Alice and Martin - (5.5) starts with a ten year old Martin being surrendered by his mother to his father, a wealthy, older, married-to-another woman father of three legitimate sons. After quickly establishing that the Old Man is distant, somewhat cold and not much of a father figure, the film advances ten years to the now twenty-year-old Martin running away from the homestead, bumming on the road, then crashing at the Paris pad of his older half brother, Ben. Martin is quickly enamored of Ben’s platonic roommate, violinist Alice. As Martin establishes himself (probably much too easily and unrealistically) as a successful fashion model and falls hard for Alice, there is always the constant question of what happened to him back at home, why was he running away. Then, when Alice announces that Martin is about to become a father, he does a 180 for the worse, including immediately becoming impotent, and winds up in the psychiatric ward. Much of his angst takes place on the scenic beach at Grenada and later in bucolic, rural Spain. Ah yes. Martin has come a long way. Ultimately, we learn in flashback what had taken place immediately before he bolted his father’s mansion and some more of what a martinet the Old Man had been. The film’s strength, in addition to excellent cinematography, includes such sympathetic portrayals of the title characters so that I really cared for them. The film’s weakness is that much of the story is presented in a not too credible manner, e.g. Martin’s almost immediate rise to model superstardom. This film is recommended.

Almost Famous - (5.5) is exceptional in the regrettable sense that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. This movie has a lot going for it including some likable characters, an almost inspirational depiction of family life, a couple of excellent scenes and more than a few laughs. It is purported to be based upon some early life adventures of Cameron Crowe (he is called William Miller in the film), director of Say Anything and Jerry Maguire. William’s life is joined in progress, first as an eleven year old, and shortly into the film as a precocious, fifteen year old high school senior whose single college professor mom, in her very own and somewhat eccentric ways, has challenged and pushed young William to be a high school senior year at the age of fifteen. It turns out she had not even told him his true age and he was more than a bit confused when his classmates were experiencing puberty long before he knew what it was. Mom’s eccentric ways have also just pushed older daughter right out the door. Young William is totally enamored of the contemporary (1973) rock scene. With the aid of Lester Bangs, a much older real person/muse with whom he consults frequently throughout the movie, William first lands in the ranks of hangers-on to the not-yet-successful rock band Stillwater. “Hangers-on” in the case of the female variety of this species, of course, means groupies or, as at least one, Penny Lane, prefers to be identified, a Band-Aid. William eventually gets the incredibly unlikely assignment of writing a Rolling Stone feature on the band. He never meets the RS people face to face but fools them people by affecting a deep voice on the telephone. It doesn’t do a whole helluva lot for the credibility of the story that Patrick Fugit, the kid who plays fifteen year old William passing for an eighteen year old, looks like a tall twelve year old. My major problem with this film is the unrealistic and misleading manner in which it purports to accurately portray the Seventies rock and roll/groupie/drug/sex scene. With the exception of depicting one person’s attempted suicide after overdosing on Quaaludes, the story completely and falsely sanitizes this entire picture. These underage girls, probably runaways, most likely strung out on drugs and being used as casual, disposable, sex toys by the musicians, are unrealistically portrayed as being hip enough to somehow really know what is happening to them to the point of their possibly even slyly choreographing things. I don’t think so. The story totally begs many obvious questions including the most obvious one of why someone doesn’t yell “statutory rape.” In possible defense of the film on this score the writer might have been trying at one point to say that these female children did not really “have sex” - just as Clinton didn’t - but, if this is intended to be a serious apology for what takes place on screen, or more accurately in the band members’ hotel rooms, then I have an even greater problem with this aspect of the film. Also, I did not find the band members to be very nice people in spite of one member’s highly unlikely turn around/reformation late in the film. It is one of the film’s strong points that, in spite of her many eccentricities mom did love her kids and probably did know best. In spite of its 5.5 rating I cannot recommend this film. 

One review of this film - its reviews generally were much more favorable than mine  - quotes the old saw used in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance about where there is a discrepancy between the truth and the legend then “Print the legend.” In this case even calling this the legend would seem to be a stretch.

Before Night Falls - (5.5) is the biography of Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas but could easily be a metaphor for all of Cuba from pre-revolution to the present. Of peasant heritage and born literally dirt poor fifteen years prior to Castro’s taking power, Reinaldo had the misfortune to experience the horrors of Cuban totalitarianism both as an artist and as an overt homosexual, two groups who have been punished severely by the Castro government not just for their expressions of freedom but also for their mere existence. The film powerfully demonstrates how, first poverty, and then a ruthless, autocratic regime constantly operates to try not simply to suppress publication of Reinaldo’s books but to crush the human spirit! Prison conditions are shown to be deplorable and much of ordinary street and home life is pretty grim too. One can almost appreciate why characters in this film would try devices like inner tubes and hot air balloons to get the hell off that island. Contrary to other films and to the teaching of the American press the movie seems to be saying that the first few years under Castro were not so terrible. Gay society in particular enjoys a brief period of sexual freedom and deliverance from repression for a short time right after 1958. This apparently low budget film manages to do a credible job subtly showing the country’s later sad realities. It shows, for example, block after block of buildings either in great need of repair or totally abandoned, long queues for buses on almost every street corner, the notorious fifties American cars still used after thirty and more years and electricity’s being a sometime thing. These same scenes and phenomenon were, I believe, presented even more powerfully in last year’s The Buena Visita Social Club.  There was no credit given to indicate the place of filming and I purposely stayed until the last credit rolled because I am curious to know if it was actually filmed in Cuba. Though only about two hours the film is overly long - it actually drags at the end after poor Reinaldo has finally arrived in New York. In spite of its shortcomings this film is recommended.

Beyond The Mat - unrated documentary exposes some of the sleazier aspects of contemporary minor league professional wrestling, a subject about which I was, and remain, totally disinterested. After a brief glimpse of the “glamor” - if that’s what it is - of the World Wrestling Federation which includes appropriate homage to its recent spectacular TV success, the narrative settles down into some “true” tales of some minor leaguers. These are struggling, erstwhile professional wrestlers and one promoter for whom, the WWF, if attained would represent ultimate success. I readily admit that I started the film determined that everything I was about to see would be, like the rest of professional wrestling, completely false. Thankfully, the producer makes no claim whatsoever as to the legitimacy of these exhibitions going so far as to repeatedly acknowledge that they are scripted. He does however work very hard to demonstrate the genuineness of some of the subjects’ emotions. His first portrait, that of the promoter, creates, then quickly confirms, a strong impression that the guy is a total sleaze. The fact that he looks and talks like a sleaze helps enormously! Much of the film centers on two wrestlers, one an over-the-hill, no good drug addict has-been who tries to work up our sympathy after he has voluntarily ruined his life to the point where now, as a lonely old man, his adult daughter doesn’t trust him enough to be alone with him! Yuk!  No sympathy here. The next minor leaguer is apparently some kind of super masochist exhibitionist who tries to convince his normal looking wife and two lovely little children that what he is doing or, more accurately, what he is permitting others to do to him, that is, beat him senseless, is just another job and there is nothing for them to fear. You should see the kids’ faces as they watch him being beaten to a bloody pulp in the finale! True to my initial skepticism, I am not convinced that these scenes were not staged. If they were staged this staging would probably be a worse indictment of this film than if the scenes were legitimate. I repeat, “Yuk.” This film is recommended only to those who are curious about just about anything.

The Big Kahuna - (3.5) might have a message at the end but, by the end, I was so bored I wasn’t paying attention. This is a thankfully short, but talky, very stagy, three character, contemporary drama, ninety per cent of which  takes place in a small hotel suite in Wichita KS (Oh Yeah; this movie is kind of claustrophobic too.) The Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito characters are world weary, veteran salesmen for a Midwestern lubricants manufacturer both intent upon making a huge sale to the Midwest’s largest user of their kind of product. Though they have worked together some time each is currently going through some kind of vague personal problem or crisis or whatever and the two are on edge and on one another’s back. They clash. The Spacey character would clash with anyone. The third character is a young, idealistic, naïve and religious research guy for the same outfit along for the ride and to play bartender. The story goes nowhere - almost literally - nowhere. By the film’s final third there are some fairly heavy words and concepts being tossed around ( as well as  a couple of punches ) including Life, Death, God and Salvation. Ironically, though I am one of DeVito’s biggest critics, especially as a dramatic actor, I didn’t think that he was too bad in this role.  Spacey acts as though he is so convinced now that he is one of the world’s great actors and that he must overact and carry every film in which he appears. I saw this movie at a preview so have not yet read any reviews. I can hardly wait until the reviews do come out so that, possibly, I can be told what it is I missed.

Bounce - (5.5) is a film with a lot going for it but not quite enough good acting or story to make up for the lack of a logical plot or reasons for its feel good ending. The story, a tearjerker, has it that Buddy, an overconfident, somewhat obnoxious ad exec, gives his free airline ticket to Greg whom he has just met at the airport so that he, Buddy, can enjoy an assignation back in Chicago and Greg can get home to his family in California. The plane, a flight of one of Buddy’s airline clients, crashes. Greg and some 200 others are killed. Buddy’s subsequent crisis of conscience exacerbates his already huge alcohol problem and he winds up in rehab for several months. Thereafter, a sober and better Buddy seeks out and gets to know Greg’s widow, Abbey. This he accomplishes partially through an everybody wins re-arrangement/scam of a real estate deal - Abbey has taken up real estate since Greg’s death - but he does not tell her that he has survived because of her husband’s demise. She, in turn, refuses to mention Greg’s death, instead telling Buddy that she is divorced, because, as it later turns out, she is tired of everyone’s pitying her because she is a widow and that her attraction to Buddy is based upon her feeling that Buddy is the only person in over a year who has not treated her well just because she is a widow. Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow, as Buddy and Abbey, are both likable fine young actors. Perhaps they are also a little too perfect, a bit too bright, good looking and fresh to be convincing, she as the bereaved widow who still feels guilt over yelling at deceased hubby during their last phone conversation and he for all the obvious baggage he carries and doesn’t have a clue how to begin relieving. Somehow, and not because Los Angeles people do not experience tragedy the same as everyone else, this particular tragic story doesn’t seem to play all that realistically in sunny Southern California. It doesn’t help at all that some other good actors, including Joe Morton and Jennifer Gray, play major supporting roles that have not been fully thought out or well written. At any rate something is missing. And, finally, it feels awfully contrived when, in the last twenty minutes or so, Abbey becomes aware of Buddy’s true feelings as she sees his televised testimony in a suit against the airline. Why am I seemingly so critical of every small shortcoming in a fairly decent film? Well it probably has a lot to do with the annoying feeling I get that Hollywood is once again trying too hard to have it both ways here, that is, to have a tragedy which also includes stars who appeal to the right “demographics” and characters who live an attractive, film-worthy  lifestyle. Buddy, Abbey and her unrealistically too well behaved little sons do fly to Palm Springs or some such place for a little getaway in the middle of the flick. It would not surprise me too much to find that this film is based upon a true story or one originally created about an overweight, bald housewife and set in some place like Jersey City. In spite of my nit picking this film is tepidly recommended.

Butterfly - (6.0) is set in a small Spanish village in the early 1930’s, the time of Spain’s fragile republic that existed for a few years after the fall of the last monarchy and before the rise of fascism. The story focuses on the sensitive, bright, asthmatic Moncho, the younger son of a poor tailor, and upon Don Gregorio Moncho’s elderly, widowed first schoolteacher. The proceedings are set with the background of the republic, which we learn is opposed by both the Catholic church and the fascists, and supported by the atheists as well as the not terribly popular communists. Much of the story lightheartedly shows village life, market day, carnival, and the local bar and farms as well as family life. One of the film’s strongest points is the manner in which it gently shows how profoundly the eventual political turmoil affects some simple, good-natured working people. Even stronger is the manner in which the goodness of Don Gregorio and others is played out in this farm village. This film is recommended again to all but those who just cannot abide subtitled films.

