefeller is relegated to second page status here on IMDb.

Harnois' portrayal of Natalie is understated. Perhaps knowing that she was near-29 playing an18-year old allowed her to exercise reflection. She is completely viable as the senior high-school beauty within the cleverly diagrammed story and script. However, and this stone may be more for the direction, a particular maturity and minimal passion is obvious.

The title role Keith is cautiously surrendered by Jesse McCartney. He is a pretty-boy and at first glance seems miscast. A slight alteration in hair-styling and he'd pass as Justin Beiber's older brother, perhaps. He does not make the role his own. Numerous scenes he plays as if in a dress-rehearsal. Paradoxically, his subtle portrayal works well as the story progresses.

McCartney is the nerdish chemistry student paired with Natalie for their senior project. Her early dismissal of his obvious attentions slowly dissolves and she accepts their relationship as platonic. The undercurrent slowly gets stronger. This is a bumpy ride for both characters. Natalie is reminded by friends and parents of her status above this uncanny Keith. This only motivates her closer into a seemingly bizarre relationship.

Keith's idea of romance is bowling and searching for used bowling balls. His gift of a carburetor leaves audience (me) and Natalie puzzled. Evening jaunts in his pick-up is unique to Natalie and disturbing. When he drifts into the 'deep end' engaging in outbursts and disappearances only makes him more attractive to Natalie. When she secretly discovers he is on depression medication Natalie commences her crusade to save him. She drops her country-club boyfriend and rejects her pre-planned future.

After an evening of lovemaking in his pick-up, Keith crudely rejects any future together. Herein lays the essence of the film. The writers and director thus far have taken us on an acceptable roller-coaster ride of teen-age angst, love and lust. We are hesitantly endeared to Keith and Natalie. While we are taken aback at times by Keith's disturbing remarks and actions, Natalie puts up with them, hence, we do as well. Until his almost off-hand and subtly abusive rejection after the consummation are we angered. Disgusted we applaud Natalie's anger.

Is the movie over? Far from it. The final minutes play out like a good mystery and worth every second.

What do you do with an overbearing bride on her wedding night? You kill her, of course. Problem is: she won't die. Problems, problems and more problems when the groom starts to fall in love with …a corpse? Solution: maintain calm and continue on your honeymoon to Niagara Falls with your new wife who has a knack of coming back to life at, of course, inopportune moments.

Camille is an enchanting exercise into fantasy. Mr. Franco scores a near-perfect performance as the new and most hesitant groom. The title character is portrayed by Sienna Miller. Ms. Miller's transformation from grueling, controlling, uber-bride bitch to loving, yet fragile (and dead) woman is superb. Her translation and interpretation of Camille is easy and fun to witness.

It's always a simple pleasure to find a little gem like Camille.

It is a rare occurrence that I read a book or see a movie twice. When I first viewed "L.I.E." I came away mildly impressed with the acting, writing and overall production. Considering the content: man/boy sex – it was a fast-moving drama unthinkable ten years ago.

However, the "content" is never fully explored -- only exploited. Obviously, vivid scenes of sexual encounters with an underage minor are (thankfully) against the law -- at least in the USA. Furthermore, such graphic depictions would have betrayed the coming-of-age thesis that is prevalent in most of the film.

The director and writer, Michael Cuesta captured that theme: confusion, frustration, anger, angst, etc., with a near-superb delicateness. However, the cliché-ridden, chicken-hawk characterization of "Big John" does not mesh realistically with young Howie, amongst other things.

Howie Blitzer, age 15 (born July 8, 1986 -- interesting trivia introduced - well, see the film and you'll understand) is portrayed by Paul Dano. (Dano was closer to 17 when the film was made according to IMDb.) Basically, Howie is infatuated with street-wise, teen-boy prostitute, and part-time thief, Gary. The audience is left (or at least I was) not knowing Gary's age. At least 16, I suppose? Early on in the film the "non-sexual" relationship between the two burgeoning delinquents glimpses an intimacy that is nothing but deeply sensual and sexual. This was one of the numerous lost moments when two characters (both age-appropriate) could have cemented their "angst" with something simple like a kiss. Gary's character is aggressive and well-written, but departs much too soon. Not so for the protagonist Howie.

