Moonlight and Valentino (1995)

Idea: After her husband’s sudden death, Rebecca (Elizabeth Perkins) comes to terms with her grief with the help of her best friend, Sylvie (Whoopi Goldberg), her ex-step-mother, Alberta (Kathleen Turner), and her little sister, Lucy (Gwyneth Paltrow).

What a misleading preview I saw! I thought this movie was about Rebecca moving on with her life, but it’s not. It’s about all those little things you only discover/realize about someone after they’re gone.

For example, in one small but sweet scene, Rebecca goes to clean out her husband’s office, and she finds a box of Chiclets. “I didn’t know he liked these,” she says. Sorry I ruined it for you, but that might be the best part of the entire movies.

Those are the best parts, aren’t they? I mean, great speeches are just that: great. In the end, though, they aren’t what really matters. In movies, as with real life, the parts that always stick with you are the little bits. The little things really are more important. I remember a rolled up sleeve or a small gesture.

But I, as usual, digress.

David Anspaugh’s direction lacks focus. He doesn’t seem to know what’s important in Ellen Simon’s screenplay and, by consequence, neither do I.

There is one good thing that I can say about Simon’s screenplay. Albert, Turner’s character, is great. Simon, in this case, takes a tired stereotype and fills it up with heart and heartache. I really like Turner here.

Howard Shore steals music! Okay, he’s pretty good, but he still steals music! I mean, he’s not John Williams or, the be-all-and-end-all of music thieves, Disney, but he’s still a little on the sneaky stealy side.

So, yeah, not a gem of a chick flick. But the Jon Bon Jovi part is good.

Animal Factory (2000)

Premise: A young man, Ron Decker (Edward Furlong), heads to prison for possession and traffiking. In his first month, Earl Copen (Willem Dafoe), a prisoner who claims that “this is my jail”, takes Ron under his wing.

Serious, what is with the year 2000? Who was it that convinced everyone to make a bunch of kick movies that year? I don’t know who s/he is, but I love her/him! S/he is the best!

Dafoe is one of my Top 5 greatest underrated American actors of the 20th and 21st centuries. There’s a good reason for my choice. Actually, probably a couple of a good reasons. First of all, look at his face. It’s like plastic. I know that a lot is made of Jim Carrey’s incredible facial contortions, but Dafoe is no slouch by comparison. Alternatively hilarious and frightening, Dafoe brings definition to every emotion.

If I were Furlong, I certainly would have liked him to be a mentor to me. Furlong has a small amount of magnetism to him and definitely some talent, but Dafoe could help him channel it better.

John Steppling and Edward Bunker’s (based on his novel) screenplay is powerful. Mostly quiet and masterful drawn, the occasional moments of action are intensely chilling. Unfortunately, Steppling and Bunker have but two or three writing credits, respectively, to their names. I wish they did more.

The direction, though, was beautiful. Genuinely beautiful. And here’s the kicker: it was directed by Steve Buscemi. Did you know that he directed? And did you know that he did it extremely well?

I admit that this is not a movie for everyone. In fact, it’s probably one of those movies that only April has ever seen. And that’s okay. But you should see it. I think you might like it.

The Notebook (2004)

Summary: Duke (James Garner) reads a love story to another patient at the retirement residence, Allie (Gena Rowlands), everyday because she suffers from senile dementia. It is the WWII-era love story of Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling) and Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams).

Bet you didn’t see that one coming, did ya?

Yes, I know that the Nicholas Sparks’ novel that I saw adapted into a movie (A Walk to Remember), I hated. No, you don’t have to rush to its defence saying, “that’s a true story, child” (direct quote from my mother).

I also know that I said that I think the words “based on a true story” act as a magic elixir to separate my money from my bank account. I believe that true stories have a certain electricity to them in film that fiction will never manage to capture.