Castaway - (6.0) is the year 2000’s entry in what has become the annual Tom Hanks starring vehicle festival. Hanks is great. He is the movie! And this is both the film’s strength, almost its only strength, and its weakness too. Too much solo Tom Hanks. How in hell, you may ask, would one create the old castaway-on-a-desert-island story with a larger cast? Well, I suppose that one answer would be the way Daniel Defoe did when he added Friday to Robinson Crusoe.

Hanks is Chuck Nowland, a Nineties Man world-traveling manager for FedEx. (FedEx, incidentally, must have gotten a billion dollars' worth of publicity with this film. If the Prudential logo were shown as often as is the FedEx logo I would have left the theater after fifteen minutes.) We first meet Chuck, a time obsessed 100% Company Man, introducing FedEx’s system in Moscow, then traveling via company plane back to the company’s “hub” and Chuck’s home, Memphis TN, where girlfriend Kelly and extended family, presumably all FedEx employees also, gather for Christmas. Well, Chuck gets an emergency call from work in the middle of the family celebration, and in the next eight minutes or so, he and Kelly go to the airport, plan the rest of their life around his work schedule and get engaged, all in the shadow of the FedEx sign. Well, his plane – FedEx Air natch – crashes in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The crash scene is extremely well done. Chuck spends 100 minutes, I mean 1500 days, on a desert island with only the contents of FedEx packages there to conveniently help him to cope and survive, e.g. gift ice-skates, when lashed to a tree limb, make an excellent hatchet, knife or instrument for self tooth extraction. Double ugh!!! Hanks probably gives more to this solo role than would any other actor active today. However, there simply is not enough drama, certainly no human interaction, and one immediately and continuously misses these things once the island part begins. Sure we get excited with Chuck when he finally builds his fire. And, it is cute when he kind of automatically starts sorting the FedEx boxes after they wash up on the shore. And we can marvel for a moment the when  “Four Years Later” flashes on the screen and we see how he has obviously lost so much weight, the old reverse of DeNiro’s Raging Bull feat. But, the solo thing simply lacks a bit too much for me.

Why then go to a film knowing it is all about a man alone and then criticize it for its failure to show more human interaction? Excellent question. Well, I suppose the criticism is partially driven by the film’s being so good in its last thirty minutes when human beings are finally re-introduced after Chuck gets home (and after the FedEx sponsored party) when he and Kelly catch up on the events of the past four years. I think that this is the best part of the film! And, it is so good mostly because of Hanks acting with Helen Hunt as Kelly.

These minor criticisms notwithstanding, Hanks is a truly fine actor and I recommend this film highly though not quite so highly as did many of the critics.

Chocolat - (5.0) offers no surprises in its re-hash of the old story of the majority’s fearing and bullying anyone different from them including, especially, outsiders. This time round the story takes place in a small, isolated French village. Though it is 1959 it might as well be 1559 inasmuch as the villagers are totally under the influence of an autocratic mayor, a count, who still brags that the first count in his line drove the original Protestants from this same town ages ago. The primary value these people respect is conformity of all kinds but primarily religious conformity to the Catholic Church. It is not then surprising then but entirely predictable to any moviegoer that, when an unwed mother and her daughter enter the town apparently from nowhere and under strange circumstances the two are viewed with apprehension, suspicion and worse. The townspeoples’ attitude remains cool with a little curiosity thrown in when the newcomers open their business, a small chocolate store, at the beginning of Lent, the Church’s ultimate season for fasting and sacrifice! Well, it turns out – again, no surprise whatsoever – that not only are their chocolate cakes and cookies good for everyone, but they are also a general cure all and a spectacularly successful aphrodisiac! Within two hours Vianne has arranged a reconciliation between a grouchy old (really lovable down deep after a couple of hits of the house specialty) grandmother and her estranged grandson, a resumption of almost everyone’s dormant sex life, and on and on and on. After some melodrama, but before too long, this movie has turned into a real love-fest among many of the town’s females, a regular “women’s film.” I have nothing against “women’s films” per se and some of my best friends are women - it's just that there is absolutely nothing in this film that has not only been done before but has also been done several times recently. Steel Magnolias, Fried Green Tomatoes and Like Water for Chocolate are a few examples that come immediately to mind. Also, religion is once again for the ten millionth time equated with superstition and hypocrisy. The church is filled with hypocrites while all the decent people sit Mass out. Further, few things bore me as much as repeated scenes of cooking and/or food preparation! What has this film got going for it? Well, the town is quite lovely and the aerial shots of it are very good. And, there are several pretty women stars. Though this film has its shortcomings it can still be recommended to those with low expectations, who see very few films and are in the mood for some harmless diversion.

The Contender - (6.0) but not quite so good as I had hoped it would be, nonetheless elevated by a fairly good plot and the presence of some of my favorite actors, namely Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman. This is a very, very manipulative film. By “manipulative” I mean not so much its rather obvious liberal political viewpoints, many of which I share, but rather more by what the script tries to do to the viewer’s emotions, frequently without justification or even rationalization. The story is that, after the Vice President’s death, the Democratic president, the Jeff Bridges character, nominates liberal  Democratic Senator from Ohio played by Joan Allen to complete the term. Gary Oldman plays the conservative Republican chairman of the House committee responsible for leading the partisan Congressional “advise and consent” process that quickly gets quite ugly. (God only knows what the entirety of the Oldman character’s agenda - or his underlying problems - might be but he pursues it with almost unbelievable ruthlessness.) The ugliness centers on allegations of Allen’s having had group sex many years ago while at college. The drama centers on her refusal to directly confront these allegations and the philosophical questions revolve around a woman’s right to be treated really equally and to be given the same consideration, if you will, that a man would likely receive under similar circumstances. The manipulation centers upon Allen’s dramatic non-response before Congress - she sounds great and says nothing - and some late plot twists which are just too, too incredible even for Hollywood. The acting is first class though some of the casting is suspect - Sam Elliot, whom I also like, as a top presidential adviser?  I don’t think so. Some of Jeff Bridges’ ”bits” are a little off the wall but I must admit that I found them amusing, perhaps in the nature of like say “guilty pleasures.” Though this film does not begin to measure up to one with a similar theme and plot and one of my all time favorites, the ancient Advise And Consent, it is recommended nonetheless especially to fans of political drama, particularly the Washington DC variety.

Croupier - (5.5) is a dark, modern tale narrated from two points of view by one person, Jack/ Jake, a failed London author who, to make ends meet, resumes his old job as a croupier. His many problems include 1. having an absolutely no-good interfering father 2. taking his new job too seriously, he has loads of integrity in an industry where this virtue is non-existent and 3. operating simultaneously as a writer doing research while being a serious croupier (the aforementioned two points of view.) It is one of those movies where nothing seems to be happening for a while which is generally a tip-off to be focusing hard because all this “nothing” may eventually - it does here - twist into an interesting plot. The film’s main strength is its portrayal of this scurvy, seedy world of gambling where nothing and no one is on the level and everyone is playing his or her own personal angle, rules, ethics and morals be damned. Though I have only the narrowest experience in casinos the portrayal thereof seems to be not only realistic but fascinating too. When Jack is dealing it really seems like he stands alone against the world. Most of the seedy people are presented as compelling, or at least interesting, though also as repulsive and dirty - I felt as though I needed a shower when I left the theater. There are more than few neat plot twists though the apparent resolution, I feel, leaves some important points unexplained and others unexplored. Women are sympathetically portrayed but their roles unfortunately are mostly limited to creatures being used by some awful men.  This film is recommended to those who can stand some dark, slow moving drama.

Dancer In The Dark - (6.5) introduces a unique personality who tugs the heartstrings as much as any movie character I have seen in a long time. Newcomer to film, but veteran professional singer, the Icelander Bjork, steals this picture and at least this viewer’s heart with a tremendously touching performance as Selma, a waif in oversize spectacles, who is the quintessential innocent with the heart of gold. This upbeat, Czech immigrant factory worker finds herself and her fatherless and also bespectacled twelve-year-old son happily working on a 1964 Washington state factory assembly line. She spends her spare time singing even under the most odious circumstances like in the factory and, one night a week, rehearsing with an amateur group to play Maria in the group’s production of The Sound Of Music. No one knows that her eyesight is failing and, even worse, that son Jean suffers from the same congenital condition and will also go blind when he is thirteen years old. For this reason Selma refuses to acknowledge her deteriorating vision and even takes an extra job in order to save every penny for an operation for Jean before it is too late. She is very close to her factory friend Cathy, played by Catherine Deneuve, who helps her as much as she can on the job especially after Cathy suspects that Selma’s vision is deteriorating badly. She is also fairly close to her landlord, Bill and his wife Linda, who sometimes watch Jean for her. Due to her work schedule she never has time for earnest Jeff, a co-worker who is constantly offering her rides home from work. Frequently, she will either ride her bicycle back and forth to work and, when her failing vision almost causes her to be hit by a truck, Selma takes to following the railroad tracks by feel from the factory to her small trailer home. Things go from bad to worse as in quick succession she is “let go” from her job and has her savings stolen. Without giving away much at all this film does not have a happy ending, at least not in any traditional sense. In addition to the spell cast by the totally charming Bjork as Selma, two other phenomena separate this film from a million others and make it unique. The first is the movie's being for the most part intentionally filmed in a grainy, washed out color. The exception is the second phenomenon consisting of certain musical scenes filmed more professionally in bright, vivid colors which show up in the most unlikely places throughout the movie. These scenes just kind of “break out” in the factory, on a freight train and along a railroad track and, the last two, in a prison! The washed out color along with the experimental or whatever it is hand held camera I can take or leave. The musical sequences however add enormously to the film, which, absent these scenes, is not otherwise a ”musical” in any sense of the term. Bjork, as Selma, dominates, even makes this film as much as any other star has dominated any other film. She is this film. The film’s last scene is reminiscent of and damn near as harrowing as the death scene in Dead Man Walking. This film is strongly recommended.

Deterrence - (5.0) strongly reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove with a failsafe influence may make some profound point but I’ll be damned if I know what it is. This low budget drama has a fairly intriguing premise: what if, in 2007, an American President without mandate, that is a man who was an appointed vice president and who has succeeded upon the president’s death, faces what is essentially a re-play of the 1991 Gulf War but against an apparently much better armed Iraq led by Hussein’s even more fanatic son. And, suppose further that this confrontation takes place while the President is without much of his strategic paraphernalia - a sudden, unforecast blizzard has inconveniently stranded him in a Colorado diner on Primary Day on his way back to Air Force One. His chief of staff and his top defense expert, a thirty-ish Black Woman who opposed the 1991 War - c’mon, get real -  fight like two little kids for the president’s attention. Oh yeah, mix in a cross section of characters, the diner’s cook, waitress, customers, and so forth with whom the president, in his wisdom, has time to confer during this ninety minutes when he is saving the world. What would you expect? - remember this is low budget. That’s what you get here. Ninety minutes of close-ups interspersed by super close-ups and TV tapes of the 1991 Gulf War playing the role of the 2007 Gulf War. Yes, until one thinks a bit about the whole scenario, it is fairly intriguing. Throw in a couple of plot devices/surprises, e.g. the president is Jewish and the Iraqi spokesperson vacillates on whether his own fanaticism permits his negotiating with such an infidel the immediate future of the entire world. Kevin Polack works very, very hard both to save the world and to convince us that he is presidential timber. Why, then, given all this criticism, is this film rated as high as it is?  Good question. My answer is that the subject matter, the immediate future of all mankind, puts it up there almost by itself. Also, there are some pretty heavy thoughts going around about the nature of deterrence, war and  killing the entire race and how close we can come to any or all of these catastrophes every day. For reasons expressed below I cannot recommend this film.

