Reviews

Before the internet, before late-night cable TV shows, before the VCR brought entertainment of all types into the privacy of American homes, there were movies like "10", "The Blue Lagoon", and "Blame it on Rio", whose chief attraction was the opportunity to glimpse beautiful women parade around in nothing or next to it. Nowadays, of course, much more explicit material can be found with the click of a mouse. But given that I had seen the first two of those three movies when they were initially released, but not the third, I decided to use the wonders of the internet to go back in time to see how "Blame it on Rio" would come across in the year 2011.

The short answer: "Blame it on Rio" is slightly deeper (and longer) than an episode of "The Love Boat"; it's about on par, as far as psychologically based comedies go, with the Chicago-based version of "The Bob Newhart Show". So there are no insightful commentaries on the human condition contained within the storyline: the basic message, I would say, is that it is awfully hard to remain monogamous for the entire lifetime of a marriage. The storyline never quite degenerates into a farce, which would probably be an improvement, nor is it dramatic; it is sort of in between. Thus, the chief attraction, twenty-seven years later, remains the eye candy.

There won't be enough eye candy to satisfy 21st century viewers seeking visual thrills; as I said there is much more explicit content on the internet which is more easily accessible. But for those who were of age in the 1980s, watching "Blame it in Rio" does offer some highlights, while bringing back memories of how entertainment used to be. The main highlights are Michelle Johnson, who gives what turns out to be the best performance of her career while at the peak of physical perfection of her young nubile self; and the gorgeous portrayal of the city of Rio de Janeiro in a more carefree, innocent time, before it became known more for crime and slums.

The lines that Michelle Johnson has to utter are usually cringe-inducing, or that is they would be if the viewer was paying any attention at all to them, but fortunately she provides ample visual distraction, and for that her performance is to be applauded. She does a great job shedding her inhibitions. But surprisingly, in retrospect, the young female actress who went on to much more fame and fortune, and who is even now still on the cover of celebrity magazines, is Demi Moore. In "Blame it on Rio", Demi can't hold a candle next to Michelle Johnson's performance.

"Blame it on Rio" is recommended only for folks such as myself, who remember the impact it made at the time but didn't see it then. It is not a classic, or even as good a movie as Blake Edwards' "10".

Nine times out of ten, when I read a book before seeing the movie, I enjoy the book much more; but the movie "Thank You For Smoking" (TYFS) is that rare occurrence of a movie which is the equal of the book. I thoroughly enjoyed the book TYFS, which I still rate as one of Christopher Buckley's best. In movie form TYFS is even more impactful, due to the stronger sensory experience of the cinema, while being equally funny and insightful - but not, of course, as pleasingly long or in-depth.

What makes TYFS succeed so brilliantly is Buckley's satirical behind-the-scenes view of how Washington politics and politicians work, and what they say, feel and do, both in public and behind closed doors (which, of course, is quite a contrast). Although certain scenes in TYFS are a bit over-the-top, and one might quibble with certain things the characters say and do, one gets the sense that there is a lot more truth about our political system in TYFS than there is in today's 6 o'clock evening news.

Movie writer/director Jason Reitman faithfully transfers Buckley's views to the silver screen, and the production values of TYFS are top-notch. Aaron Eckhart us simply amazing as lead character Nick Naylor: he is perfectly cast as the handsome, well-spoken lead lobbyist for the tobacco industry, and he gives a great performance. The supporting cast also turns in a series of fine performances: notable are Katie Holmes as an unscrupulous investigative reporter, Maria Bello as a fellow lobbyist (for the alcoholic beverages industry), Robert Duvall as the patriarch of the tobacco industry, and Sam Elliott as the original Marlboro Man. The settings and cinematography are outstanding, and the producers even got Joan Lunden and Dennis Miller for a couple of talk show scenes. Any quibbles about the movie aren't worth mentioning, aside from the fact that the movie is definitely for adults, even though there's nothing explicit about the visual images.

So if you are someone who takes a skeptical, perhaps cynical, view of the goings-on in Washington D.C., and would enjoy laughing at how you suspect Washington really works, then you will thoroughly enjoy "Thank You For Smoking".

Romantic liaisons between younger women and older men aren't supposed to last. The initial impulse isn't supposed to last, the incompatibilities in age and lack of shared cultural experiences are supposed to prevent a deep bond from forming, and the censure of polite society is supposed to eventually cause the parties to sever their ties. Yet what if the initial impulse is deep enough, and various parties around the lovers are rash enough, to trigger effects which last for the lifetimes of both participants? This is the intriguing scenario explored by director/writer Claude Chabrol (assisted by writer Cecile Maistre) in "A Girl Cut in Two".

The "May" of the romance is a young on-air television personality wonderfully played by Ludivine Sagnier, who in this film is the embodiment of the expression "a breath of fresh air". The "September" of the romance is an aging author and intellectual capably portrayed by Francois Berleand. Sagnier manages to demonstrate some believable longing and chemistry towards Berleand, even though their scenes together are not explicit (Sagnier fans will see a lot more of her, so to speak, in the film "Swimming Pool"). Unfortunately for our lovers, not only is Berleand's character married as well as fussed over by a publicity agent (played by Mathilda May) with whom he is also dallying on the side, but Sagnier's character is the desired object of affection of a brash, spoiled young heir played by Benoit Magimel. This combustible mix eventually explodes, as it must.

"A Girl Cut in Two" is a very French film, and will appeal to those seeking an immersion in French culture, society, and morals. The setting is not Paris but rather the smaller southern French city of Lyon, which is beautifully captured on film. But the most intriguing aspect of the film is Berleand's character, and what his many actions and deceptions say about French society and morals in the early 21st century. Berleand's character, although he is exalted for the truths contained in his writings, invents different "truths" to suit his circumstances, and eventually pays a price for doing so.