But allow me to clarify my statement. Just because a story is true doesn’t mean it should be a movie. For example, I had some laughs last night. In fact, I had plenty of good laughs. Should I write a comedy about it? Of course not.

With A Walk to Remember, it was so sickeningly sweet that I couldn’t bear to watch it. I did, however, watch all of it and more than once, as I am prone to do with many movies good and bad.

So why did I bother with this adaptation? Several reasons, actually.

1) Gena Rowlands. Do I even need to clarify this one? She’s incredible, lovely, and wild.

2) James Garner. I’m not even going to explain this one. I’m just not.

3) At some point, when I wasn’t paying attention, Ryan Gosling grew up. I suspected as much with his electric and homoerotic star turn in Murder by Numbers (bad movie), but, now, I must confess, I want to see more of him.

4) Rachel McAdams. She was great in the miniseries Slings and Arrows, and I thought she might be great here, too.

5) Joan Allen, Sam Shepard, and James Marsden.

6) Fahrenheit 9/11 was sold out.

So, what did I get? Pleasantly surprised, actually.

I’ve never been a big fan of Nick Cassavetes’s over-the-top direction or of Jeremy Leven’s sappy screenplays. I do, however, like that Cassavetes puts his mom (Rowlands) in all his movies.

Nevertheless, I found myself actually wanted to believe, if only for x minutes, in places that beautiful, in love that true.

I think when you make a movie, that’s all you can hope for. You hope that someone, somewhere, for a fleeting instance, believes.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Subject: (because documentaries don’t have plots) Focusing on the lies and cover-ups of the United States government surrounding the 9/11 attacks, the War on Terror, and the War on Iraq, including the Bush family’s connections with the Bin Ladens.

Basically, it’s a lot like Dude, Where’s my Country and then some.

I’ve been struggling for a few hours now over my opinion of Michael Moore’s latest. It has a very different feel than his other movies and TV shows. For one, you see decidedly less of his face. Like it or not, Moore is generally the star of his movies, but in this film he takes a back seat to those affected by the War on Iraq. He does what few others in the media have done – he focuses on those at the ground floor: on the soldiers themselves and on the families of those who have lost their children to that senseless and needless war.

In Bowling for Columbine, I spent my time oscillating between laughter and shocked horror. Today, most of the time, burning tears of indignation welled up in my eyes. Yes, there were still laughs to be had (mostly at Dubya’s expense). Even so, Moore didn’t pull any punches. What resulted was a heartbreaking work.

And it made me think. As I looked around the sold-out theatre, it wasn’t mostly young urban politcals like Carol and I (aren’t I humble?) that I saw around me. It was everyone. I saw everyone. I saw people young and old, of all nationalities, of all possible backgrounds.

And it wasn’t that I realized that everyone is like me in that we are all conspiracy nuts. That’s not it at all. I realized that all of us, no matter how much we fight it, no matter how old or cynical we get, still want to believe that one person can make a difference. We want someone to tell us, to inspire us to believe that we can have an impact.

Yes, Moore can be abrasive. Yes, he is clearly very sly. Yes, the movie had horrifying implications and sights. It wasn’t anything more, though, than we see everyday on the news, in the papers, and hear on the radio. And it isn’t anything more that you can handle.

So, did Michael (we’re on a first name basis, now) live up to the Palme D’Or (top prize) that the Cannes jury awarded him? I think so. It truly is the most incendiary film I have ever seen, and I hope that you see it, too. As soon as you possibly can, if not sooner.

For a completely different perspective on Moore, check out this article.

As long as we are politically charged, here's a quiz to help you figure out which party best suits your political tastes.

Also, in case you've seen me or someone else sporting a "Stop Harper" button, here's the website, so you can get more information about the movement and even sign the petition.