If you keep reading you will spoil the end of this film for yourself. Toward the end of the story and as part of a plot twist which I am not revealing, The United States nukes Bagdad killing millions of civilians. Though this scenario is not presented, thank God, as part of a “feel good” resolution, it is strongly suggested that this is not a terrible price to pay for “something” - I am not certain what - our way of life, cheap oil, something positive. I for one am not buying this argument for a minute.

 

East Is East - (5.5) is not for everyone and, candidly, it is only barely for me. Somewhat reminiscent of, but not quite as good as, last year’s My Son The Fanatic, it follows the family story of Asian British Commonwealth citizens in England. George Khan, a devout Moslem who emigrated from Pakistan to England in 1937 and married an English Christian woman in 1946. They now, in 1971, have six sons and a daughter. George is still a Moslem, she is still a Christian and their otherwise fully assimilated children seem to be practicing both religions. It is somewhat hopeful to see even the limited success of this kind of inter-racial/inter-faith marriage. The problem is that George, though having successfully adapted in most ways to England, has stuck firmly to his Old World ways of bullying his now adult and still mostly respectful, children including especially the custom of arranging marriages for them. Most of the film's 90 minutes concern the sons’ attempts to remain respectful to their father while simultaneously having nothing to do with the brides selected by him for the three oldest sons. The film clicks at least in its realistic showing of how the siblings can be devoted to each other deep down while simultaneously the older brothers tease, criticize and bully the younger brothers and the one sister. This film is recommended. (If you like it, then My Son The Fanatic is a “must see.”)

Finding Forrester - (6.0) though not quite as profound as its ponderous tone would have its audience feel it should be, still focuses on some important themes and says has a lot about heavy subjects like personal integrity and loyalty. Its messages are fairly attractively packaged in a pseudo mystery tale about two people of very different ages and backgrounds who become friends. Jamal Wallace, a fatherless black sixteen year old New York City public schoolboy, has more than a little basketball talent but, based upon his grades, only a moderate aptitude for scholarship. Some outstanding test scores prompt his interested teachers to realize that Jamal is much brighter than his grades have indicated he is but that he has focused on hoops to maintain his standing with his peers. It turns out that Jamal is also a talented but secretive writer. After accepting a dare from his friends and in order to satisfy his own curiosity Jamal becomes acquainted with William Forrester, an eccentric recluse, who lives in a book filled flat on the top floor of an old walkup building in their Bronx neighborhood. Turns out that Forrester too is a secret writer but one who several years before had authored a still popular book. What starts out as an almost confrontational relationship between this odd couple morphs over a period of months into a mentor student two-way kinship, the kind where each person learns from the other. Though the mystery’s resolution comes earlier than I expected and though it is nowhere near as profound as we are led to believe it will be it does enable the viewer to better understand the old man and his behavior over the past forty odd years. Unfortunately for the story, Jamal has simultaneously accepted the challenge of attending, on scholarship, one of New York City’s elite private schools. The school is complete with 1. a jealous old failed writer-literature professor who questions Jamal’s qualifications 2. a fanatically competitive hoops rival 3. a beautiful and rich young white female friend who never quite blossoms into a love interest and a whole bunch of other equally unconvincing characters.  I suspected that this entire private school part of the story was going overboard even before the author threw in a writing competition, a state championship basketball game and - no  surprise - the plot twist that Forrester and English professor are old rivals. I don’t think that I have ever walked past one of these schools much less matriculated at one but I have seen many movies and the author of this one fills this institution with way too many stereotypes and too many not well thought out diversions. And, this part probably represents about 40% of the film’s 135 minutes. In spite of this the other 60% makes this film enjoyable enough to be recommended.

Five Senses - (5.0) is a disappointing - it had good reviews from at least two respected critics - dark and sad though at times tender and gentle ensemble piece which is marred by a slow pace, soap opera overtones, unrealistic plot resolutions and who-needs-it philosophy.  The plot involves many down characters, i.e., a going deaf doctor, an dying of an unnamed movie disease but still upbeat Mom, a looking for love bisexual guy, etc., etc. all of whom are stumbling around lugging heavy baggage and seeking enlightenment, sexual identity, the meaning of life or some other heavy concept/thing. As is so typical in this kind of ensemble film each of the characters somehow relates to the other, offices in same building, the masseuse’s depressed daughter’s former teacher is the mother of the three year old whose disappearance provides much of the tale’s little background drama. Don’t get me wrong: there is a lot to care about in these peoples’ lives - it just isn’t delivered well, gets resolved far too simplistically and is delivered with dime store philosophy, e.g. “People are here for other reasons than the ones they see.”  Well thanks a lot! The title comes from the fact that each of five of the main characters represents one of the five senses. This film gets a tepid recommendation.

Frequency - (6.0) offers some pretty fair entertainment to anyone willing to suspend disbelief and accept a couple of incredible concepts. The first concept is that it is possible to communicate with a person in the past. (If you are looking for logic and internal consistency skip this film.)  Thirtyish, Queens, New York homicide Detective Frank Sullivan is working on the ancient case of a serial killer who has murdered three nurses. Suddenly, through a once in a lifetime confluence of sunspots or something equally incredible, Frank is able to talk via his father’s old radio to his firefighter father, John, in 1969 Queens, exactly thirty years ago and just prior to his death. First, Frank convinces John that the hookup or whatever is legitimate by telling his father exactly what happens in the 1969 World Series just prior to its happening! Next, Frank tips John off just in time to prevent his death. Unfortunately, as anyone who has watched any time travel movie knows, any time one past fact is changed, other unexpected things happen. The unexpected result of saving dad is that now the 1999 police files show the serial killer had killed not three but ten nurses!! And, also, nurse mom has disappeared a la Back To The Future from Frank’s old family photo!  The film  really gets going as Frank communicates from 1999 to dad in 1969 to hopefully show dad how to prevent more murders, murders that, of course, have already occurred! The climax features intriguing scenes of both father and son struggling with the same killer in two different eras as well as some feel good family emotion which is unusual in the sci-fi genre. The constantly switching back and forth between the two time periods gets tiresome long before the film ends. It is not like flashback but closer to frame by frame switching which is not only confusing but also annoying.  Weaknesses aside, this film is recommended, especially to virtually all sci-fi fans.

The Girl On The Bridge - (5.0) is yet another disappointing film (and not because it is subtitled and in black and white) but rather because it charmingly and amusingly skirts issue but never really exploring or explains these same issues.  Set in modern France, then Italy, Greece and Turkey, it follows the tale of a moderately successful carnival knife thrower, Gabor, who chooses as his assistants, women whom he spots contemplating suicidal leaps from various bridges. Part of his perverse argument is that, if he misses, that is, hits them during his act, they will have achieved their goal of dying anyway. The film picks up as he “rescues” Adele a beautiful but unhappy 19 year old who, it turns out, has never been lucky in love in spite of her many mostly quickie and all meaningless affairs she has carried on in her young life. The pair then commence a successful carnival tour across the Mediterranean Sea. A large part of this success consists in the fact that Gabor never kills Adele in spite of the increasing level of difficulty he chooses which includes throwing at her while she is covered with a sheet and eventually performing his act while on a rocking and pitching ship crossing the sea. The film’s good points include the performance of Daniel Auteuil as Gabor and the depiction of behind the scenes carnival life. One critic is convinced - and he might have a point here - that the knife throwing scenes were really substitutes for sex. Gabor to some extent and Adele absolutely sure seemed to be getting off on it. Presumably the “message” or “point” of the film has to do with the manner in which some people, Gabor and Adele here, cannot do without one another, that is, they are unable to go it alone as evidenced here by Adele’s apparent gift for “receiving” telepathic messages from Gabor which, in turn, make their act so successful. Though certainly not a “bad” film this is not recommended.

Girlfight - (6.0) although dominated by boxing scenes, training, sparring and actual matches, is really not a boxing movie but rather much, much more a “coming of age” film. Though I have no interest in boxing and less than no interest in the feminine version thereof, unanimous excellent reviews convinced me to give this production a chance. Like Dancer In The Dark, it is another film dominated by a strong female presence, here an eighteen-year-old Brooklyn high school student, Diana Guzman. Diana has grown up in a motherless, poor, male-oriented Hispanic household. Her brother, Tiny, is clearly the father’s favorite if for no other reason than he is a boy and Diana, his only other child, is not. This is presented as the accepted norm in this culture. At school Diana is a disinterested, misplaced, uncomfortable, bordering on anti-social misfit. She has an enormous chip on her shoulder and is probably crying out for attention, recognition, something. She gets in fights - four in this, her hopefully last, high school semester. For whatever reason, likely because it sanctions hitting other people, Diana becomes interested in boxing. She is fortunate enough to get a caring coach - though he first suggests that she try aerobics -  and she is good at it. She develops a relationship with a nice young guy, another boxer, whom in scenes added no doubt for dramatic, impact she must fight not once but twice in something called the “gender blind amateur championships” if you can buy that. Diana is a likable, almost believable person whom I cared a great deal about. It is also possible to believe that her situation, living in near poverty in a male dominated Brooklyn housing project, is almost real - “almost” because, as is well nigh universally true in movies about the traumas of high school kids, there is barely any evidence that these “students” read their school books, do homework or worry at all about grades and graduation (see this year’s Love and Basketball for another instance of this very unrealistic phenomenon.) Criticism like this notwithstanding this film is recommended to anyone who wants to see a lovable underdog upset the odds.

Gladiator - (5.0) is a good example of why this year, so far at least, is such a crummy movie year. This is probably the summer film for the year 2000 and still it is almost totally lacking in the most important areas of good filmmaking. I mean -  where’s the inspiration? What’s the message? Is its message to equate the Coliseum mob with the Republic as one character apparently seriously suggests? What the hell genre is this supposed to be? Or is “Summer Action Film” now its own genre (sui generis?) This film fails for me at the most basic level and that is: I couldn’t care less what happens to the protagonist. The tale is set in the Roman Empire 180 AD and General Maximus identified as a “man of principle” by one of the serious characters late in the film has just defeated those awful Germans. His principle is exhibited exclusively by his loyalty to the good old Emperor. The good Emperor’s evil son, after killing the old man, steals the crown which the old guy had reserved for Maximus - notwithstanding Maximus’ failure to have ever set foot in Rome nor his eventual gladiatorial nickname of “The Spaniard.” After this coup, the bad guys commit all manner of crucifixions, torture, slavery and other evil acts upon Maximus and his family culminating with Good Old Maximus winding up in gladiators' arenas in a succession of minor league towns and finally into the big leagues: Rome, where else? Here, he runs a gamut of less and less believable foes. Then, how about this for leap of faith? (Incidentally, the only “faith” ever referred to in this epic is the old pagan religion of the Romans.) With a few words to the other gladiators on the floor of the Coliseum, Maximus wins their undying loyalty as well as the interest from and some considerable leverage with, the good guy Roman Senators, the ones who want to restore the Republic. And, if you can believe all this, you should have no trouble believing in his establishing relationships, during respites from gladiatorial duties/slavery, with both the good emperor’s daughter and well as her son. Both of these individuals, incidentally, are lusted after by the new emperor/bad guy. Some reviews gave this film pretty fair marks for decent acting by some actors in minor roles. I cannot say that I noticed much good acting probably because virtually all the characters are so shallow and unbelievable. Why is this film not rated much, much lower, say about a 2.0? Well, it ain’t a bad epic per se. And, it does look pretty good, nice colors, big sweeping vistas, good mob and battle scenes. And, the director works hard and successfully to make each of the various geographic regions look distinctive: dark, bad, old Germania,  dreamlike, lyrical Spain, dusty North Africa and, of course, magnificent, ancient Rome. The tigers look super!! Thankfully, none of the tigers is really hurt though, in perhaps the neatest piece of acting in the film, one tiger pretends to be killed. This film is recommended only for those who have been stressed out and want  to give their mind a total break.