Ludivine Sagnier fans who appreciate her for more than just the charms of her beauty and body will enjoy "A Girl Cut in Two", as will those seeking a thought provoking film about upper-crust French society.

"How Much Do You Love Me?" revolves around Monica Bellucci's character Daniela and the many different female roles she changes into and out of like so many pieces of clothing. She is definitely a whore and a seductress, but she may or may not also be a girlfriend, a wife, a mistress, an accomplice, and a scam artist. She is at times domineering but at others submissive and weak; at times jealously possessive but at others open and free; at times quiet and pensive but at others loud and raucous. It takes a while for all these different sides of Daniela to appear, but by the end of the film she is changing between them seemingly in the blink of an eye.

Few characters in the movie can resist falling for one or more sides of Daniela, and the audience too will fall in love with the performance Monica Bellucci gives in the role. It certainly helps that Monica has the beauty and the body to pull of the role, and she is not shy about sharing her voluptuous charms with the camera. In one scene she even instructs us on how she is able to seduce her target, and it is clear that Monica Bellucci knows how to use her considerable female attributes.

The other strong performance in "How Much Do You Love Me?" comes from legendary French actor Gerard Depardieu. Depardieu's character does not appear until the second half of the film, well after all the other main characters have been introduced, but Depardieu instantly captures the attention of the audience. He has played many different characters in his career, and in "How Much Do You Love Me?" he looks like he was born to play the role of an amoral gangster.

The main problem I had with "How Much Do You Love Me?" is that the action starts off slowly, and what is billed as a comedy feels like a depressive drama during the first third of the film. As it turns out it takes a while for director and writer Bertrand Blier to set the stage, and the action picks up considerably in the second two thirds of the film. "How Much Do You Love Me?" never turns into a slapstick farce; instead, it is ultimately a sophisticated adult comedy about the different roles women can assume. While being entertaining it also raises some interesting questions about just what the differences and boundaries are between those roles.

"Une Aventure" features Ludivine Sagnier portraying Gabrielle, a single unwed mom who is the mistress to an older independent businessman/investor. Although Gabrielle is well provided for by her lover, with a nice modern apartment and a nanny/maid, and although she is the one character in the movie who does not have to work for a living (she calls herself a "lady of leisure"), she is depressed and slowly descending into the depths of mental illness. The main question, as the movie progresses, is whom she will pull into the depths with her (we see just how deep the depths are at the very beginning of the film, as the rest fills in the story leading up to the opening scene).

Gabrielle stumbles into Julien one night, who has just moved into her neighborhood, and that triggers a relationship that draws Julien into her life, with all its problems. Julien, although he is living with a woman, starts pursuing and trying to help Gabrielle both out of human kindness and because he is attracted to her. The circle expands as we get introduced to Julien's lover, Gabrielle's lover/provider, and the wife of Gabrielle's lover/provider. This being France, it is possible for all these people to know and interact with everyone else without furniture being thrown at each other. But that doesn't mean that there aren't tensions, or that there isn't hatred buried just beneath the surface of interactions, or that everyone is going to live happily ever after.

The best performance is turned in by Bruno Todeschini as Louis, Gabrielle's lover/provider. Ludivine Sagnier shows in this role that she is more than just a pretty face, and she does an adequate job portraying a character who is the opposite of upbeat and perky.

Those who purchase or rent "Une Aventure" hoping for a duplicate of Ludivine Sagnier's compelling performance in "Swimming Pool" are likely to be disappointed. Sagnier's character in "Swimming Pool" is carefree and often merrily unclothed; in "Une Aventure" her character is depressed and passive, especially during her romantic couplings. Although there are a few brief nude scenes, and Ludivine wears a very flattering dress in a nightclub scene (this is what is pictured on the box cover), there are nowhere near as many as in "Swimming Pool". Watch "Une Aventure" only if you are into dramatic French cinema about adult relationships.

My rating: 8/10.

"A Very Long Engagement" is a true epic French film, and worth seeing if you are at all willing to see foreign cinema. Unlike many smaller-scale French films, which typically don't have the budgets of major Hollywood spectaculars, AVLE is a richly textured, wonderfully detailed period piece showing France during and just after World War I. The cinematography and settings alone are worth the price of admission, and the scenes of trench warfare are unforgettably poignant.

AVLE is a multi-layered film. At its heart it is a love story that asks the question: when should a person give up on a loved one, and accept what appears to be reality? It also shows the tremendous impact that war has on families, lovers, and other aspects of "normal" life, and can perhaps help explain the tremendous aversion to war that even today the French have. The film shows both the good and the bad sides of the romanticism of its French characters. And finally, the film is also an intricate puzzle to be solved. It is this last aspect of the film that I wasn't able to follow by seeing the film just once: the clues that the main character puts together flew by so quickly that I wasn't able to follow them all through to the conclusion. At times, I was so wrapped up in the film that I forgot that I was reading subtitles, but I just didn't focus enough attention on this aspect of the plot to keep up with the rapid-fire developments.

AVLE has all the ingredients of a successful epic film: excellent settings, costumes, cinematography, acting, and a storyline. If the film were made in the US and the actors spoke English, it would probably be a success (in this country) on the order of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Schindler's List". For those who are willing to read subtitles, AVLE can be almost as enjoyable as an epic mainstream Hollywood film.

My rating: 7/10.