Howie, underplayed by the teen-age Mr. Dano, or over-directed by writer/director/producer Michael Cuesta, Dano's Howie appears displaced as an upper-income, motherless teen. Howie has certainly annexed the ghetto dialect of the uglier inner-city street corners with ease; a perfect fit saddled with the necessary, never-ending profanities of a street-tough gangster peppered with fight scenes. This characterization is difficult to believe especially from a youth who resides in an Architectural Digest ready home in upscale Long Island suburbia. He speaks fluent French and nimbly quotes Walt Whitman in a peculiar mental-seduction scene with the chicken-hawk, Big John.

Big John Harrigan is portrayed by Brian Cox. Lost moments are abundant. No doubt that Cox is believable in his attempt as the 'under-the-radar' pedophile. The simple flaw is Cox's Big John portrayal is overly ostentatious in speech and macho bravado. Big John would've absolutely raised eyebrows, if not direct questioning, by the police in the scene where he rescues his "nephew" Howie from a night in jail. Additionally, Big John's rejection when near-naked Howie (clad only in his jockey's) seeks physical (and emotional?) comfort in Big John's embrace. I imagine this is to show the "love" for the youngster knowing that sex is just a matter of time and some grooming.

I remain supportive of the film simply because it tackles a taboo subject. Sometimes it tries too hard and bounces back to the viewer. In an unusual way we can easily empathize with the characters. But, not so fast. The script takes the easy way out – or does it? See the film and agree or not.

Supporting cast makes this film interesting. John Goodman, Ed Asner and (all to briefly) Jane Alexander. Just in case you've not read the other reviewers: Unconventional mattress salesman meets rich girl. Mattress salesman wants Chinese baby to fulfill his life. Rich girl wants ... ? These two characters fall into love as they attempt to understand it. The End. Again, John Goodman as the mafia-type father of Happy, played by Zooey Deschanel, adds luster and laughs. Asner is the 80-year old dad of mattress salesman Brian, played by Paul Dano. Unconventional character even more so then his son. Asner has fun with the role. Ms. Alexander is the only near-normal, mother-like character as Brian's mother. She seems to be the only character who understands what's happening. This is not some offbeat film. It has excellent production values, editing, music, photography, etc. Equally important, it keeps your attention on various levels. Sub-plots so-to-speak. But, no spoilers here. The story is offbeat. Furthermore, while Mr. Dano carries his "offbeat" role as the uncanny, maternal 20-something with sympathetic depth, Ms. Deschannel does not connect with her character at all. She certainly has promise and frankly I look forward to seeing her in other roles. Unfortunately, she is only "eye-candy" and to some extent reduces the entire production. The film is still worthwhile, but only a 4/10 for supporting cast and story.

Just caught this film on Showtime. Gena Rowlands the reason only. Of course, she is able (just) to rise above the material and awful dialog.

The "story" has promise: a young, dysfunctional teen is paired with an older woman as a punishment for a school prank. James Caan as the matchmaker school principal (total miscast) turns the youngster into a part-time, gardener-assistant to Mrs. Ritchie to pay for his misdeed. The boy, "Charlie," played by Kevin Zegers (another total miscast)is soon captivated by the open, loving and suitably honest Mrs. Ritchie and excels as the apprentice helper-gardener. Charlie is also captivated by Mrs. Ritchie's two mentally challenged children, both adults.

The flip side: Charlie's home life is warmed-over trailer-trash. Dad, "Sonny," poorly played by David Schofield, walks through his part befuddled by a long-ago marital infidelity. Of course, Charlie and Dad are in conflict with each other over everything. Mom, "Joan," played by Leslie Hope (another miscast - although is able at times to overcome the near sit-com drivel) is caught between her children and their abusive father as she inches her way into substance abuse. Charlie and the aging Mrs. Ritchie instantly develop a secure relationship that transforms the young delinquent into a model citizen.