Hamlet - (6.0) which is not an especially great rating given the author and the fact that this work has stood the test of over 400 years now. This shortened version, 110 minutes compared to Kenneth Branaugh’s 258 minute version of a few years ago, which retains actual Shakespearean language - just less of it - is set in today’s New York City. The producer wisely uses the City and not only its elegant parts as a background. There are some crummy places used also, without trying to make New York one of the film’s stars. The film also goes out of its way to show characters’ riding in limos, holding conferences in skyscrapers and traveling via jet plane. Hamlet himself seems to be devoted to his computer, cell phone and VCR. The famous “play within a play” is a compilation of old films on videotape. None of this detracts at all from the story The acting is uniformly very good especially Sam Shepherd and Bill Murray in fairly small roles. Why not a higher rating? After all this is Shakespeare and I have already conceded that I found it loses very little, if anything, in its transfer to 21st century New York. Well, I suppose for the same reasons that I liked it. As well as the transfer is made I simply am not all that comfortable with it. This film is recommended only to the Shakespeare diehards.

The House Of Mirth - (7.0) is an, effective, well done, but not great, and ultimately quite touching adaptation of one of the better novels of one of my favorites, Edith Wharton. Though a few characters have been left out or combined and a subplot or two deleted it is an accurate and complete version of the book. The story has a tremendous amount to say about the perils and dilemmas of a single woman on the edge of society in early twentieth century New York City. This is a time a place when such a women’s  behavior is under constant and thorough scrutiny – there cannot even be a hint of scandal - but also a time when the old moral double standard was alive and very healthy. Lily Bart is only on the edge of society because her deceased father and mother had lost their money. For two hours plus Lily struggles to maintain her virtue in a world where she is seriously overmatched and ill equipped to compete, let alone succeed, among people who are much more powerful and sophisticated than she is. Her cold and autocratic old aunt has Lily on a dole and a very short leash. Today’s usual alternatives, getting an education, developing a profession, have been totally foreclosed to women of her day both by their class’s expectation and by an absolute lack of training. Very few American women today are less emancipated. In fairness, it probably should be pointed out that Lily is more than a bit naïve and perhaps even a tad lazy by 21st century standards. Still, this film version and the book upon which it is based does only an imperfect job, I feel, of explaining why Lily does not attempt the seemingly obvious, at least to me, alternatives including the most obvious of marrying the kindly, loving but apparently not rich enough Lawrence Seldin.  Whatever, she is still portrayed almost totally sympathetically especially once some wealthy, horny, middle aged, red-blooded American males start hitting on her. And, the rich idle wives of these same men frequently take advantage of Lily’s vulnerability and shamelessly use her for their own selfish purposes. This is a truly great story. (I am certain that Ms. Wharton would be delighted to learn that I approve.) This otherwise excellent film’s big drawback is its weak casting including especially, I believe, its miscasting of Gillian Andersen, whom I had never seen before, as Lily, who is onscreen for virtually every frame. Though she has her moments, Andersen simply is not up to carrying this role, that is, of evoking our pathos for a woman alone heroically trying to maintain her virtue. One of my favorite actresses, Laura Linney, looks absolutely gorgeous as usual, which is somewhat inappropriate here inasmuch as she plays a super bitch. The evil aunt who acts as though she gets off on torturing poor Lily is played magnificently. Surprisingly, one of the best pieces of casting is Dan Aykroyd as one of the lascivious men who prey upon our heroine. I recommend this film to everyone. It is a “must see” for fans of Edith Wharton.

Jesus’ Son - (5.5) another sad retelling of the young heroin addict story is not quite up to my favorite in this genre, Drugstore Cowboy, but is almost up there with 1998’s Permanent Midnight. Like Cowboy, this movie seems to be trying to tell us that the 1970’s were the “good old days” (pre crack cocaine?) of drug use; My God! Have we become nostalgic about this too? Therein lies the film’s big shortcoming. Though there are several scenes showing characters in unbelievably bad circumstances, junkies totally out of control - Are the pills they just stole uppers or downers? - They don’t know - they just swallow them anyway - and even a couple of deaths by overdose - the movie just has too many light or not-too-serious moments. Samantha Morton plays the love interest, the girl who introduces our hero to heroin. This character is very unlike her sweet young thing role in Sweet And Lowdown but she carries it off very, very well. Dennis Hopper plays a recovering, but not at all convinced, addict which, for whatever reason, I had a difficult time believing is much of a stretch for him. Holly Hunter, a former favorite of mine, also has a minor role but she looks so terrible that I had a hard time focusing on her acting. This film is recommended to those who believe they can tolerate yet one more treatment of the sad old recovering junkie who is his own worst enemy tale.

Love And Basketball - (4.5) is a story with three strikes going against it as far as my taste in films is concerned. But first the plot. This film covers a longish but unspecified period in the lives of two likable and attractive young people, Monica and Quincy. It begins when eleven year old Monica’s family moves in next door to the family of same aged Quincy in a very upscale Black suburb of Los Angeles. Both characters are totally addicted to hoops and eventually, but off and on, also addicted to one another, addictions which are played out for the next 15 or so years as the kids go to the University Of Southern California and beyond that to pro hoops. Here are the three strikes:  The first portion of the film ( it is broken into “quarters” ) shows these cute little 11 year olds, played by what appear to be short 15 year olds, talking and behaving very un-elevenish but rather much more like the 35 or 45 year old writer would behave.  Second, we are supposed to care about their little teenagers’ angst and other problems but these are all played out in an environment where the protagonists are varsity athletes, look like magazine models or movie stars, live in multimillion dollar homes and drive new cars. Call it sour grapes on my part but I wish to hell that I had lived through my many, many teenage insecurities in that kind of environment!!. Third, it just is not a good basketball film, nowhere near as good as, for example He Got Game or even One On One. I also did not care much for the manner in which the writer disguises until almost the end of the film the fact that it is really a feminist tract. Why not a lower rating? Mostly because of the way in which the four parents were sometimes presented which, come to think of it, is not a terribly flattering thing to say about either a teenage romance or feminist tract. This film is not recommended.

Meet The Parents - (5.5) is a belly-laugh funny, physical comedy funny, great dialogue and scenes funny, for almost a full 100 minutes long, a very humorous comedy. The story has Greg (Ben Stiller) a Chicago RN and his girlfriend, Pam, going from Chicago where they live to Long Island for the weekend to meet her folks and to attend her younger sister’s wedding. Greg is planning on asking Pam to marry him probably this same weekend. Turns out that Dad, Jack, the Di Nero character is an ex CIA operative and a prospective son-in-law’s worst nightmare. All the impending problems are forecast just before Greg and Pam walk in her parents’ door when she tells him her Dad believes smoking - Greg smokes - shows weak character, that Dad absolutely worships his cat - Greg can take cats or leave them - and that the two of them should deny that they have been sleeping together. In addition to all this it seems that Jack is also totally overprotective of his “little  girl.” Sight gags include a sequences in which Jack’s beloved cat pees on Jack’s mom’s ashes, one in which the contents of the septic tank are splattered on the wedding party and still another in which the altar burns down. I thought that the funniest part of the film was Jack’s idea of having his cat act as ring bearer at the wedding. There are many running word gags. Greg’s last name is Focker; “pronounced just as it is spelled.” Why not a much higher rating for a film which is undeniably awfully funny? Well, I am not really too high on comedies - it has to be fantastic, continuous laughs from beginning to end (see Where’s Poppa?,Cold Turkey and The In Laws  - the last of which this movie is somewhat reminiscent) for me to rate a comedy higher than a 5.5. It is my feeling that most comedies, even those like this one, which are not “one joke” stories, mostly simply beat a few humorous ideas to death long before their 100 minutes or so has run. Although this is far from a one-joke movie it does beat to death a few of its funny situations and lines. How many different funny ways can one writer use the name “Folker” especially after Pam’s parents remember that her middle name is “Martha?” My idiosyncrasies aside, this film is strongly recommended to everyone except those few people who are even harder to please than I am.

Men Of Honor - (5.0) m y be described as a “triumph of the human spirit” or “one man succeeding in spite of overwhelming odds against him” drama. Unfortunately, this film overplays what might have been a better film were it scaled back somewhat. As it is the scale is too overwhelming, the characters far too broad, the drama too heavy and the music too loud in what in the old days might have been a smaller but better film. Carl Brashear, son of a sharecropper, grows up in the thirties American South who wants passionately to be a US Navy diver. He enters the Navy with his hardworking father’s admonishment to always do his best ringing in his ears. The Navy Carl winds up in is 100% segregated. And he finds himself on duty serving meals to “real” sailors. Through a series of not always too plausible circumstances the Navy makes Carl one of its first black candidates in its ultra difficult and exclusive diving and recovery school in Bayonne, New Jersey of all places. Here, he comes under the thumb of larger than life, hard-bitten old Southern boy bigot, Master Chief Billy Sunday, played, really almost grotesquely overplayed, by one of my favorites, Robert De Nero. Although, by this time, post 1948, the US military has been theoretically fully integrated, Carl finds himself living alone with barely a friend or supporter in a world forty years before the words “affirmative action” had ever been used together, where Billy Sunday is God, the base commander is every wicked and stupid cliché imaginable and having to succeed alone on his own wits, brains and physical courage. This all sounds better than it plays up there on the big screen. The melodrama is much, much more Hollywood than US Navy, Bayonne NJ or any other real place. I mean, when Carl and Billy Sunday enter into a wager at a Bayonne bar as to who can hold his breath longer there just happen to be on hand a couple of waterproof diving helmets for them to be encased in for dramatic effect. And, after Carl has lost a leg in an accident and he has appealed to the Navy to be permitted to return to duty, the stage is set for him to have to walk twelve steps in a 290 pound diving suit in a ultra dramatic courtroom finale. Come on already. There is however an excellent scene in which Carl, sent to retrieve an atomic bomb from under the sea evades a Russian submarine on the same mission. This film could have been much better. It is recommended only to those who like their triumph of the spirits drama as heavy as a 290-pound diving suit.

Mission To Mars - (5.0) uses some decent special effects in a fairly redundant story - but don’t ask me which films it reminds me of - I stopped trying to recall. The effects concentrate a bit too much on the now almost mandatory in this kind of picture weightlessness and its corollary walking upside down scenes but has only one of my personal space film effects, the “blastoff” scene. For a film with not quite enough star power this one is pretty strong in showing feelings and in establishing meaningful relationships among the astronauts, particularly in one harrowing space rescue attempt. The Gary Sinise character’s feelings are powerfully explored in his role of the astronaut whose ambition has always been to go to Mars and who trained for it all his adult life but who opted out to care for his wife during her terminal illness. The story revolves mostly around a rescue mission sent out 13 months after the first flight to Mars in the year 2020 has communicated back to the space station that the voyage has encountered big problems on the Red Planet's surface. Its mood is almost always fairly and  appropriately somber. This is not a bad film but it is almost two hours full of feeling that I have seen this all before. This film is recommended only to those who cannot get enough serious space films.

O Brother, Where art Thou? - (5.5) is a brilliantly photographed, sometimes extremely funny comedy carried by witty dialogue and by the facial contortions of its two stars, John Turturro and George Clooney. Though based rather loosely upon Homer’s Odyssey, its connection to the Greek classic doesn’t go much beyond scenes showing temptation by sirens who apparently turn one person into an animal and an encounter with a Cyclops-like, one eyed villain. The sketchy story follows the almost Three Stooges like (that’s a high compliment) adventures of Turturro, Clooney and another guy, chained together escapees from a Depression Era Mississippi prison farm, as, while traversing Faulkner Country, they encounter a series of comic characters including various politicians, Baby Face Nelson and the Ku Klux Klan. Turturro and Clooney highlight the film as they stare, flinch, gawk and ape their way through an entertaining ninety minutes. The three escapees and their new young black friend pass themselves off as the singing Soggy Bottom Boys, an impersonation made much easier by a radio station manager’s being blind. Typical of the comedy is Clooney’s, upon hearing that their pay is ten dollars apiece, quickly advising the blind manager that there are six Soggy Bottom Boys. Though not so good as the critics seem to feel it is, I recommend this film to all the other fans of lowbrow comedy.