Closer, which portrays a love quadrangle between four London urban sophisticates (actually three, plus Natalie Portman's stripper character), explores a variety of challenging questions. What is it that separates humans from animals – is it our capacity for forgiveness, or for adhering to the truth? To what extent should a person lie to protect the happiness of others? What is the nature of love in modern-day urban society? What is happiness, and can we even recognize a happy person? When is one being taken advantage of, and when is one properly protecting one's self? It is quite obvious that Closer was originally a play. There is little action, only a few sets, and a huge amount of dialogue. Fortunately, the four lead actors are all up to the challenge. Julia Robert's thoughtful and engaging performance will surprise some people, but I felt that Clive Owen turned in the most outstanding performance, in the complex role of the manipulative Larry. The scene in which Larry reveals to Dan the results of his scheming, reducing Dan to a whimpering shred of a human being, is a masterpiece of power and control, and Clive Owen carries it off brilliantly, with perfect timing, delivery and body language.

My primary complaint about Closer is that the storyline is overly complex. By the time the final breakup scene rolls around, after so many other breakups and reconciliations, it seems a bit too much. The very end of the film, when Dan visits the park, does provide an answer for the final breakup, but still, I had tired of the back-and-forth by the end of the film. Closer also does a better job at raising questions that answering them. Viewers looking for principles or even for consistency of behavior among the main characters will be sorely disappointed, as hypocrisy and contradictions abound, but this apparent fact of modern-day life may indeed be one of the messages the film is communicating. If so, it's more than a bit depressing.

My rating: 8/10

Lemmon and Matthau. Randall and Klugman. To this list, now add Giamatti and Church.

Paul Giamatti's character Miles and Thomas Haden Church's character Jack are as unlike as can be, and yet somehow are good enough buddies to spend a week together in California's southern wine country before Jack's impending marriage to the daughter of a successful immigrant family. Jack is a stereotypical live-for-the-moment aging blond California surfer-type (an actor, by profession), who doesn't delay any gratification, whereas Miles (an unpublished author) personifies delayed gratification - in fact, there are serious doubts as to whether he will ever experience any gratification at all in his life, aside from being a wine snob (and how much fun is that, really?).

After a slow start to the storyline, including a diversionary trip to visit Miles' mother (which doesn't serve any real purpose in the film other than to demonstrate how desperate Miles is), Sideways gets rolling as the characters of Miles and Jack try to achieve the goal of most modern-day Americans: to be happy. Miles and Jack make very different choices, with Jack choosing the easy way and Miles, who is clinically depressed and borderline suicidal, choosing the hardest possible way in almost all situations. To the casual observer, Miles appears to be a complete loser, and yet, by the end of the film, when one sees just what Jack's choices have wrought and what his future may be like, one could very easily conclude that Miles may ultimately have the better, more satisfying life in the future. To its credit, the film ends before resolving this question, but as bad as life has been for Miles, there is indeed hope.

The leads give strong performances, and are well cast for their roles. Among the supporting roles, Sandra Oh's happy-go-lucky character of Stephanie is particularly memorable. As the film progresses and the groundwork has been laid, the comedic moments build until a truly funny scene played entirely for laughs, when Miles has to retrieve Jack's wallet from his latest one night stand. Most of the comedy, however, is more cerebral than slapstick, making Sideways an excellent choice for adults looking for more sophisticated fare than the latest Austin Powers movie. Sideways is a frank look at modern-day adult romance, friendship and life, and while the picture is not always a pretty one, there is plenty of food for thought.

My rating: 9/10 Pixar does it again: they are simply today's best studio (better than Disney, better than Dreamworks) at producing great animated films that appeal to the entire family. The Incredibles is destined to become yet another Pixar classic that gets played again and again, years into the future.

As the dad of my family, I appreciated The Incredibles focus on the male psyche and the pressures that modern-day dads endure. There is more than a little bit of Mr. Incredible in all dads these days, even if we can't lift our commuter cars over our heads. However, I also saw a lot of my wife in the character of Elastigirl, as did she (by the way, Holly Hunter does a great voice-over for Elastigirl). Almost all kids will instantly identify with Dash, the young boy, and they will be filled with joy as Dash finally gets to use his powers to help save the day. The only weak, unappealing main character is Invisigirl, who I felt was too much of a low self-esteem, angst-ridden, shy teenage girl.

The storyline of The Incredibles is remarkably grown-up, and even has bearing on aspects of our politics and culture. The main message is a valid one: don't accept mediocrity. However, this means that certain aspects of the film are politically incorrect (egads, we're not all equal – and that's OK!), which is refreshing to see in a mainstream Hollywood film. Yet the film is not preachy, and there is more than enough other material to keep even a 4 year-old riveted to her seat.

The PG-rating comes from the cartoon-like violence. If your kids have been previously exposed to this type of action, then there is nothing to fear from The Incredibles. My whole family truly enjoyed the film, and can't wait for the next Pixar release.

My rating: 9/10

De-Lovely is a major achievement and is remarkable for many reasons, not the least of them being that it was even made in the first place. For every De-Lovely, Hollywood seems to crank out hundreds of shoot-em-up explosion spectaculars, teen sex comedies, star vehicles for gangster rappers, and depressing, nihilistic `independent' films for the intelligentsia.

De-Lovely is everything these films are not. It is a great musical in the `they don't make ‘em like that any more' sense, a poignantly heartwarming love story with true emotional depth (and a twist), a celebration of life and happiness (as well as a recognition and understanding of life's tragedies), and a star vehicle for two truly talented actor/singers, Kevin Klein and Ashley Judd, plus a plethora of cameo appearances by currently popular singers (including Elvis Costello, Alanis Morissette, Sheryl Crow and Natalie Cole) who obviously are singing their songs more for love (of Cole Porter) than money.

