Reviews

The Son is more of a Greek drama. Everything interesting that happens in the story happens off-screen. This would be less objectionable in the original play it was adapted from, but in almost every important scene in the film, characters are talking about something previous which we didn't see--an argument the night before, a phone call in the morning, an email, a job offer, and more (much more).

Even worse is amateurish writing forgetting what a character actually experienced being forgotten in the next scene. An example is Nicholas' father talking about having seen scars on his son's arm the day before in a short, rare visit. We saw this visit--Nicholas was wearing a hoodie with long sleeves throughout--how did his father see his arm? The filmmaker seems to have forgotten how he filmed the previous scene!

Other inconsistencies abound. Many have commented on McGrath's performance, but that is not where the blame lies. McGrath has potential, but needs much better direction to bring it out.

The script is tedious and ham-fisted, the characters not fully engaging, the cinematography awkwardly lit, and I'll say it again--everything interesting happens off-screen.

The one thing that is to the credit of the film is dealing with the issue of denial in mental illness. That is brought home strongly. Awkwardly, almost amateurishly, but strongly.

There is one short here which won't make you want to slit your wrists after seeing it, On the Roof is a thoroughly decent coming-of-age short about difficulty of navigating a dangerous situation wisely.

The Son is dismal, violent, and unbearably depraved. Tomboy deals with a deadly game. Bullying is the theme of Paradigm. And I can't remember what one of these stories was about.

If you want to have a relaxing, enjoyable evening, these are not the movies for you! Hit Stop after On the Roof. Not knowing what you missed is better than knowing, believe me.

The coming-of-age film in a mostly natural setting can work, and work beautifully. Think Stand By Me, The Tree of Life, or Hide Your Smiling Faces. This is not one of those. The previous reviewer, who said "there is no story" was not exaggerating. There is NOTHING here, except beautiful photography, for which it gets the four stars.Not only is there no plot, there is no script. The film appears to be entirely improvised. I can only imagine the director told the young actors "Hang out by river, the woods, and the mall, and ignore the camera. Forget we're even here." That's it. What's more, there is so much potential for a story to break out in some scenes. The boys talk to two pretty girls in an amusement park. And cut. One boy is chased by some other kids. And cut.

The plot summary is completely false. There is no sense of time, no sense of change. I really did want to like this, but there is truly no "there" there.

Thirty-five minutes into The Road to Edmund, I thought this was going to be another failed Christian road trip movie, along the lines of Extreme Days. The beginning was slow, awkward, forced, and self-conscious. But I kept watching, and something happened. It got good! Don't expect Hollywood polish and razzle-dazzle, but for an indie movie that's mostly conversations, it's quite good and very refreshing. I really wish I had been able to see this movie maybe forty years ago or so, when I was an adolescent dealing with these issues and my faith conflicts. Kudos to the writers!

The Good Waiter's lack of polish shows from the embarrassing first scene, which connects to nothing else in the film and seems to have been left in through an editing mistake. After that, it finds some footing and becomes a bland, but serviceable student film (or student-like, at least) about a developing crush between two waiters in a restaurant. Unfortunately, near the midpoint, the writer decides to switch up the story, and it goes awry, trying to be forced into a genre that it completely lacks the chops for.

Of course, The Good Waiter isn't the first movie to go off the rails in the second act, but most of the others take more than seven minutes to get there. Still, I give it marks on willingness to take a risk, but still can't recommend it.

To say that the first four episodes of Another Life are bad is a massive understatement. I initially rated the series as 2 stars, and was prepared to give it a scathing review (I like writing those, BTW), but then something happened... I watched the rest of the show, and it became pretty good. Now "pretty good" does not mean "great." Netflix struck sci-fi gold with its Lost in Space reboot, and believe me, this is no Lost in Space. but the final six episodes are more than decent. They are actually pretty good.

The first four episodes are *so* off-putting that I almost stopped there, and imagine the overwhelming majority of viewers will, too. There are so many illogical choices ... With two exceptions the entire crew seems to be under 30 years old, and nearly half of them seem like they graduated from Animal House instead of a university... not really a believable selection for a crew tasked to represent and possibly save the population of Earth.

Also, think for a moment about whether you would prefer for your AI interface to your spaceship's systems to be flighty and emotional, or always rational and self-controlled? You can guess what the writers chose, and it was the wrong choice.