The Opportunists - (6.0) stars Christopher Walken as - surprise! - not another weirdo but as a nice, ordinary guy who has supplemented some very bad luck with some fairly poor judgment. Seems that several years previously the Walken character, Vic Kelly, was the safe specialist in a botched robbery. When his wife thereafter gives him a wakeup call by walking out on him he turns the money over to the authorities and thereby escapes with “only” 8½ years in prison during which he never sees his daughter, who is now, as the film opens, a young adult. Vic is a good guy. Though his auto repair shop isn’t working out and he seems to owe everyone money he does have a sweet girlfriend, lives in a decent, working class Queens, New York neighborhood and he pays for his poor aunt’s upkeep at the Catholic nursing home of her choice and his daughter has turned out OK. Still, some neighborhood lowlifes and his cousin who is newly arrived from Ireland are constantly hitting on him to consider the old “one last big score.” Re-enter Vic’s poor judgment. The film is played very seriously throughout by some very good actors who consistently come across as “real people” (at least by Hollywood standards.) There is a great turn by character actor Tom Noonan as the gang’s safecracking “consultant.” Vic’s none-too-bright criminal associates come across as real though misguided and selfish. I really cared about Vic and about his decent daughter, his girlfriend and Aunt Deidre. There are some interesting scenes wherein the gang rehearses the robbery. It didn’t really bother me much that the ending is a bit of a stretch. This low budget but well acted film is strongly recommended.

The Perfect Storm - (6.0) is a fairly good adventure story though not, apparently, anywhere near as good as the book which I have not read. Its strengths are in some surprising places. It is really as much a tale about the fishing industry, or rather, fishing people, as it is about a terrible weather event. And it is both enjoyable and educational as a fishing film. I learned things about this craft that I not only never knew but did not ever even suspect. The first 45 or so minutes introduce the fishing crew of a sword (as in “swordfish”) boat. These guys are not especially likable, extraordinary or even really well depicted but, by Hollywood standards (I think that Hollywood generally does a very poor job of portraying the average working stiff) a seemingly realistic group of individuals. The film quickly and effectively establishes how the captain, the Clooney character’s, terrible run of bad luck affects the lives of his crew, a poor bunch, whose compensation is a piece of the profits. Their bad luck continues as, driven to take chances in their bid for one successful trip, they run into a confluence of hurricane and other storms characterized at various times with names such as the “storm of the century.” I personally think that someday Clooney will be a great star or, at least, a pretty fair action hero though I’ll be damned if I could name a film in which I have seen him, aside from his very brief but effective appearance in The Thin Red Line, which brings out his talent. Having said that, one of the most appealing aspects of the characters in this film is their non-heroic but, I felt, very realistic, demeanor. There are scenes near the end when they are all but curled up in their bunks in the fetal position awaiting the worst. This is a refreshing change in an age where movie heroes routinely perform superhuman feats under similar stresses. Another strength of the film is its demonstrating some simple truths about the fishing industry, e.g. I hadn’t a clue that these boats were equipped with ice machines. (I can just hear the producer now: “We put up the top special effects of the year and this guy is impressed with the ice machines! It takes all kinds.”) This film is recommended.

Place Vendome - (6.0) has Catherine Deneuve, possibly the most beautiful 56-year-old woman on Earth, and who, by herself, should give any film a 5.0 to start with. It also has a pretty fair story, some nice Paris scenery, a bit of interesting insight into the jewelry business and, frankly, little else. The title is the name of one of my favorite places in the world, a beautiful Paris square, one of whose upscale jewelry stores is owned by the Deneuve character, Marianne’s, husband Vincent, and his brother. Poor Marianne, we learn early on, has spent a good deal of her eighteen years of marriage to Vincent in and out of alcohol re-hab. She learns shortly after Vincent’s untimely accidental death (or suicide) that the family business has been in big financial trouble as brother-in-law Eric fails to convince her to go along with him and sell out to new, offshore owners. The story gets burdened down with many characters and the plot gets a bit complex until late in the film when we learn in flashback that Marianne had herself been in the jewelry business twenty years earlier but had come under the influence of a jewel thief who left her holding the bag for one of his failed scams. Since this scam was a rip-off of her soon-to-be husband’s store it seems that the subsequent marriage and all her problems were part of a deal not to prosecute her. Catherine Deneuve has ample opportunity to showcase her considerable acting talents in this movie. She makes a convincing and sympathetic recovering alcoholic who is sometimes successful and other times not successful with her efforts. Moreover, it is easy to root for her as almost every other player tries to keep her in the dark and rip her off in some way. There is a nice plot twist or two late in the film. This film is recommended especially to Deneuve fans and to virtually anyone not scared off by subtitles.

Price Of Glory - (2.5) is kind of a family boxing drama, I guess, but, the film is so awful who cares what one calls it? It follows the story of the Fighting Ortegas, a Mexican-American Family--father, mother and three young sons from just-over-the border Arizona. It opens in 1977 with father, then a young boxer, having the shit beat out of him in a match that was arranged by his unscrupulous manager with no thought to his not yet being ready for this opponent. The manager also bilks him out of his share of the purse. Flash forward to 1990 and watch as father trains his three little boys to be boxers. Maybe it's me. I have no interest whatsoever in boxing nor am I  opposed to the sport between consenting adults. Scenes of little kids training to be boxers simply grossed me out even before getting to the part where the boys were all doing it to like make Daddy happy and Daddy didn’t love one as much as he loved the others. He was always just doing it for their own good, you know. Then the film flashes forward once again, this time to the present, as his adult sons get snared in the crookedness of boxing and the film becomes mired in melodrama. The story is exactly what you just read. There is little emotion or depth. The editing or something is done badly as scenes follow one another without much apparent connection between them. The boxing scenes are not too convincing - Rocky seemed more realistic - though it has been so long since I saw a match even on TV that I cannot claim to be any kind of judge of this. This film is not recommended.

Quills - (5.5) purports to tell of the notorious Marquis de Sade’s imprisonment by Napoleon in a mental hospital in response to the Marquis’ pornographic publications in early eighteenth century France. Unfortunately, I have no idea how much, if any, of this story is true but, knowing Hollywood, there is likely a minimum of much fiction here. This film will not be everyone’s cup of tea. As matter of fact it would be my guess that very few people will want to see it. This is somewhat unfortunate because the film has quite a bit going for it including star power, pretty good set design, use of irony, more than a little humor, some pretty fair dialogue and even defense of the old guy’s work, this last no mean feat in itself. After a gruesome guillotine sequence the movie begins with scenes establishing de Sade’s books as raising the prurient interest of enough citizens so as to become best sellers. While the story does not depict the Marquis as exactly heroic it does make heroic its presentation of his struggles to be published, freedom of speech, if you will. The title refers to his writing instruments which are ultimately taken from him. The Marquis is passionate about writing and being read. He challenges his keepers by asserting that their beliefs are so very fragile that these beliefs cannot stand up to his challenge. Also contributing to a positive picture of the man are the story’s depiction of his doctor as a sadistic - how’s that for irony - evil monster himself and the position the film takes against the old argument that pornography causes crime. If the acting is not great - it is however reasonably good - it is not for lack of casting two old Academy Award winners. Geoffrey Rush as the Marquis and Michael Caine as his doctor both chew the scenery.  Kate Winslet  plays the asylum chambermaid who, in spite of her being constantly hit on by the lead guy, helps smuggle his writing out of the asylum. Joaquin Phoenix plays the priest who runs the asylum until Dr. Caine steps in and takes over. This film is cautiously recommended but only to those who prefer offbeat films.

Note: I have not seen the trailer for this film. I strongly suspect that scenes in the trailer will be juxtaposed and sequenced in such a manner as to make it appear that the film shows the Marquis performing horrible whippings and other tortures sometimes in devices such as the “calming chair” which are straight out of the Middle Ages. In fact, the horrible acts depicted in the film are performed almost exclusively by his doctor and jailers upon the Marquis and some of the other unfortunate patients.

Remember The Titans - (6.0) is yet another “first African Americans to achieve” story, in this case the achievement’s being coaching and playing on the first integrated high school football team in Virginia. The film pretty well captures what the mood and environment of 1971 Alexandria Virginia must have been as white people, horrified at the prospect of their children going to a forcibly integrated school against their wishes, react against all things different, in this case black people in new roles. Herman Boone, the black head coach of the newly integrated team (white school board member to the white former head coach, “We had to give ‘em something”) is almost too perfect. Not only is Boone played by Denzel Washington, this generation’s Hollywood’s idea of black male perfection, but Boone has also “marched with Dr. King and stood up to the Klan.” Herman is wise, mature beyond his years and a born leader. He is also way too intense about high school football and this same character might well be an argument for the scaling back of this particular form of intensity’s being visited upon such young school boys. Well, Herman soon has the partial support as defensive coordinator of white former head coach Yost, who volunteers to help mostly to protect “his boys,” the white players. During a grueling two week summer camp at Gettysburg College, Boone totally integrates the team. The only segregation is the practice time separation of defense and offense, meaning, of course that Boone and Yost will each coach both whites and blacks. The story does a lot more than provide a not-too-surprising feel good ending as the Titans roll onto an undefeated season and win the state championship. Along the way Yost, an excellently cast Will Patton, even manages to teach Boone a thing or two and Boone even learns a little humility. For much of the film’s running time it seems as though the these two and their players are the only Alexandrians who learn much. By film’s end there are a couple of not too well played out sudden changes in faith by formerly bigoted while females who “see the light.”  The football scenes, which seem to heighten in impact and noise as the season goes on, are well done though not on the special effects scale of say, last year’s Any Given Sunday.  Why not a higher rating for a well-done film that tackles profound subjects like recent history and basic human behavior? Well, this film is not without its shortcomings, including the aforementioned seeing the light episodes. Special mention must be made of the portrayal of Yost’s daughter. In an apparent attempt to give the Yost character, a widower, some background or depth, not a bad idea at all, the writers have created for him a ”cute little daughter” character. As written and acted though the kid is much worse than totally obnoxious. She detracts substantially from the film! This film is recommended in spite of these few shortcomings.