As depicted in De-Lovely, Cole Porter possessed more joie-de-vivre than perhaps any man in history, and he wrote his songs straight from the heart. The first part of the film, corresponding to the first half of Porter's adult life, appears to be all peaches and cream, and I was prepared simply to enjoy an upbeat musical. Porter enters into a nearly perfect (for him) relationship with his wife Linda, that allows him his dalliances and to remain true to his self, but also to, over time, experience the depths of true love with a life's partner. It is the second half of the film, when the Porter's must overcome multiple tragedies, that elevate De-Lovely to a truly noteworthy film, by showing a deep understanding of love and humanity.

Kevin Klein and Ashley Judd give great performances. Klein has the most challenging role, as he must sing, dance, and act through a broad range of emotions, as well as age over the course of 40 or 50 years (by the way, the make-up work which aged the actors is very good – it must be amazing for Klein and Judd to see what they may look like in their 60s or 70s). I wouldn't be surprised to see Oscar nominations for Klein (especially) and Judd, if this film reaches a broad enough audience. My quibbles with the film are minor (some abrupt transitions, and some garbled dialogue), and are far outweighed by the many positives.

Surprisingly, the major movie critics have ranged all over the `love/hate' spectrum in their reviews of De-Lovely (check out the metacritic web site to see for yourself). I think the reaction to the film is primarily a function of the state of mind of the reviewer, i.e. subjectivity dominates objectivity. I am flabbergasted that the Village Voice reviewer could call this film `overwhelmingly glum'. I wonder what this reviewer thought of `Sid & Nancy', which I would say is the antithesis of De-Lovely?

If modern pop culture has not yet turned you into a complete cynic, if you have any appreciation at all for music of the Jazz Age, big bands, or crooners such as Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Mel Torme, or (today) Harry Connick Jr., if you have a romantic bone in your body, if you enjoy traditional Hollywood or Broadway musicals or a great love story, then I think you will find De-Lovely definitely delightful!

My rating: 5/10

Shrek 2's target audience, unfortunately, doesn't fit my family's profile: my girls (7 and 3) are too young. For kids to appreciate Shrek 2 (or even for them not to experience a certain revulsion towards the character Shrek), they need to be older and slightly cynical, at least towards the prototypical Disney "and they lived happily ever after" fairy tale movies. However, even pre-teenage children will only capture a fraction of the references to popular culture and 20 year-old movies that pervade Shrek 2. Therefore, I submit that the target audience for Shrek 2 is a pair of pop culture saturated parents, and their post-Disney kids.

Since I'm not saturated with pop culture, I didn't get anywhere near all the references in Shrek 2. But even those that I did get, such as the Stay-Puft marshmallow man of Ghostbusters' fame, and Joan Rivers dishing out her commentary at the Academy Awards, were not exactly side-splitting funny. Amusing, yes, and Shrek 2 had its moments. But to me it felt like much of it was formulaic, and aimed at the true pop culture sophisticate.

Pixar, by contrast, has proven repeatedly that they know how to develop funny, warm computer animated movies that truly can be appreciated by all ages. Most all the Pixar films are classics that will still be viewed 20 years from now, whereas by then, Shrek 2 will have faded from memory.

My rating: 9/10

Would individuals and the world be better off if science could invent a way to erase bad memories, such as those of a romantic relationship gone sour? At first thought, the answer might appear to be a quick, unequivocal `yes', but screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and company present a much more complex, considered response in Eternal Sunshine, in the process making some timeless observations on the nature of romantic love and life itself. For without unpleasant memories, how are people to learn from their mistakes and move forward? Might they not be doomed to repeat their mistakes, almost verbatim? And would people be better off learning news of the future, or are we to be thankful that the future is unknowable?

Fans of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, who loved `Being John Malkovich' and `Adaptation' (the best film of 2002, in my judgment), will no doubt relish Eternal Sunshine. Kaufman is to be commended for again breaking new ground in filmmaking; while Eternal Sunshine is definitely recognizable as a Kaufman film, he has not yet fallen into a rut, and the material is satisfyingly original. But Kaufman isn't the only one who deserves kudos for Eternal Sunshine (he also shares writing credits): Jim Carrey is great, Kate Winslet gives a strong performance as Carrey's self-admittedly `high maintenance' love interest, and Kirsten Dunst (incredibly nubile dancing in her underwear during one scene) shows both emotional shallowness (as a worshipful assistant to a doctor and a party girl) and depth, when required.

Eternal Sunshine makes excellent use of the medium of film; like Kaufman's other work, it would have to be tremendously transformed to be made into a book or play. The intent in Eternal Sunshine is to mimic the behavior of the mind by jumping from image to image across boundaries of time and space, not always paying attention to the laws of physics, and combining disparate elements from multiple experiences. Through striking sets such as a beach house that disintegrates as Carrey's character slowly has the memory of it destroyed, Director Michel Gondry succeeds in crafting powerful images to convey Kaufman's story.

Those looking for a film that requires and rewards thought will find much enjoyable brain food in Eternal Sunshine. It's not quite Kaufman's deepest work, but it most definitely delivers an original moviegoing experience.

My rating: 6/10

There are two types of dreamers in `The Dreamers': the three main characters, who create their own interior world and prefer to view the outside world by watching classic 1930s cinema; and the socialist street revolutionaries of riot-torn 1968 Paris, who attempt to overthrow the political and economic power structure. `The Dreamers' focuses more on the former than the latter, and Bernardo Bertolucci is careful to leave his film open to interpretation, but ultimately the dream world of the three main characters is shattered by the realities of life. The film ends before resolving the outcome of the second set of dreamers, but we all know our history. Some may think it a shame that the dreamers fail, but others like myself will view it as something that has to happen, if the dream is unrealistic and unsustainable.