And worst of all the early episodes' problems is the horrendous dialog. I'd include some examples here, but the guidelines forbid me to include profanity. Hint: there is a lot of it.

However... if you can endure the first four episodes (and believe me, I can well understand if you cannot) you will be rewarded. The dialog becomes believable, the characters become far more interesting, the story becomes intriguing, and the latter episodes actually present some very creative ideas.

If you're up to the challenge, give it a chance!

Believe me, I watch more indie and foreign films than Hollywood movies, and many low-budget, non-English-language films are among my favorites. So my disappointment with Moreno is not due to a lack of appreciation for non-Hollywood film; the problem is that Moreno is simply really bad.

It's obviously an autobiographical work, and a therapeutic exercise for the writer- director who (just like the protagonist) is named Cris. This raises some difficulties as many such films fall into the trap of speaking to the director rather than the audience , and Moreno succumbs to this fate.

None of the characters are terribly interesting, and in particular, Cris makes an unsympathetic protagonist as he pursues a much younger man who seems barely of age. The reason why is revealed at the end, but it doesn't make it as a "reveal" since we are never engaged in the "mystery" to start with. Furthermore, the film-within-a- film documentary is even less engaging. Cris makes every mistake possible in filming a documentary about the plight of indigenous women on a rural island, but never shows any remorse, or any strong emotion at all. We know he is heartbroken from events that happened in the first few minutes of the movie, but it's hard to engage with a protagonist who only has one expression, a goofy, phony smile.

To top it off, the quality of video and audio is horrible. The film seems to have been shot with a cellphone.

This isn't an intriguing look at gay Filipino life like Beautiful Boxer or The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros. This is just something to pass on.

In spite of the tremendous advances in gay rights in many countries in recent years, homophobia is actually intensifying in many place. While first and foremost a beautiful and tender personal drama, Children of God is also a study of anti-gay intolerance in the Bahamas.

The main story is about Johnny, a gay art student who's so broken that he can no longer express his feelings on canvas, can't defend himself even verbally, and can't even touch another human being. Faced with losing his art scholarship, his teacher directs him to spend a few days on the island of Eleuthera to reconnect with nature, and hopefully his own artistic spirit. There he meets the aptly-named Romeo, who helps him to discover hope, trust, and love.

The second-most prominent story, which lightly touches Johnny's, is that of Ralph and his family. Ralph is a vehemently anti-gay preacher with a secret, driven to stage anti-gay rallies. Lena, his wife, learns she has acquired an STD from him. When she tries to find out what he's done, he turns on her, and to cope, she buries herself even more deeply in his "Save the Bahamas" campaign, hoping to find solace in certainty. In turn, she unwittingly bullies her young son, who becomes afraid that he might be go to hell if he does something "sissy."

Children of God isn't perfect. Some of the meetings toward the end seem somewhat forced, and religious dialogue, always difficult to handle well, doesn't sound quite as natural as it did in, say, Wise Kids. And some of Johnny's quirks seem implausible; how can you have sex if you're afraid to shake hands? The most serious flaw is a character named Purple who has no development. The movie would be improved omitting him and rewriting the ending.

Yet for all this, it's a very good film. If you don't need Hollywood CGI explosions, and can enjoy small stories of the heart, you'll enjoy Children of God.

I'm a near-vegetarian, and have been now for several years. I've been acutely aware of the of fast food factory farming, and I've educated myself in the horrors of fast food's effects on heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, soil erosion, greenhouse emissions, and the corporate greed and governmental indolence that allows it to poison the citizenry daily. In addition, I've battled my own addiction to fast food and obesity over years, and have helped my father battle his cancer through nutrition; I consider fast food a personal enemy, not just an abstract irritant.

Beyond that, I'm a fan of director Richard Linklater, and his "Slacker" and "Waking Life" are two of my favorite films.

In short, if there's anyone who *should* like "Fast Food Nation," it's me. But this movie is wretched disaster!

Linklater takes a non-fiction book as his source material, and tries to make a story out of it, or not--maybe he tried, maybe he didn't--all I know is it didn't happen. This a wandering, meandering mess of meaningless, useless characters.

There's a corporate schmoe who's just learning how unclean the meat his company produces actually is. A story almost develops around his investigation of how it's produced, but its dropped just when it seems to be going somewhere.