Requiem For A Dream - 6.5 is an incredibly powerful nightmare, more precisely four nightmares, showing the descent of four people into their own separate hells on earth as a result of drug abuse with another horror or two thrown in. The central character, Sara Goldfarb, played by Ellen Burstyn in what must be an Academy Award nomination role, is a frumpy, fat, poor, middle aged Brooklyn widow who is obsessed with television generally and her favorite game show in particular. The film immediately establishes her milieu as it opens showing Sara wailing and crying from behind a locked door within her apartment as her son again steals her TV set to sell for money for a fix. The TV set had been chained to a pipe to prevent just such a recurrence. Next, Sara is contacted by the TV station (or someone - it may have been the devil) telling her that she has already won an opportunity to be on the show a chance which she immediately seizes upon to cure her self hatred and improve her minuscule self esteem if she can diet away enough weight so as to fit into her precious red dress which has hung in her closet, apparently for years. The scenes showing her pathetic attempts to diet away the fat are agonizing enough in and of themselves to make this film worthwhile. But, the story has only begun. The diet is a flat out failure in spite of the encouragement given by some of her building cronies in some great scenes of old women friendship. She finally goes to a doctor who, without even a cursory physical examination, prescribes for Sara both some diet pills to curb her hunger during the day as well as some other pills to bring her “down” at bedtime. Meantime, Son Harold together with drug partner and user Tyrone and girlfriend Marion are doing their thing which is to try to score and sell the few drugs they don’t consume themselves all in an increasingly reckless and brainless manner. Though Sara does lose considerable weight and her spirits are temporarily chemically greatly enhanced her tolerance for the drugs, especially the downers, predictably increases and brings along with it insomnia, paranoia, delusions and increasingly nightmarish “trips.” These horrors are repeatedly and effectively juxtaposed with scenes showing Harold, Tyrone and Marian similarly destroying themselves. Many of these scenes intersperse first hand views seen through the users’ own eyes of what he or she is experiencing. The last thirty minutes or so quickly cut between scenes of each of the four’s descent into his or her own private hell. For example, Tyrone winds up in a Southern prison under the sadistic thumbs of keepers more than willing to teach an “uppity New York Nigger” their rules. Marion’s fate involves being pimped ( by Harold, at first, followed by less “friendly” persons) in an orgy involving the severest degradation. It did not hurt my enjoyment thereof that the film shows several views of an old, dilapidated Coney Island, a not-quite-so-old edition of which is one of my earliest childhood memories. The many visual highlights include the way in which the characters, mainly Burstyn as Sara, are not only physically, but also morally and psychologically transformed. These incredibly realistic and graphic physical transformations do not detract from, but rather complement, the story line of damnation. Nor do the almost continuous special effects overwhelm the senses but, again, rather emphasize the human torment. This film is strongly recommended with the caveat that it is graphic to the point of being disturbing (I dreamed about it the night after seeing it.)  If you have any reservations whatsoever about it on this count don’t see it!

Space Cowboys - (5.0) is a simple, likable, one joke film featuring a concept that played pretty well in the trailer but as a feature has nothing particularly outstanding to recommend it. The one joke is that a team of 1950’s Air Force test pilots who were passed over as astronauts (due as much to politics as to their own idiosyncrasies) are now asked by NASA to recover a Soviet weather satellite which is in danger of crashing into the earth. It seems that one of the group had designed the engineering on the satellite and no one else knows this outdated technology nor is there time to train another team. The head of this geriatric group, Clint E., motivated by political revenge - the NASA guy is their old Air Force nemesis - as well as by loyalty to his old team, insists on his entire team played by James Garner, Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland. Well, the old guys play it pretty well, damn near for all it's worth. But, it's still a one joke setup. This is recommended only to 1. Real Clint fans or 2. Those looking for little semi-mindless diversion.

State and Main - (5.5) though also somewhat redundant, this film is extremely funny with a fine cast creating humorous, though not especially original, characters who deliver some darn witty dialogue. The plot is a slight variation on the oft-repeated one about what happens when Hollywood comes to a small town to film on location. This time the town is in Vermont. The film crew had just been kicked out of New Hampshire for reasons that either were not specified or I missed. The locals are neither the stupid caricatures which these out of touch with reality Hollywood types always anticipate nor are they the invariable smarter-than-their-city-cousins country mice. The Hollywood characters include a fairly typical assortment of the power hungry producer, the dictatorial and phony director, the bombastic male star and a female star who is in the midst of an identity crisis. Also included are a very human writer who can do nothing without his own manual typewriter and also features at least one local who is far above the usual mold. Of the many really humorous situations none, perhaps, is funnier than the difficulty, the practical one, not the moral one, presented by placing the name of a computer product, for payola, naturally, in this production  -- which is set in 1895. OK, if the story is familiar and the characters and situation are not original, why is this film so damn funny? Good question. The answer, in a word, I suppose, is execution, or perhaps, execution and sometimes dialogue. And some damn good performances! David Paymer as the producer, William H. Macy as the director, one of the Baldwins as the male star and Sarah Jessica Parker all deliver performances which range from really good to fantastic. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant as the writer with principles but without his beloved typewriter. In the face of all this star power the movie really belongs to underrated and almost unknown but very talented Rebecca Pidgeon who plays Annie, owner of the local bookstore, who knows everything, almost literally. For example Annie knows the writer’s book, the book upon which the movie is based, better than its author does. This film is recommended to everyone, even those who think they may have seen it before.

Sunshine - (6.5) is a rich historical tapestry dramatically recounting the tale of three generations and parts of two others of one Hungarian Jewish family. After settling in Hungary in mid-nineteenth century, the Sonnenschein family strives for the better part of 100 years and several governments to achieve their goal of “belonging,” of being “real” Hungarians. Unfortunately, their struggles involve more than a little compromise as well as some downright selling out despite the family patriarch, Emanuel’s, mighty, but ultimately unsuccessful, struggles to impart to his progeny the simple truths of their Jewish heritage. Although the patriarch is extremely aware of his Jewish heritage and he tries to pass the tradition on, neither he nor his sons are particularly religious. The family success, such as it is, is largely the result of Emanuel’s holding onto the family’s secret formula for a health tonic which his sons and grandsons fritter away in much the same manner as they lose sight of more traditional values as members of each generation seek either acceptance as Hungarians as well as its opposite number, new ideals, including social and political reform. In spite of professional success the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons always discover that acceptance or assimilation is at odds with their other goals. One generation changes its name to something “more Hungarian.”  The next generation, motivated by even shallower reasons, i.e. getting on the Hungarian Olympic Fencing Team, converts to Catholicism. Make no mistake, these people’s philosophy is chronically fatally flawed. Also, for the most part, they are not nice people at all. Although in the film’s most powerful scene one of them dies for his Jewish identity at the hands of the Nazis, these weren’t very good Jews and - guess what? - they aren’t very serious about their new religion either. The film’s strengths include the way in which it demonstrates how no government form--“liberal” monarchy, military dictatorship or two communist governments--are free from anti-Semitism and oppression of the other underclasses. This film is recommended but with the caveat that its three hours can be a bit tiresome.

Thirteen Days - (7.0) captures all the drama of the world on the brink of nuclear war during 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis. And it captures this drama from the inside the White House viewpoint of Kenneth O’Donnell, President John F. Kennedy’s Special Assistant For Political Affairs and, according to this film just behind Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the ultimate insider during this administration. The story’s re-creation of history is a huge success, reviewing as it does not only the major essentials of the confrontation and its many implications but also hundreds of period details from 1960’s cars and style raincoats to showing many people anxiously smoking in the conference rooms.  It also drives home the huge philosophical differences between branches of the military and between military and civilian leaders without actually making the generals and admirals all bad. We learn that each alternative course of action considered by America’s leaders carried with it possible consequences like appearing to be, or even possibly actually, abandoning allies such as Turkey, risking an invasion of Berlin with the almost certain resultant deployment of nuclear weapons or making the United States the aggressor in the eyes of the Communist Bloc and the Third World. In spite of portraying the Kennedys more than sympathetically, indeed more than heroically, this movie still shows how truly frightened they and other national leaders were during this period. And, with good cause. There is a scene near the end of the film showing the missiles, erect and now operational, per US intelligence, and being fueled. This is especially awesome when contrasted to the only actual photos I ever saw showing the missiles horizontal and presumably still being assembled. Though Kevin Costner as O’Donnell is the nominal star, it is Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp as the Kennedys who make the greater impact. Not since Anthony Hopkins portrayed Nixon a few years back has a recent historical character been so well captured. And, though I began this film saying to myself about both Greenwood and Culp, “These guys don’t look that much like John and Robert” about twenty minutes into this film I found myself saying just as with Hopkins’ portrayal, “Damn, if they don’t look and sound like the Kennedy Brothers!” The movie creates similar very realistic characterizations/portrayals of other familiar (to us old guys) Kennedy administration figures such as Ted Sorenson, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk and others. This production captures the historical situation’s first rate drama from 38 years ago from the White house situation room, the United Nations Security Counsel, the Pentagon, fields in the Cuban countryside and the sky over 70,000 feet above Cuba. Though not a “war movie” per se there is a gripping sequence in which the pilot of an American U2 spy plane over Cuba desperately avoids Soviet surface to air missiles visible right outside his plane’s window. One of the features of this film which I found most intriguing was the manner in which it depicted O’Donnell, long time close Kennedy friend, supporter and advisor, former Harvard teammate of Robert, as almost a member of the Kennedy family. Though the Kennedys are always obviously in full command and O’Donnell is constantly loyal, respectful and sometimes almost subservient to them, he still frequently questions, even second guesses and criticizes both the President and the Attorney General, not to mention his going toe to toe with Adlai Stevenson and most of the country’s top ranking military brass, all with seeming impunity. This film is highly recommended to everyone.

Tigerland - (6.0) is as far as I am concerned, right up there with the very good Vietnam War films and just below, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. Technically, not a  “war film” - there is no combat - but rather one of the US Army training for war genre, this is also a classic anti-hero story. The training scenes, or more precisely the barracks-during-training scenes, which permeate the film are darn good and very realistic. However, the depiction of the old Army cruelty and sadism toward the trainees is way beyond anything like reality, even the US Army variety of reality. The milieu, September 1971, Advanced Infantry Training (“AIT”) at Fort Polk, LA during the height of the Vietnam war, is enough to strike horror into any recruit. “Tigerland” is the “Stateside Province of Vietnam," the Army’s euphemism for the week between AIT and the inevitable shipping off for ‘Nam. Tigerland is the training cadre’s last opportunity to prepare the troops for war, or to torture them, depending upon one’s point of view. Though there is some lip service paid to the old “we’re here to save your lives” the entire training experience looks more like torture to me. Protagonist and anti-hero, Bozz, is the back wisecracking - but always with an edge - non-conformist who just wants to stay alive. Bozz claims to be a good American, even a patriot, but he doesn’t see any necessity for going ten thousand miles away to kill people. Amen! Bozz’s specialty, it turns out as the film starts and he is being released from The Stockade into AIT, is interpreting Army regulations - he’s a “barracks lawyer” - so as to get fellow soldiers out of service for hardship reasons, psychological problems, and so forth. As though the viewer couldn’t work up plenty of sympathy for young men being sent to Asia probably to die, definitely to be miserable for a year, the writers have to add into this mix at least one sadistic training NCO who himself belongs in either a psychiatric ward or The Stockade, preferably the latter. The film’s best, and, ironically (in a movie such as this which stretches the truth so much) its most realistic point is expressed by the company commander’s ravings about such a phenomenon as this in an environment where the whole country “is against us (the Army.”) The pace of the training sequences and of the film generally is appropriately crazed and frenetic. The acting by a group of no names is consistently good. The dialogue is loaded with irony, like references to psychological problems as an aberration in this, an environment focused on training men to go and kill other people. This film is strongly recommended to all except those who simply cannot abide war films.

Time Regained - (6.5) is a masterfully filmed but slow moving, subtitled version the seventh and final book of early twentieth century French writer Marcel Proust’s masterpiece, Remembrance Of Things Past. Proust’s books have a wide reputation for being difficult and this film lives up to that reputation. It is a confusing movie. (I would give it the dubious distinction of being one of the best films that I barely understood.) One critic suggested that a viewer might be better of if he had not read the book. Watching its almost three hours requires some concentration, even effort. The film’s format is a series of flashbacks from the ancient author’s sickbed as he struggles to write his last book, his autobiography. There are flashbacks within flashbacks, including several in which an elder Marcel observes, and sometimes talks to, a younger version of himself. These flashbacks consistently show beautifully photographed early 1900’s small town, rural and seaside France as well as Paris society, including elegant dinner parties and concerts attended mostly by artists and writers. There are also some very well done tableau-like scenes in which Proust or another character might “drift through” groups of stationary people. Many of the characterizations are skillfully and finely drawn. (I am certain that Proust who is widely recognized as one of the all time best writers would appreciate this compliment from me.) The acting seems uniformly excellent. (I am always reluctant to judge the acting in a subtitled film. Who knows if the characters are really saying the words printed in English at the bottom of the screen?) Many of the male characters are gay, others, at least effeminate. One of the most ironic sections of the film is an extended scene in a male brothel - not everyone’s cup of tea - but, I thought, inoffensive and played mostly for laughs and which features the male prostitutes sitting around giving their thoughts on, among other things, WWI and conscription. There are also some dramatic World War I scenes. This film, though, like the brothel scene, not everyone’s cup of tea, is, nonetheless, highly recommended.