The relationship between the three main characters is unlike anything that I've ever seen portrayed on film. The twins, Isabelle and Theo, are almost as close to each other in young adulthood as they were during the nine months they spent together in their mother's womb. Matthew, a U.S. student studying abroad in Paris, inserts himself into the middle, and when he receives early indications that portend the depth of the relationship between the twins, he does not run away. To me, this required too much suspension of disbelief, but I'm certainly aware that others have different proclivities. If Bertolucci's intent was to show a high degree of separation between his three dreamers and the rest of society, he certainly succeeded.

The three dreamers have some, but ultimately too little, awareness of their separation from reality and the unsustainable nature of the world they create. While sympathizing with the revolutionaries in the street, they actually are the ultimate materialistic consumers: they produce nothing that they consume (neither food nor art), and when the money their parents provide runs out, and they've drained most of the wine cellar, the harsh realities of life set in. Rooting through trash heaps isn't the answer, and the choices that they leave themselves in the end (self-annihilation or nihilism), I believe, show just how flawed their ideal world is. My interpretation is that this lesson also applies to the other set of dreamers, the street revolutionaries, but those who even today sympathize with the views of those revolutionaries will reject this interpretation.

`The Dreamers' is very voyeuristic, and Bertolucci puts his three leads through some incredibly intimate moments. All three leads are quite good, with Eva Green in particular deserving special notice for a completely uninhibited performance (at least the two male leads had each other's example to follow). It's hard to come up with an accurate overall rating for this film, because I think there will be a widespread variance in how different people react to both the storyline and the images. Read the reviews carefully, and if it sounds like something that interests and won't shock you, then give it a try. My middle-of-the-road rating is mainly due to my not being terribly interested in the type of relationship formed by the three main characters.

You gotta love the French. They may not know how to get rid of megalomaniac dictators (Hitler, Hussein), and few people outside the borders of La Republique would invest their hard-earned cash in a French automobile. But when it comes to sex-tinged business scandals, like the ELF `whore of the republic' saga, the French make the boys at Enron seem like virginal choirboys. And, oh yes, the French do know how to make a `thinking man's' erotic movie, as `Choses Secretes' (in French, with English subtitles) proves. And their wine and cheese isn't half bad, either.

For those in the mood for a thoroughly adult (i.e. aimed at mature audiences) film, that probes the dark side of human behavior and features plenty of beautiful women behaving naughtily, `Choses Secretes' does not disappoint. In the film, two young women, one already experienced in using her body for fun and profit, find quality jobs hard to come by in present-day Paris, so they decide to try the time-honored method of sexually manipulating men in order to rise to the top (at one point in the film, one of the minor characters mentions Madonna, who is accused of having done exactly this in the music business). This requires them to put their human feelings of love, friendship, kindness, loyalty, and decency on hold, which ends up being a huge struggle for them. However, one person in the film, the CEO of the company they go to work for, who is due to inherit the firm from his aging father, apparently has mastered the emotional distance required to be a truly manipulative, evil powermonger (`Choses Secretes' was filmed in 2002, and the revelations that came out in 2003 about Saddam Hussein's sons are chillingly close to this character). So, `Choses Secretes' does have a significant story to tell.

The film is well cast, and the three leads all give strong performances. From the moment we meet the two female leads, it is obvious from the looks in their faces that one of them is the more experienced, who will slowly lead the other into debauchery. The scenes by which the two women learn to use and enjoy their bodies are amusing, as are the portrayals of life in a Parisian office. The final third of the movie, however, is appropriately dark and sinister, and there is a sub-theme of incest that may bother some viewers (I had to remind myself that, after all, it is only a movie). Prudes, however, will have exited the theatre long before this sub-theme is reached. But those in the mood for an adult French cinematic experience containing both eye candy and food for thought won't be disappointed.

My rating: 5/10

I have a love/hate relationship with director Robert Altman's films. I loved The Player, a viciously funny insider's look at the business of Hollywood, but I hated last year's Gosford Park, which I felt was a muddled mess of a film, without plot or coherence (and in which it was even difficult to figure out what the characters were saying). Surprisingly to myself, I give The Company a middle-of-the-road overall rating: the dancing is great, but the rest of the film is nothing special.

If you are a ballet fan, or even mildly interested in seeing some top-notch ballet, then The Company is recommended. Nearly half the film shows dancing, both in rehearsal and in performance. The filmed performances provide a perspective that you cannot get by watching ballet from an auditorium seat, since the camera is able to roam up close to and among the dancers. The effect at times is quite magical and mesmerizing.

However, the storyline is nothing new or insightful. Yes, there is a major contrast between the lives the ballet dancers live on stage, when they are realizing their dreams, and the rote, menial day jobs they take to put food on the table (didn't Flashdance cover this same ground?). Another major focus of the film is the head of the ballet company, played by Malcolm McDowell (who's somewhat miscast, as his English accent comes through when he's supposed to be portraying an Italian-American). We get to see the creative process at work in many scenes with McDowell interacting with other members of the company, but ground, too, has been trod many times before (contrast this with the film Adaptation, which showed a truly unique and fresh look at the challenge of creating art).

Neve Campbell does a very credible job in her role as one of the better up-and-coming ballerinas in the company. Her dancing was very expressive, and while I wasn't checking to see if she was able to go `en pointe' like the professionals (her dances probably were carefully edited), it all came across in the final product as very seamless.