What is the point of this photoplay? The story-line is not unique by a long-shot. However, the psychological environment and other elements hold promise not explored, nor exploited by the writer/director. It is a shame that Ms. Rowland's extreme talent is rarely allowed to shine. The audience is insulted by the poor, sophomoric dialog. Add the unbelievable solidarity between Mrs. Ritchie and Charlie. No conflict, no generational struggle, just an acceptance that makes no sense.

Do not waste valuable time on this. This one is for Rowland fans only.

Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.

The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.

The sets/decorations, photography and other peripheral production standards above par - and that's about it.

Disclaimer: I've never cared much for 'horror' movies. Okay with that said... I anticipated something a bit lower key than this over-the-top silly, near laughable tale of a retired NY cop moonlighting as a night watchman in a burnt out department store. Mirrors, mirrors, everywhere. Scary ones too. They're out to get him and his family. I still don't know why. This bothers me. I must lower my meds or something.

Keifer Sutherland is normally a good (if not great) actor. He walks through this part looking for the studio paymaster. I don't blame him. I hope he got $$$$ for this bomb.

Hear they plan to make Mirrors II - I guess so we can find out what really happened to ... (guess).

Ryan Goosling is always interesting to watch. Finally, gone is that so youthful boy/man persona - he is a good actor.

When a director, writer, actors ask you to suspend belief - you agree in order to be entertained, or educated, or whatever...

This particular production is nothing but a sit-com that becomes a situation, that becomes ridiculous. From comic to sad (tragedy) to simply boring.

There is no "message" in this film. That everyone cares for Ryan's character - because he is crazy - is one thing. To ask the audience to accept that everyone in the film "accepts" the concept of a sex-doll suffering from cancer or terminal illness without some clarifications is unrealistic. The writer and director insult our intelligence.

Some sex scenes would have enhanced this "fantasy."

I would not normally care if a film made money or not - but I checked the 'mojo' site and it took in 27M against 20M cost. This has to be due to Ms Zellweger's ability to 'open' a film or whatever the jargon is.

Being a fan of KID NATION (as I know one of the kids in that reality show) I looked forward (as the youngster was one of the extras) to this western. The 'movie set' town sits outside of Santa Fe where KID NATION was filmed. Anyways...

Ed Harris' work as an actor (and director in Pollock is especially noteworthy) has alway been good. Jeremy Irons, ditto. HOWEVER this has to be one of the worst 'westerns' I've sat through in quite a while. The story line is so absolutely predictable as to be comic. The characters with the possible exception of Mr. Irons portrayal of the corrupt rancher, are wooden. Even poor Renee could not rise above the script or the idiotic story line.

New Marshall in town with sidekick to 'off' the bothersome bad guys. Ms. Renee arrives to set up business set in 1887; the lonely widow looking for a man. Immediately she finds the new Marshall (and later his sidekick and more - very questionable morales here) and begins to settle down. I don't think she marries the Marshall (Harris) - or, maybe I missed that part? The Marshall does not suffer fools lightly and kills most of them within seconds of introductions - or beats them to a pulp.

He manages to get the real, real bad guy - played by Irons. After a speedy trial (one witness for the prosecution and maybe dozens for the defendant) the judge (direct from Central Casting) sentences Irons to death in another town. Off go the Marshall, sidekick and some other central casting types.

Oh no... Irons' gang manages to get him back. Oh no... they are holding helpless, man-lovin Renee hostage. You guessed it - Harris catches up with them only to find his beloved bathing naked with the outlaws (and looking like she's having a great time). This is the only twist in this rather bad screenplay - so you'll just have to see it to believe it.

Justice is done and thankfully the film concludes with a song by Mr. Harris himself. YUCK!! Okay - the locations (besides the Santa Fe town) are great and captures the real west - not the Monument Valley, stunning sunset scenarios. The often windy, dusty weather of the high desert is appropriate. Costumes, art direction, cinematography is also top rate. HOWEVER, I can only rate it 3/10 mainly because I just love Renee (even though she was awful in this wooden, misdirected film).