 

Traffic - (6.5) has much to say, and does so quite powerfully, about America’s War On Drugs. Bottom line: this war is not being won. Worse yet: it is not winnable! Mexico and the United States, in spite of their well-publicized cooperation, have different attitudes and frequently contradictory goals about the drug trade. By interspersing three somewhat related but separate contemporary tales of drug usage, traffic and efforts to curb this traffic, the film sums up how things got this way and how unlikely they are to improve.

The first story focuses upon Javier and Manolo, two young but veteran drug enforcement policemen, in the state of Baja, Mexico. The second tale concerns the family of San Diego drug operator Carl Ayala. The third phase covers former Ohio Supreme Court Justice and just appointed Federal Drug Czar Bob Whitfield, his wife Barbara and daughter Carolyn.

Mexican law enforcement is well summed up by one character’s reference to its being ”entrepreneurial” in nature. This south of the Border piece addresses the tremendous temptations faced by these low salaried police officers in the form of huge bribes from drug cartels with unlimited budgets. The state police do not know what the federals are doing. And these locals suspect, sometimes even know, that they are serving under bought and paid for supervisors. Above all these front-line warriors must deal with the fatalistic attitude, indeed sometimes they succumb to this attitude, that if one drug family doesn’t deliver the drugs, another family will.

In addition to the capture and jailing of Carl Ayala, the San Diego section focuses upon two United States Drug Enforcement front line troops as well as Ayala’s wife who allegedly believes that her husband’s filthy businesses are, in fact, legitimate enterprises. She now complains when law enforcement uses all its civil and criminal weapons, including liens and forfeiture, to disrupt her very high lifestyle. She quickly yields to the temptation to carry on the family business. All her activities are carried out under surveillance of two likable US Drug Enforcement operatives played very effectively by Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman.

Justice Whitfield suspects during his whirlwind post appointment Washington DC tour that his new job is going to be a thankless and impossible one. He meets his disillusioned and worn-out predecessor who warns him that his job will be frustrating at best. Immediately thereafter Whitfield receives tons of conflicting advice from, among others, politicians and drug companies. In spite of Wakefield’s absolute honesty and tireless efforts it quickly becomes clear that America’s throwing money, technology, manpower and weapons at this mess has obviously failed and that no one has the slightest clue of how to fix things. The drug evil hits home literally when Whitfield discovers that his high achieving, private school, sixteen year old daughter has a heavy drug and sex habit initiated, enabled, encouraged and exploited by her yukkie preppy boyfriend. It is this vile boy who ultimately makes the film’s point that these awful drug people are in reality simply providing a service to rich young Americans who are very, very willing to pay handsomely for the stuff and who, in fact, regularly drive in huge numbers from their rich suburbs into the inner cities to score the stuff.

The film points out that there are apparently people in responsible positions on both sides of the border who are more willing than presumably the film’s average viewer to take the dirty money and rationalize their actions by arguing, among other things, the inevitability, if not the benefit, of the drug trade. Also, it seems that many Mexicans in addition to oftentimes seeing drugs as a profit center not only don’t give a damn what happens to the addicts but even view their deaths as a kind of final solution.

This tough downer of a movie is highly recommended.

Two Family House - (4.5) is a low budget, no name cast, earnest but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to be drama, comedy or both. It has its moments - of drama at least - but the drama is not sustained. More objectionable is its apparent message which, I for one, am not buying. Buddy Vistolo comes marching home from World War II to Staten Island, the arms of faithful Estelle and to the spare bedroom of his in-laws for eleven long, childless years. There are, however, in addition to Buddy’s regular machine shop employment at least three failed attempts at starting his own businesses: a limo service, a housecleaning service and a pizza parlor. Strangely, no mention is ever made of the couple’s problems trying to have or reasons, if any, for not having children. The film picks up the Vistolos in 1956 as Buddy is realizing his dream of buying a two family house in the “wrong” (Irish) section of town. He plans to convert the lower floor into a bar. In addition to having done just about everything else associated with the house wrong Buddy runs into an obscure law preventing the immediate eviction of his Irish immigrant and soon to be parents tenants. There is some legitimate drama when young Mrs. O’Neary’s baby is decidedly dark complected.  Mr. O. a drunken older guy immediately walks out on her while the world at large turns its back on Mary, an unfortunate, single mother. The best part of this movie is the way in which sympathy is created for Mary against a bunch of narrow minded 1950’s hypocrites. Well, basically Estelle’s rejection of Buddy’s bar plans, and by implication of Buddy himself, drives Buddy into Mary’s arms where he winds up at the end of the film. The film’s aforementioned apparent message is that this is all OK because Estelle neither understood nor treated Buddy right anyway so now he is a free agent so to speak and can live happily ever after with younger and better looking Mary. I’ll bet an older man with a less than happy, perhaps even childless, marriage, wrote this script. This film is not recommended.

U-571 - (6.0) doesn’t come quite up the level of Das Boot which seems to be virtually everyone’s standard and deservedly so for submarine movies. But this a fine war picture anyhow. Since the story doesn’t try to do too much it manages so stay “within itself” fairly well. The script has few surprises but does use a couple of hooks which work well. In 1942 the US Navy Submarine S-33  is assigned, together with one person each from Naval Intelligence and the US Marines, to beat a Nazi rescue boat to the disabled German U-571, pretending they themselves are Nazis until the last possible moment, then storm the U-571 and grab an Enigma Machine, an advanced German super code translator largely responsible for their World War submarine superiority. The crew is then to sink the U -571 so that the Nazis will never know the Enigma Machine has been stolen and the Allies can now track enemy subs. The human interest factor centers upon S-33 Executive Officer and attack unit commander Lt. Tyler (Matthew McConaughey) and furnishes a good deal of the interest. But by making him such a good person and so caring of the men in his command, much like the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan, it detracts somewhat from the story’s credibility. It is difficult to believe that even a Good Guy American military officer can be so concerned about his people. It is also interesting to contrast this fact to the tendency pointed out by at least one reviewer of this film that, for some reason, in  World Way II movies, Nazi Navy personnel never seem to be portrayed as the monsters their German Army counterparts are. McConaughey is not bad at all - sometimes - but in other scenes he quickly exhausts his narrow range of emotions and reactions.  The film’s repeating many of the standard submarine film situations and clichés, the sonar noise, blip, blip, blip, the depth charges, the creaking, sweating and sometimes overflowing bulkheads, the popping rivets when the pressure is too high detracts very little much from the film’s power. Repetitive or not, this film is recommended.

Unbreakable - (5.0) and a disappointing 5.0 given the hype and the fact that it is written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, and also stars Bruce Willis, the team who did last year’s The Sixth Sense. It is similarly set in contemporary Philadelphia and has very much the same low key, subdued mood and quiet, thought out tone as that film. And, it has an intriguing angle and “catch” with which to hook audiences - it hooked me - and that is, the mystery of how one man can survive without a scratch a train wreck which kills everyone else aboard. Assuming everyone is familiar with the train wreck concept which comes early in the film about all one has to know to that point about David, the Bruce Willis character, is that he is a security guard at the football stadium and that his wife, the mother of his young son, does not sleep with him. Shortly after surviving the wreck and its attendant media hoopla David is approached and questioned by Elijah Price, the Samuel Jackson character. Elijah suffers from, among other physical problems, a condition which makes his bones very susceptible to breaking. Elijah has had literally dozens of broken bones in his not yet forty years and walks as though several are still broken. We learn that this condition has caused him many, many months of hospitalization during which his only activity was reading. Unfortunately, his reading matter of choice since childhood has been comic books which he has taken so seriously that he now not only operates a classic comic book/art gallery but he even believes that these books represent the accumulated but corrupted vestiges of much ancient knowledge. In one really ludicrous scene Elijah explains all his theory (if one may dignify this drivel by calling it a ”theory”) in dead earnest to David and David’s son. Anyone who has seen many films the past few years is aware that no one delivers dead earnest monologue like Samuel Jackson.  The David connection to all this comic book business is that Elijah is pretty well convinced, especially after learning that David has never been sick a day in his life, that David is some kind of, for want of a better term, “superhero” just the opposite of the always sick and/or injured Elijah himself. In spite of early promise, if, in fact the foregoing can indeed be characterized as promising, and notwithstanding excellent performances by Willis and Jackson, the rest of the film, with the exception of a clever twist at the conclusion, comes on like, as one critic expressed, some kind of “origin of a superhero” episode. I am tempted to give this film a narrow recommendation, that is, to recommend it only to those, unlike me, whose expectations are not too high, which would be those people who have either not seen The Sixth Sense or are not aware of this film’s “indestructible man” premise. I suspect that no one else would want to see it anyway and why try to trick them into seeing it?  Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this film.

Vertical Limit - (5.5) has tremendous mountain cinematography, terrific stunt work and good special effects. In short, it is darn good high adventure. Its positives include a cast with couple of attractive young actors and one good grizzled old veteran. Unfortunately, it is simply just another good action/adventure flick more than a bit reminiscent of cliffhanger. The plot, which ain’t all that great, does include a couple of moral dilemmas, really a similar dilemma which is repeated a couple of times. Like its mountaineering oriented predecessor, Cliffhanger, this film opens with a very well done high altitude predicament, the not altogether satisfactory resolution of which creates a moral problem which shadows the balance of the movie. Annie Garrett, her brother, Peter, and their father are a tight knit mountaineering obsessed family who live – the father unfortunately also dies for it – their sport. Thereafter, Peter swears off climbing. Annie persists until three years later she is leading super rich Elliot Vaughn on his second attempt at K-2, the world’s second highest peak. Peter happens to be in the neighborhood, a base camp in Pakistan, filming snow leopards for National Geographic. Predictably, tragedy strikes and, just as predictably, Peter comes out of retirement, straps on his equipment, gathers his rescue team and goes out to rescue Sis, Vaughn and the other surviving party member. The following predicaments, though again predictable, are nevertheless extremely well done. The bad part is that, though a couple of other elements are introduced, the story remains way too thin. There is an especially unrealistic and hollow, perhaps vapid would be a better description, party scene at 20,000 feet. The characters, especially a pair of comic relief brothers, are really thin. The villain is – here’s that word again – predictable. Chris O’Donnell and Robin Tunney as the brother and sister are an attractive pair who do what they can with a flawed script. Scot Glenn does his thing, which is OK, but which we have all seen before. Interestingly, and to the film’s credit, the Pakistani characters are played with some depth and passion and not simply used as typical Third World props and, as is so often the case, existing mainly to be the early victims of the special effects. This film is recommended only to those who are not too demanding and looking for a little escape.