My rating: 6/10

Las Vegas holds a tremendous appeal for filmmakers, for obvious reasons. It's a great venue for showcasing people on the down-and-out (and in contrast to the wealth of the casinos and high-rollers), people's lives and motivations are reduced and simplified to the bare essence of survival (i.e. what would you do for fame or money?), and future events can change on the roll of a pair of dice. `Leaving Las Vegas' is probably the best recent film made about Las Vegas, and while The Cooler is an easier film to digest than LLV, it doesn't achieve nearly as much.

The best aspect of The Cooler is Alec Baldwin's performance as an old-school casino boss being supplanted by a younger generation of MBA-trained managers. Even those who dislike Baldwin for his politics will enjoy his performance in this role (in fact, those people will claim Baldwin isn't acting at all in this role). Baldwin is great, but having seen John Hurt's even slightly better performance in a near-identical role in Owning Mahoney, I wonder whether the `casino boss from Hell' role is just a plum role for aging actors. I'm sure Jack Nicholson could do a great job with this role, too.

My biggest complaint about The Cooler, aside from its more restrained ambitions than a film like LLV, is its uneven pacing and blatant foreshadowing and symbolism. William Macy plays a casino `cooler', a mythical individual who emanates bad luck, whom the casino boss directs over to `hot' tables to cool down the players. Love, as a greater power, changes the cooler; the first time we see this we get it, but it is repeated again and again. Early in the film, a casino worker tells the casino boss a long story about a nature show that he saw on TV; it's blatantly obvious to the audience just what this story is foretelling. Finally, the pace of the film is somewhat restrained and even repetitive, up to the ending, in which events unfold in such rapid-fire succession that it's almost hard to figure out if everything ended up the way it had been foretold.

In the other main roles, William Macy was good, and we see more of him (in the dimensions of both time and space) than we did in Fargo, but his car salesman's role in Fargo is still his best. Mario Bello is OK, but unfortunately her most dramatic scene is marred by a lack of realism on her makeup special effects (perhaps the budget wasn't rich enough to make her appear to continue bleeding after being cut).

Bottom line: The Cooler has its positives, but definitely not the best film ever made in or about Sin City. If you can stomach it and haven't seen it yet, try Leaving Las Vegas.

My rating: 6/10

The absolute best Disney films, like Mary Poppins, feature a story line, music, characters, and magical animation effects that are fully enjoyable for all ages, from the youngest to the eldest. Lately, the craftspeople at Pixar have produced the best all-ages films. Brother Bear is a fine enough film for the 9 to 11 age group, but the story line makes it a difficult film for younger children to handle, and the inconsistencies of mood show through as flaws for older, more critical members of the audience.

Brother Bear contains a curious mixture of scenes of traditional lovable Disney animal characters singing together and getting along famously, and then other scenes of battles to the death. The deaths in the film, which are all preceded by fairly lengthy, loud and somewhat graphic battle scenes, are what make the film challenging for the young set. My 7 year-old had to close her eyes and hold her hands over her ears, and get a few reassuring pats from me, in order to make it through those scenes. Without giving away the plot, I will warn that a good number of characters die, and there is a revelation at the end of the film (about who did what to whom) that can be heartbreaking. All this is much more overwhelming than the death of Bambi's mother ever was.

That said, the storyline is a fairly interesting one (for those who are able to handle it), and the film does convey a positive message about how man should interact with nature, as represented by the bears. Thankfully, the film is not completely idealistic, since it does recognize the necessity of the food chain, as illustrated by the long scene of the bears happily munching away on a salmon run. The representation of Native American spiritual beliefs is no doubt less than perfect, but anyone who looks to a Disney animated film for 100% historical accuracy is looking in the wrong place.

The animation is fine, but nothing spectacular. Phil Collins provided a few good upbeat songs, but they accounted for several of the severe shifts in mood, as the film swung back and forth between battle scenes to joyful celebrations of life. The McKenzie brothers from Canada, appropriately cast as moose, provide the comic relief, but I don't think they'll be getting their own TV show on the Disney channel, as did Timon and Pumbaa from the Lion King.

My rating: 7/10 if you've read the book, 3/10 if not.

Background for this review: I am a big Philip Roth fan (I got hooked upon reading `The Counterlife', which is an absolute masterpiece), and believe him to be one of America's greatest living writers. I'd rate every Roth book since `The Counterlife' as a 9 or 10 - `The Human Stain' would rate a 9, although it's not Roth's all-time best or his recent best (of the recent Zuckerman books, I thought `American Pastoral' was the best). So, knowing the complexity of the Roth's books, I was amazed to hear that `The Human Stain' was being made into a movie, and naturally I rushed out to see the end product.

For someone who has read and enjoyed `The Human Stain', I think the movie is reasonably good, primarily because it brings back impressions from reading the book. However, if you haven't read the book, I think that the movie is going to come across as overly complicated, jumbled mess, which obscures the many messages Roth is able to communicate in the book.

`The Human Stain' is a very complex story with many disparate elements: current political scandals, coming of age, World War II, boxing, familial relationships, academic politics, race relations, political correctness and modern-day witch hunts, life in the underclass, abusive relationships, homosexuality, and multiple deaths and love affairs. Any two or three of these elements could easily fill up a two hour movie. Surprisingly, the moviemakers chose to bring almost all of these elements into the movie, in an attempt to be faithful. However, without hundreds of pages and hours of the reader's attention, and without Roth's genius to tie it all together and add meaning, I don't think it works as a stand-alone movie.

There is one excellent acting performance in the film: Ed Harris is almost as riveting playing psychotic Vietnam vet Lester as Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lecter. Casting this film is indeed a nearly impossible task. I was able to suspend some disbelief to appreciate Anthony Hopkins as Coleman Silk, but it is true that the actor who plays the young Coleman Silk (who is actually closer to Silk's racial profile) doesn't look anything like Anthony Hopkins. The worst casting was Gary Sinise as Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Sinise is way too young to play an impotent Jewish writer in his twilight years.