There's a group of illegal aliens hired by a criminal meat-packing plant--but we don't care about them either. They're presented as stock figures in ensemble. The attempt at creating a story for them is pathetically feeble.

Linklater trots out other almost-characters in turn, the high-school boy who fantasizes about robbing his fast-food store (but doesn't), and the girl who tries to set cows free, but these are non-events, too.

I lost interest in the film early on, but kept watching as long as I could stand past that point, well past the middle. After that, I fast-forwarded, stopping occasionally to see if there was anything worth watching. There wasn't, at least, not for me.

This is a crying shame. More than that, it's an infuriating shame. Linklater is nothing if not a visionary director, the cast is nothing if not talented, and the subject is nothing if not a matter of paramount importance. FFN should've been a wild, sardonic, exposé, a trip into the innards of the food industry's machine with the entertainment to keep you in your seat, and the honesty to enlighten you.

Apparently, FFN *has* worked for some people, and for that I'm grateful, but I can't recommend it myself. Morgan Spurlock's wonderful, shocking, and yet enjoyable "Super-Size Me" is the one to watch, hitting all the bases that FFN should've, with wit, humor, and compassion to spare.

Yes, it is slow, and could stand to be a bit faster, but the pace serves to convey the gloom of the boys' milieu quite well. Scenes in the Witman house are almost as painful for us as for the boys living in it. After the boys' father dies, they find themselves quite alone in a house where their mother has no concern other than who will replace her recently-deceased husband. Their home is devoid of love, laughter and even conversation. There's a gramophone that is never used.

The brothers Witman begin to relieve their boredom and anger by mistreating animals. Fortunately, what they do is talked about, but not shown.

A possibly humanizing turn of events begins as they became enamored of a local prostitute--or does it? It's worth watching.

See this when you're in the mood for an unhurried, not-quite-horror, not-quite coming-of-age foreign film.

I'm a die-hard fan of GOOD science-fiction, which means I'm extremely critical of sci-fi movies. Too often, you could say nearly always, the studios sacrifice character development and meaning for explosions and effects; if it's good enough for teen-age boys to say "cool," it's good enough for a studio exec to greenlight.

Knowing isn't like that. Rather, it gives you characters you can care deeply about, and questions that you will either chew on or which will chew their way in the back of your own mind if it's the slightest bit open.

Nick Cage portrays a lonely and cynical astronomer who discovers a 50-year-old sheet of paper, filled with numbers, the apparent meaning of which begins to tear his world apart.

You already know that they relate to disasters and possibly the ultimate disaster. But you won't know that this is apocalyptic science-fiction with a mind and a soul. The performances are wonderful, the effects breathtaking, the story compelling. As events unfold, we'll certainly encounter disasters, horror, and suspense, but also love and hope.

Knowing is the movie that last year's "The Day The Earth Stood Still" should've been, but wasn't. It's also the movie that "Signs" should've been, but wasn't, or that "The Last Mimsy" should've been, but wasn't. It ranks up there with la creme de la creme of the genre: E.T, The Matrix, Donnie Darko.

The mingling of science with the supernatural seems to have set the critics in tizzy. Ignore them. They were wrong about Peaceful Warrior, and they are wrong about Knowing. This is not a movie for cynics or critics. Knowing is for people who can suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, and it is well worth that small effort. Not knowing is the gateway to Knowing.

See it, experience it, enjoy it.

Juno--Best Original Screenplay?? Incredible. The trailers prompted me to expect a funny, touching comedy about a girl in trouble. What do we get instead? Juno, and it's not a nice surprise. Yes, I've seen worse, much worse, hence the four stars which simply means I can understand how it made it to cinema. 4 out of 10 is still an "F" in my book, so I'm definitely calling Juno a failure.

The great shame is that it had so much potential. None of the actors are bad, the subject is great, and there's even a nice bit of resolution at the end of the plot. What's bad about Juno is everything else; direction, dialogue, delivery.

Juno sounds like an endless loop of smart-ass wisecracks cut from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," mixed with incomprehensible and pointless pop culture references, played at twice the speed and made a dozen times ruder. The result is too embarrassing to laugh at, an amazing morass of mindlessness trying to make a movie out of relentless verbosity alone.