The Virgin Suicides - (5.0) is another disappointing film that fails to live up to the fairly lavish praise of the two critics I respect most. Maybe I should respect different critics. In 1975 the very square and devoutly Catholic Lisbon Family of upscale Grosse Point, MI has been blessed with five teenage daughters, one more beautiful than the other. Their parents are made out to be stupid, uptight, overzealous, overprotective jerks. James Woods is pretty fair in his role of Dad, a real Dagwood type while Kathleen Turner, looking positively matronly (man, was Body Heat that long ago?), is vapid Mom. Their protectionism increases wildly early on when the youngest daughter, thirteen year old Cecilia, first fails and later succeeds at suicide. The family is flat out and understandably devastated and the surviving girls are absolutely prohibited from dating. You get the impression that, if Mom and Dad had their way (you also get the impression that their way is Mom’s way; she is definitely the boss here) the girls wouldn’t even think about boys. Much of the balance of the film is seen through the eyes of a group of teenage boys who are no less than obsessed by the Lisbon girls' beauty and behavior. In a neat departure from Hollywood’s traditional portrayal of high school boys these kids really look young, small and awkward and, most important much less mature than girls of the same age. This film's strongest feature is its realistic manner of portraying teenage boys’ simultaneous lusting after and idealization of beautiful young women girls in their classes. The film’s biggest shortcoming is its failure to explain what happened to provoke the wholesale suicides of the title. This is the kind of film with so few explanations that it left me saying at the end, “There must have been one helluva lot more to the book than is shown here.” This film is not recommended.

What’s Cooking? - (4.0) is a rare movie but only insofar as it improves substantially toward the end. Unfortunately, by then it cannot overcome such a dreadful beginning and middle so as to permit its rising above mediocrity. Set on Thanksgiving Eve and Day in contemporary Los Angeles it shows four families of different ethnic backgrounds, Jewish, African American, Mexican American and immigrant Vietnamese, as they prepare for and celebrate the annual feast. It is one of those humorous turned dramatic, sometimes melodramatic, tales that hardly works as anything. Trouble is it is not very funny at all -- I think that I chuckled three times. And, the drama is forced, the issues and messages superficially treated. Each family has its own huge generation gap, its own little crisis and secrets. The Vietnamese boy cannot bring himself to admit that he is dating the Mexican girl so he tells his family that he has too much work to do at school and cannot come home. The Mexican father, having walked out on his wife, tries a surprise reconciliation at dinner only to find his wife has found a new man. The black Family, which includes a wife who cannot abide her stereotypical, interfering mother in law, experiences the return of a prodigal son who believes his folks have sold out to The White Man. One Jewish daughter comes home with her female lover to face the inevitable rough comparison with her happily married mother of twins sister. Listen to the clichés fly in this situation. Also, subplots abound. Trying to figure out who is who as the characters are introduced in the long drawn out beginning is next to impossible. Issues are covered superficially at best. Why does the black son feel as he does? Where are half of the young people coming from? Why are they the way they are? If it weren’t for stereotypes there would be no Jewish family here. The seemingly endless scenes of food preparation and service are, to me boring, not entertaining. The acting is adequate at best. The film might well be trying to say something about families and about trying to get on together in a pluralistic, multicultural society but by the time the messages, if there are any, come, I didn’t care. This film is not recommended.

Where The Heart Is - (5.0) is a contemporary, folksy, down home drama featuring some likable, though somewhat shallow, characters, a few of whom one can care about fairly deeply. It had some potential as a tale of personal growth. Unfortunately, its presentation is far more soap opera than strong drama. There is some melodrama including a kidnapping and a tornado. Young Willie Jack and his very pregnant and naïve girl friend, Novalee, leave their native Tennessee heading for California but Novalee gets only as far as small town Oklahoma where disinterested and increasingly sleazy Willie Jack abandons her. There, before and after her child is born, she has some amusing adventures which furnish more than a few laughs and some cute scenes. Novalee herself is far from an unsympathetic character. She had been mistreated long before she met Willie Jack - like all her life. She meets many people most of whom are simply stereotypes. What’s the matter - don’t these Hollywood writers ever hang out with real, normal people? Don’t these writers have friends? Why do these people always seem to write the same or similar stereotypical characters into so many films? The second rate acting by both stars and most of these characters exacerbates the problem. This film features two very charming young actresses, Natalie Portmann and Ashley Judd, neither of whom has nearly enough talent to carry a major dramatic film. The Judd character is, I think, especially insulting to women. Her Lexie is the friendly and ostensibly bright and self reliant Nineties Woman (she certainly is good looking) who befriends Poor Novalee. Lexie though never having been married is the mother of five or six - I lost count - little bastards by who remembers how many different men. She is constantly throwing out lines like the old “You know, whenever he even looked at me, I got pregnant.” Ha Ha. In spite of my problems with this chick and this flick I would not be too surprised if it becomes a very popular woman’s film. The women in the audience were laughing at lines like these for the entire running time. This film is recommended only to those who find lines like these funny

Woman On Top - (2.5) is a very unfunny comedy with nothing going for it except possibly the smile of Penelope Cruz for whom this film is apparently intended as a vehicle. The plot, such as it is, tells how the Cruz character, Isabella, learns that in order to overcome her congenital motion sickness she must either avoid motion, that is, for example, take the stairs, not the elevator, and where this fails, she must always drive or otherwise be in charge. Thus, for example, when it comes to sex she must always be on top. Ha Ha. Though she marries the love of her life her marriage is unhappy because husband pretty much has to run things including the family restaurant where Isabella, an intuitive, spontaneous and very talented chef, is relegated to the back room/kitchen while husband dances for the beautiful Brazilian women. She runs away from Brazil to San Francisco where she meets the usual, in films of this kind, unlikely assortment of lovable and eccentric characters, you know, the outrageous transvestite with the heart of gold, et al. In rapid succession she meets a handsome producer, gets her own cooking show on TV, etc. etc. etc. There is much witchcraft or some such mumbo jumbo also thrown in presumably to justify some cheesy, nowhere special effects. This film is emphatically not recommended.

Wonder Boys - (6.0) features a surprisingly, surprisingly to me at least, effective Michael Douglas in the decidedly non sex symbol role of Grady Tripp, burned out, rumpled, gimpy, middle aged professor of creative writing at a contemporary Pittsburgh university. If poor Tripp’s problem had to be summed up in one term, middle-aged crisis would not be strong enough. It is much more. This dude is hurting! He wrote a successful book - seven years ago! He cannot now complete this book’s sequel though he is up to page 2611 thereof. He has difficulty relating to his students and is constantly smoking dope. His wife left him this very morning. And, oh yeah, his girl friend, the college chancellor, is pregnant! Grady drives a smoky ’66 Ford Galaxy which is likely intended as a metaphor for his condition. In spite of his own problems Grady is attempting to instruct or to inspire or do something for his weirdest student, the morbid, guilt ridden, almost catatonic, but somehow likable, James. James’s claim to fame is his ability to recite the details of all the Hollywood suicides since time began in alphabetical order. Throw these folks and a couple of other mixed up characters including Grady’s sexually confused – and that’s putting it mildly – visiting from New York editor who is badgering Grady to finish the sequel into the mix and the result is some pretty darn funny situations. And all this is nicely presented in a dark, snow covered Pittsburgh. Don’t laugh. Somehow it works. The movie gradually shifts from an almost strictly for laughs farce to a relatively heavy but still not too heavy “message” film. Though it works better on the first level the second half is far from bad. There are almost uniformly very good performances from, among others, Tobey Maguire as James, Frances McDormand and Rip Torn. This production is flawed, I believe, by the old not-too-believable “feel good” ending. I recommend this film though, in spite of the rating, it is not for everyone.

Wonderland - (6.0) focuses on the lives of three twenty-something working class sisters and members of their extended family in a contemporary, almost grubby South London landscape that it is anything but a wonderland. The film is more an expression of the modern day loneliness phenomenon in the middle of a big city than a “straight line” beginning, middle and end story. Most of the time I really cared about the sisters. Single Nadia, a waitress in a second rate restaurant, looks for companionship and love in the personal ads. There is a heartrending scene after one of her casual relationships, her lover having done his thing not even trying to hide his anxiousness then to be immediately rid of her. Debbie, a beautician who has been pretty much abandoned with her young son is also prone to quick affairs. Her husband is not even able to watch their son for a few hours without losing him. Molly, the “lucky” and 8 ½ months pregnant sister is left alone when her pathetic husband quits his job but then doesn’t have enough courage to come home and tell her so. Women in this movie come off much like their black American counterparts as hard working, sensible and serious counterparts to their men who are mostly interested in sex, drinking and professional sports. The cinematography is wonderful, capturing anonymous crowds in lower class parts of London not on the tourist maps and rainy landscapes with St. Paul’s or Big Ben in the background. This downer of a film with a not-too-credible upbeat ending is recommended.

The Yards - (6.0) is a well done, contemporary, family morality play which fairly convincingly demonstrates that the greedy guys who play the illegal angles usually lose while at least one stupid guy who also exercises a whole lot of bad judgment may survive. After a jail term for car theft, 24 year old Leo is welcomed home to Queens, New York by his widowed mother, her sister’s family and half the neighborhood including, perhaps, the guys for whom he may have taken a fall. Obviously traumatized, he can barely speak, and apparently chastened, his repeated desire is to go straight and to make up to Mom for all the heartache he has caused her. This desire to reform lasts about one day. Uncle Frank, Mom’s sister’s second husband, who owns an electrical repair shop specializing in fixing New York commuter trains, advises Leo to take up the mechanics trade which will require two more years of schooling. Cousin Erica’s boyfriend, Willie, tells Leo that there are other, faster opportunities with no risk of again breaking Mom’s already weakened heart. Though Willie never says “easy money” anyone but Leo would know that Willie is not on the level and that criminal activity will be involved. Turns out that this activity consists of paying off public officials for rail repair contracts and sabotaging the work of competing contractors/bidders and that Leo’s role might well be his usual one, fall guy. It would be much easier to work up sympathy for Leo in his powerfully presented inevitable moral crisis/dilemma if he weren’t so darn stupid and blind going in. (Leo is not the only not-too-bright portrayal - most of the bad guys and crooked politicians are not real smart either about covering up their evil deeds.) The film generates much more sympathy for Mom, Auntie and Cousin Erica. There is some terrific acting here mostly by the older generation, Ellen Burstyn as Mom, Faye Dunaway as Aunt Kitty and James Caan as Uncle Frank. The characters are, for the most part, real, if only by Hollywood standards. The dark photography creates an appropriate mood. Characters frequently speak in whispers even when they are not saying things that they would understandably prefer not to be overheard. (In one meeting two characters are so paranoid about the other’s possibly “wearing a wire” that they strip naked before talking “business.”)  This silence is contradicted by the bad guys’ being not too careful about covering up their evil deeds - Leo is far from the only stupid person depicted here in this movie. Though some of the plot resolutions are a bit stretched they are for the most part satisfying. This film is recommended.

You Can Count On Me - (4.5) tells of an adult brother and sister whose parents had been tragically killed when the siblings were little kids. Though the film has its moments it still sort of “fumbles away” an opportunity to explore some ideas and to say some things that might well have been said and done better. The narrative pretty much skips the childhood of  Samantha and her younger by a couple of years brother Terry and picks up their lives as twenty-something’s in contemporary, small town, upstate New York. Samantha is the single mother of eight-year-old Rudy Jr., while Terry, returning home early in the film is quickly established as a fairly irresponsible drifter. Neither seems at all capable of the old “ability to establish relationships” including, for the most part, with one another. Samantha has not seen Rudy Sr. in years and Terry has just walked out on his pregnant girlfriend. Though quickly established as seeming opposites, Samantha a loving Mom and Terry unable to even look her in the eye, the film digs far enough to find that the characters are deeper than initially presented. Samantha cannot make commitments either as demonstrated by her simultaneous going nowhere relationships with two men. One of these sexual affairs, the one with her boss, bank manager Brian, played by an inadequate or miscast Matthew Broderick, did little in my opinion to establish any good feelings for poor Samantha. The writer tries to justify or explain this affair in part by suggesting that Brian’s six months pregnant wife is flaky or cold or something. This flat out didn’t work for me.  There are some fairly tender scenes late in the film which night have been one helluva lot more effective had they been grafted onto a better written and acted first 100 minutes. The musical score is not bad either. However, a couple of good scenes and a few decent songs cannot save this soap opera. 
This film is not recommended.