What recent Philip Roth book would make the best movie? I think `Operation Shylock': it has the most straightforward plot whose central element (Roth's double identity) could easily transfer to the screen, and there is even a decent amount of action and suspense. I don't know why the producers chose to film `The Human Stain' - it presents a much greater challenge for them and audience members who haven't read the book.

My rating: 8/10 overall, but 2/10 for young kids (read on):

For anyone who can appreciate a good nature documentary (think National Geographic special, or IMAX nature film), Winged Migration is a must see. The many shots of birds in flight, taken from a camera that is cruising along with the flock, just feet away, create a visceral feeling of what a bird's-eye view must really be like (and as the rest of the film shows, the view while flying is probably the best part of being a bird). The geographic settings are spectacular (they include the Arctic and Antarctic, the American Southwest, the Sahara Desert, the Amazon, and just two cities, New York and Paris), and show that much of this planet, including the most stunning regions, is outside the scope of normal human experience. However, man and birds do interact, and the scenes in which they do are thought provoking and carry an obvious message. The musical score is well matched to the scenes, and the very minimal narration, which just serves to state the obvious, isn't needed at all.

Now, the young kid's eye view:

I took three girls to see this film, aged 8, 7, and 3. The 3 year-old's favorite scenes were the cute baby birds interacting with their parents. She enjoyed the flying scenes a little, but quickly tired, and once she had eaten her fill of popcorn and candy, she was ready to move onto something more exciting. The older girls initially liked the flying scenes, but since they don't know enough about the geography of the planet to appreciate all the different settings (they did recognize New York and Paris on their own, but that's about it), they got bored. They also liked the cute animal scenes, including the rock hopper penguins, but there weren't enough of these to hold their interest. The scenes of birds meeting their demise didn't appear to affect them (and after all, the death of Bambi's mother is much more traumatic), but this also means that they didn't get the message that the filmmaker was communicating. All in all, I would definitely not recommend Winged Migration for young kids. Now, could the filmmakers have made a film that would have succeeded in appealing to all ages? Yes, but it would of necessity have had to lose the subtlety and unobtrusive style that undoubtedly makes it appealing to many adults.

My rating: 3/10

Lost in Translation suffers from having no central theme, moral, or fundamental message to communicate. If it were a mindless screwball comedy it could be forgiven this flaw; however, the movie does appear to have the pretensions of communicating some sort of deeper meaning. But the best moral of the story that I can come up with is: people in strange foreign cultures, cut off from family, will bond together and make some bad choices until their return flights depart. Hardly an earth shattering revelation.

Bill Murray does give a fine performance, and has several opportunities to showcase his ironic wit, especially when filming a whiskey commercial. The film also functions as an interesting Tokyo travelogue and an introduction to various aspects of Japanese popular culture, including the pachinko parlors, arcades, street youths, strip clubs, and Japanese television. Bill Murray's visit to an over-the-top gaudy Japanese talk show is another one of the highlights.

Unfortunately, the film's flaws outweigh the positives. Besides lacking meaning, the plot takes several illogical turns. Just when Bill Murray's character and the young married woman he meets appear on the verge of deepening their relationship, a much older floozy steals his affections for the night, which he instantly regrets. This prevents the film from developing into a love story - it's a friend story, and one in which the friends aren't acting terribly rationally. The young woman whom Bill Murray's character pursues is remarkably directionless; it's hard to believe that someone who graduated from Yale with a philosophy degree would be following her husband on a photo shoot assignment, listening to pop psychology motivational speakers, and crying over her experiences in a Japanese temple. Some of the humor is more clichéd than funny, especially the ditzy blonde American actress.

By contrast, Groundhog Day, which is a more mainstream film, was not only much funnier, but also had a message to communicate, about how one should conduct one's life.

My rating: 9/10

With this film, a fourth volume has just been added to the `Best of the Coen Brothers,' joining Raising Arizona, Hudsucker Proxy and Fargo.

IC skewers a most deserving set of subjects: divorce attorneys and the legal profession, gold diggers, and foolish rich old men. The Coen Brothers have produced a no holds barred comedy, and from start to finish their savage satirical wit finds it mark, producing one memorable scene and set of belly laughs after another.

George Clooney gives a fantastic performance as a top-notch Los Angeles divorce attorney, a role which allows him to show just how much acting goes into being a good attorney. Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't have quite as meaty a part, but she gives an alluring performance. In the supporting roles, Billy Bob Thornton gets to dust off his Texas accent, and creates a credible happy-go-lucky Texas oilman. But the best supporting role is that of the senior partner of Clooney's law firm, an octogenarian representative of the legal profession who has long ago lost all traces of his humanity and soul.

The dialogue is finely honed, with barbs minor and major liberally sprinkled throughout. The plot is intricate and requires some thought to follow, as well as the suspension of a minor amount of disbelief, but it all makes sense within the logic of the film. Underneath it all, the Coen Brothers communicate a message about the interplay of love and money, and independence versus interdependence. Unlike so many other comedies which are aimed at a teenage demographic, IC is a comedy that adults will relish.

My score: 8/10

DPT portrays a world that most of its audience will have only a peripheral exposure to: life as a third-world illegal immigrant in a first-world city (although the movie is set in London, it could easily have been set in polyglot New York or Los Angeles). The hero and other characters in the film go about their business of attempting to improve their lives in an environment of exploitive bosses, overbearing police, and other immigrants who make very different choices than the first inclinations of the primary subjects.

At its heart, DPT is asking the question: how does one behave morally in an immoral world? How does one better one's life without harming others? And how is it that people who appear to be immoral can often claim to be helping others while they help themselves? What is right and wrong?