Juno, the protagonist, very quickly alienates us with her in-charge-of-the-world witticism when we need to see just a touch of vulnerability to empathize with her character. Unfortunately, there's no other character stepping out on stage to be an alternate protagonist, and very quickly, we cease to care about what happens to anyone, and the hope that it gets any better becomes the sole reason to endure it.

Most lines are played for laughs, many of them solely for cheap shock value, but hardly any deliver. (The only one that made me laugh was when the adoptive father tells Juno that his music is "more commercial." "What do you write?" asks Juno. "Commercials," he answers.)

Paulie Bleeker, the father of Juno's baby, is cast as the ultimate dork, and made to constantly look ridiculous. It's unclear if the goal was to try to out-Napoleon Dynamite "Napoleon Dynamite," or to underscore just how naive and unready for parenthood he is. No matter, though, because he actually only appears in a handful of scenes.

And the "tender" moments are marred by absurd lyrics sung off-key over acoustic guitar by the teenage stars themselves. The aim was almost certainly to bring authenticity and "realism," but no matter how realistic it is to hear kids singing lines like "if you were a floor, I'd be a rug," it's still a crime to be inflicted with that when some inconspicuous mood music is called for. It does get better in the last few minutes, but it's far too little, too late.

And just how the hell did the "experts" in the Academy decide this was the BEST original screenplay? "Adequate" itself would be debatable, but the BEST? Please, please, explain that to me!

As you can tell from the reviews this is one of those films that people either love or hate. What will be your reaction? I propose a simple test. If you loved Ang Lee's "The Ice Storm," you'll probably love La Ciénaga as well. And if you found it unbearable (as I did), you'll probably find this unbearable as well.

I can't say it sucks; after all, the critics adore it. I can say that after the promising opening, the film seemed to me to be less a depiction of morass and more a morass itself, swallowing the viewer into an unmanageable plethora of characters ranging from the unlikeable to the despicable.

However, there is one character who does become fairly sympathetic. And when you identify that one, you can pretty much guess how the film ends. Stupid me, though. I subjected myself to these toxins to the end.

I'm probably one of the few Americans who seeks out films by Ventura Pons. I'm not a fan of the director, but as a student of Catalan, his films are the only ones I've been able to find in the language. Unfortunately most of what I've seen (El Mar, Caresses) are ugly, brutal, and self-conscious. Fortunately, Morir (o no) "To Die (Or Not)" is a much better film than the two I just mentioned.

That's not to say it's a walk in the park. The review who said the series of vignettes in the "To Die" section are too long and not very interesting was quite right. Furthermore, they're right in line with Pons' notoriously awful and improbable dialogue ("Why am I a lizard?" one character sobs), bizarre parental figures (the two mothers in this movie are both self-pitying, neurotic guilt manipulators, a la "Caresses"), and improbability (a drunk man breaks the top of an already-opened bottle to drink the last drops).

With most of these characters, sharing their seven last minutes with them in their whining, crying, yelling final moments is rough business.

And yet...

The movie has some wonderful surprises. I won't give away the twist that changes everything in the "Or Not" section, but it's insightful and inspiring, and might be the only testament to religious faith I've seen in any movie from Spain. The "Or Not" section guides us through a chain reaction showing surprising interrelationships between all the characters, with all of then saved by one simple change.

Still, the framing story (Yes, there's a framing story, too) seems inchoate and unconvincing. To Die (Or Not) has some genuine inspiration and is a big step in the right direction for Sr. Pons, but in my opinion, he's got a bit further to go.

"The Boy from Lebanon" (a much-needed retitling) is thought-provoking and intense depiction of a true story, a plot by Hezbollah to assassinate Francois Mitterand using a child. It's far and away the best film I've seen distributed by Picture This!, and it surpasses "Syriana" in showing how terrorists are created out of ordinary young people.

In this case, "young" means very young; Djilali is a scant eleven years old when he's sold--quite literally--into terrorism. This is a more than a consciousness-raiser about the plight of children in war-torn areas--it's a thoroughly convincing story of the power of friendship.

Djilali (Teufik Jallab) is emotionally shattered, detached, and empty. Even his hatred of "the Jews and the infidels" is something he holds out of duty instead of passion, and his cold-bloodedness makes him ideal for Hezollah's purpose.

To get close to the French president, though, he must not only go to France, but meet and prepare to take the place of Karim (Younesse Boudache), a Lebanese-French kid who will meet the president at a Christmas party. Karim is virtually Djilali's direct opposite, a Huckleberry Finn of the Arab slums that ring Paris, who hates no one and knows nothing of the plot.