The choices the hero makes are not easy ones. He's a moral man (one character calls him an angel), yet he's knowingly breaking the law (although the law isn't always right), and even he engages in petty deceptions before being presented with much more weighty decisions to be made.

There are enough challenging moral choices in this film to spawn hours of debate among ethicists. Even the average moviegoer will be forced to ponder `what would I do in this situation'? One can also extrapolate the lessons of the movie (especially the ending) to much broader subjects. Is it right to engage in a war in which soldiers and civilians are killed, in order to remove a despotic dictator – or is there another, better, more moral path? The lesson of DPT is: moral purists will suffer, and the most immoral will survive and thrive, unless a way is found to beat the immoral at their own game.

My rating: 7/10

I enjoyed many aspects of "Swimming Pool". The female leads both gave excellent performances: Charlotte Rampling's is noteworthy for the strength of her character portrayal, and Ludivine Sagnier, while having an easier character to portray (a hedonistic young French woman), deserves much credit for her lack of inhibitions and for several scenes (particularly her dance scene) which will please anyone with an eye for female beauty and the power it can wield.

The story is, on its surface, a clash of cultures between a staid, uptight British author who only imagines nefarious doings and hedonistic pursuits, and a young free-spirited French woman whose life is mostly devoted to actually partaking in pleasures of the flesh. However, by the end, the viewer realizes that what has actually been portrayed is a depiction of the artistic process. How does an artist absorb information from the world around them, especially from a muse, and then transform that into art? To what degree is reality altered? What is fact, and what is fiction? And even more importantly, what do the alterations and choices made by the author reveal about them, as opposed to the subject of the artwork?

Similar questions are posed in the 2002 film "Adaptation", which was my favorite of the year, and which I would still recommend as a better movie than "Swimming Pool". However, "Swimming Pool" definitely has its pleasures, and is worth seeing. After all the fuss we had with France over the war in Iraq, it is good to be reminded that France has its positive attributes, Ludivine Sagnier being one of them.

I saw this film with my daughter (6 years old) and her friend (7), none of whom are Rugrats fans, mostly because they consider the Rugrat's humor to be too immature and inappropriate. My daughter and I did, however, mostly enjoy last year's The Wild Thornberrys Movie.

The plot is a literal and figurative shipwreck. The Rugrats and their parents end up on an uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific, on which the Thornberrys happen to be. Various groups and individuals splinter off in search of others. By the time Nigel Thornberry gets knocked on the head and reverts to the mental age of a 3 year-old, I had lost track of who was looking for whom and why. How a kid is supposed to follow all these machinations is beyond me.

The sheer number of characters and the randomness with which they run into each other prevent any sort of character depth from being explored. For example, in The Wild Thornberrys Movie, considerable attention was given to Darwin the monkey, who is one of the more interesting characters in this entire assembly (Darwin is smart and makes very insightful observations of human behavior, but he can only communicate with one person, Eliza - to everyone else, he is a dumb monkey). However, here he has what could be characterized as a cameo appearance at best. So, unless you are already familiar with all the characters, and don't expect much in terms of character development, you'll be disappointed.

I think there was a moral to the story (something about leadership and redemption), but I was nodding off by the end of the movie, having lost track of the plot. The audience I saw the film with was mostly subdued, with only a few audible laughs. My daughter and her friend said they liked the movie, but they like every movie I take them to, as long as I buy them popcorn. They did not talk about the movie at all the rest of the weekend. On the way home, we listened to the Lilo & Stitch soundtrack, which has much better songs than the few musical numbers in this movie.

I'm not giving this movie the worst rating, because it might be enjoyable for a few Rugrat fans. And the Rugrats' potty humor is not as bad as it could have been, although there are diaper jokes, bird droppings, and Spike the dog raises his leg a few times.

The movie ("based" on a true story - how much of it is real, and how much is invented?) portrays the descent of Dan Mahoney, an obsessive gambler who, like all of us, has "a public life, a private life, and a secret life".

Dan's public life is that of a mid-level account manager at a Toronto bank, which gives him access to money he skims and shuffles around from his clients, in order to feed his gambling habit. In his private life, he is dating a rather simple-minded fellow bank employee. And in his secret life, Dan jets off to Atlantic City and Las Vegas, wagering and eventually always losing millions of dollars. His addiction is such that his secret life eventually subsumes his other lives, although (according to the epilogue) not fatally.

One of the problems with this movie is the persona of Dan Mahoney. Evidently, remaining true to the original, Dan is an introverted, uncommunicative, shy, tradition-oriented Canadian of reserved British nature. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a very good performance as Dan, conveying his emotion in a very subtle, controlled manner. However, it does not create much opportunity for exploring Dan's inner thoughts and motivations - these must be surmised by the viewer. Additionally, the director chose to tell Dan's story in a very straightforward manner, rather than employing some of the more powerful tools of cinema (symbolism, flashbacks, alternative viewpoints, etc.). Yes, there is a scene of Dan witnessing a high-roller that is later repeated, this time with Dan as the high roller, and at another point Dan thinks he sees himself watching him gamble, but for the most part the film proceeds in a documentary-like fashion.

The best performance is delivered by John Hurt, as a Satan-like Atlantic City casino boss. However, Minnie Driver's character of Belinda, Dan's girlfriend, is one-dimensional and is never developed.

The film does trigger thoughts about the nature of addiction (from both sides, the addict and the enabler), as well as what people do when they are in a situation well over their heads. In the case of someone like Dan Mahoney, they just cannot stop. Hopefully, this will inspire the rest of us to exercise more self-control, before the police are forced to act.