Djilali must live with Karim for a few days, and the interaction between them is the heart of the film. Djilali at first regards Karim as frivolous, while Karim sees Djilali as hopelessly out-of-it. The next couple of days will shatter both of their worlds completely.

Sometimes it gets a bit confusing; shifts between Karim's French slum and Djilali's flashbacks are difficult to catch at first, and in my case I had to watch it a second time to understand everything. In addition, its low budget is evident throughout, and the adult actors are frequently dull and sometimes less-than-convincing.

But the film isn't about them. The main characters are memorable and extremely well-acted.

A spiritual teacher I know commented on the Virginia Tech massacre with the observation that Seung-Hui Cho had had no friends, and wondered would he have done what he did if he had. A similar question is brilliantly posed by "The Boy from Lebanon."

Watch it. You'll be glad you did.

(POSSIBLE spoilers, but I'm not revealing anything that isn't in the plot outline.) But there are worse ways to spend a hundred minutes if you've got nothing better to do.

I kept waiting for a surprise, a twist, or maybe a bit of humor that would make me burst out laughing, but there's none of that here. This is WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) at its simplest. And what you see in this case is blonde, ambitious, fluffchick (Nicole Kidman), obsessed with getting a career in television, marries likable dolt (Matt Dillon) and plays with him till marriage gets to be a drag, then happily offs him with help of three slackers who are even dumber yet.

Most of the scenes seem to be played for laughs and there's definitely humor here, but everything is so clichéd, it falls pretty flat. There's no comic timing, no surprises, just fluffchick, dolt, slackers and ... well, you get the picture.

As others have pointed out, yes, it is well acted, and yes, it kinda is well-directed (except for the part about it not quite working).

There's very few movies I own, but 40 Days and 40 Nights is one of those that I watch repeatedly. (Every Lent, for sure.) 40 Days and 40 Nights is far more than just another sex comedy. It's a parody of the sexual preoccupation of modern society.

Matt is falling into a black hole of despair after a break-up, and has begun using casual sex almost as a drug to ease the pain. Finally realizing that that only contributes to his anguish, he vows for complete abstinence of all forms of sex for 40 days during Lent, during which time he meets the woman of his dreams.

Many hilarious situations develop around the fact that everyone around him either deliberately or inadvertently hinders him on his quest to rid himself of his addiction... His seminarian brother discourages him, his parents blithely and happily chat about their sex lives in embarrassing detail, his co-workers bet against him, and his new girlfriend can't understand how love can be expressed without sex happening very early in the relationship.

Sure, the movie has its flaws. Lent is 46 days, not 40 by the way (Yeah, check it on your calendar--the Sundays make it 46), and the director seems to be oddly ignorant of the fact it begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Easter. (The church decorations for "the first day of Lent" are completely wrong!)

Furthermore, in the last 10 minutes or so it reverts to a typically "Hollywood" sex comedy resolution... virtually a sellout of the unusual themes raised at the beginning.

Yet, 40 Days and 40 Nights has more than its share of charms, one being one of the most natural depictions of religion in the lives of its characters in any movie. Throughout, the subject of religion comes up from time to time as it does in most of our lives, although non-religious movies would have as believe it never did. Yet 40 Days and 40 Nights has very realistic religious dialogue for these characters who range from the secular to those who are happy in their faith, to those who struggle with it.

A very enjoyable, hilarious movie!

It was interesting for me to watch Bridge to Terabithia right after The Da Vinci Code. Both were best-selling books, adored by their fans, and posed daunting tasks for creating an adaptation. Ron Howard's Da Vinci Code technically hit the right notes, but a like a MIDI sound file, was awkward and soulless. He never considered that we needed to empathize with Langdon to become involved in the story.

Not so with Csupo's Bridge to Terabithia. In only a very few minutes we are irresistibly drawn into Jess Arons' world, recognizing emotions that we all know and which we all can identify with. And as Josh Hutcherson is perfect in providing the protagonist to throw us into the story, AnnaSophia Robb is perfect in propelling the story itself, as her presence, charm, and imagination light up Josh's rather gloomy life, and light up the screen with hope and joy.

I was curious how well Terabithia could be expanded to movie length, since the book was so short, but the screenwriters did a superb job, staying true to the book, fleshing it out with situations that perfectly complete it. Despite what you may see in the trailers, this is anything but a fantasy film. Special effects probably have less than five minutes of total screen time... yet their timing and fluidity create a seamless tapestry of make-believe and reality.

Well done!

Simple Things promises to be an uplifting story on the familiar theme of the big-city doctor learning life lessons in a small town. Yes, the theme's been overdone (think Doc Elliot, Doctor Quinn: Medicine Woman, Doc Hollywood, and the excellent Everwood), but it still has potential. Unfortunately, Simple Things realizes none of it. It's based on a book of short stories "Through the Window of Childhood," but Simple Things treats the story of the doctor's son as a fitfully visited subplot, despite the fact that the children turn in the only good performances in the movie. (Nicole Channing's performance is actually stunning ... her career is one to watch.)

Cameron Bancroft is completely wooden in his role, and does more than the rest of the cast put together to murder the movie. He curiously displays no interest in helping his mourning son, and never even touches him except during a medical emergency. The other adult actors are poor as well. Bellamy Young comes across as an annoying goody two-shoes in the role of the town's mayor.

Finally, the message is hopelessly muddled. Is it about opening yourself up to the people you serve, or doing everything you can to win the big promotion?

Well, Spanish cinema does tend to the weird (think Almodovar), and Ventura Pons' Caresses is no exception, though it's a bit more down-to-earth than El Mar. The closest well-known American movie to compare it to would be Magnolia. According to "A Course in Miracles," Everything is either love, or a desperate cry for it. Caresses is definitely in the "desperate cry" category.

It consists of 11 very distinct two-person conversations in which the dominant character from the previous scene becomes the non-dominant character in the next. The first three scenes are marked by shocking, unmitigated hatred, and each is a painting of tremendous emotional dissatisfaction. Most are downright disturbing.

Furthermore, although each conversation is presented as though it's happening straightforwardly, each is unsettling, surreal, and wildly improbable. The characters usually talk past each other as though they can't even hear the other. On only a few occasions does the listener even respond to the talker.

My interpretation is that none of the conversations is real, but we are hearing what the characters WANT to express to each other, but don't, such as what the teen-age junkie wants to say to the homeless man he robs, or what the man would want to communicate to him. Regardless of whether any of the dialog is imaginary, Caresses undoubtedly focuses on bringing the "Shadow" into the light... uncomfortable for most of us, and hence the negative reviews.

I can't give it a positive review either. The acting is erratic, the motivation of the characters incomprehensible. Most of the movie is downright painful to watch. Furthermore,the actors seem to be playing such different roles in their two scenes, it's almost impossible to see them as playing the same character in different circumstances.

Maybe it have worked if Pons had amplified the surrealism and used dream sequences to show us we're looking at the hidden parts of the characters. Or maybe not.

At any rate, like a few other Catalan films I've seen (Morir O No, and El Mar), I find it mostly interesting for studying that fascinating language. And unlike El Mar, these conversations takes place in colloquial Catalan in the Barcelona dialect... But God forbid you would say phrases like these when you visit there!

As sites from Hollywood Jesus to Spiritual Cinema Circle point out, there's an amazing amount of spiritual message in movies, from films like Groundhog Day and The Truman Show, to Star Wars and The Matrix. Yet the films that present spiritual teaching overtly, have generally not fared as well, recent examples include "Indigo," "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and the abysmal "The Celestine Prophecy," most of which had limited release or went straight to DVD for good reason.

"Peaceful Warrior" is an adaptation of the novel "The Way of the Peaceful Warrior," and simply put, it rocks. Yes, there is teaching, probably more than in any movie since "The Karate Kid." But there is humor, excitement, pain, and joy as well. We care about Dan's character as his worst fears seem to become realized in turn, and we empathize with him as he struggles on the confusing path of letting go of desires to pursue his love.

Scott Mecholowitz is outstanding as Dan, and Nick Nolte excellent as Socrates. Perhaps Nolte's own struggles in overcoming addiction gave him an insider's view to the truth of the wisdom he dispenses as Socrates.

Don't let a negative review from the "critics" dissuade you. At Rotten Tomatoes, only 21% rate it fresh, but IMDb shows that 45% of moviegoers rated it a 10 as I did. This is a must-see movie.