How to Make an American Quilt (1995)

Plot: Finn (Winona Ryder) basically runs away for the summer after her long term boyfriend, Sam (Dermot Mulroney), proposes. He brings her to stay with her grandmother (Ellen Burstyn) and her great-aunt (Anne Bancroft), like she did every summer when she was a child. They are part of a quilting bee, and the members (Kate Nelligan, Alfre Woodard, Jean Simmons, and Maya Angelou) each share their stories of loss and love with Finn while they quilt to the theme of “where love resides”.

You’ll just have to ignore the Ryder part. She’s exasperatingly horrible, but the stories those strong and beautiful women tell are definitely worth it.

Truly, Bancroft and Burstyn alone make it worthwhile. Have I mentioned them before? I know I have talked about Bancroft, but what about Burstyn? Possibly two of my fav actresses, at any rate. Burstyn’s this big ball of fire. I love watching her ignite everyone and everything around her.

Based on Whitney Otto’s novel, Jane Anderson’s screenplay is touching if a little underwhelming. The stories of the different women are beautiful and compelling, but she fails to connect the patchwork with any sort of a pattern. Plus, Finn’s story is just plain stupid. She behaves like a selfish child, and she gets rewarded in the end. I don’t expect every movie I see to be a tale of morality, but shouldn’t Finn learn something from her transgressions? Seriously, could she learn anything?

As for Jocelyn Moorhouse’s direction, well, she could have done better. She’s a good storyteller, which is very important, but she doesn’t seem to know the difference between a made-for-TV movie and a major motion picture. The latter is even more important. As humble as we all should be, there is a certain sense of grandeur that should lie slumbering within every movie. At least, within every picture meant to be something more than entertainment. And shouldn’t they all strive to hit that mark?

Thomas Newman (composer) seems to be pretty hit and miss. I love his work on American Beauty and In the Bedroom, but I hate his score for Pay it Forward because it was just a reworking of the groundbreaking sound of American Beauty. I also don’t like it hear. I don’t know why, but whether I watch it on cable or on satellite, whether I rent it on video or DVD, the music always sounds worn out. Do you know what I mean? It sounds like someone has played the tape too many times or that the record is warped. It’s distracting and annoying.

I confess what you have already figured out: it’s a chick flick. A huge, girly chick flick. Fine, I said it.

Glengerry Glen Ross (1992)

Plan: Following four real estate salesmen, Shelly Levene (Jack Lemmon), Ricky Roma (Al Pacino), Dave Moss (Ed Harris), and George Aaronow (Alan Arkin) after their manager, John (Kevin Spacey), and their bosses Mitch & Murray bring in Blake (Alec Baldwin) to give them the new sales strategy/contest. It's pretty simple actually. "First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

Or, as the tagline says, "Lie. Cheat. Steal. All in a day's work."

Or, to quote another one of David Mamet's screenplays, "What a FIND you are!" That's
State and Main, by the way. Just in case it comes up.

Okay, so I bought Bob Roberts a while back. One of the previews that came with it was for this film. The cast alone made me rent it. I mean, did you read it? Did you?

And the whole time I was watching it I kept thinking about when Spacey presented Pacino with his life time achievement award at the Golden Globes a few years back. It was so obvious how much it meant to him. It must have been so amazing to have gotten to work with them all right then like he did. He may be a bonafide talented now, but, back then . . . well, I would have wilted.

My other thoughts were about the day I learned that Lemmon had passed away. I was on a plane, and we watched The Apartment in his memory. It's a terrific black comedy, if you feel like checking it out. But in this film - watch his face. I don't even understand how it is possible to convey that much. Not that much anything specific, just that much. You'll have to see it to comprehend what I am trying to convey.

Pacino, Harris, Arkin; what can I say? Are there things that I can say? Are there words to explain how this movie will simple bowl you over?

I know I've mentioned him before, but how much do I enjoy Mamet? He adapted this screenplay from his play, and it shows. The few sets, the camera's focus on the characters. I think the movie is the better for it. His characterization is killer. Since I am at a loss for words, you would be better off reading my review of State and Main.

With James Foley (director), I could either way. Really, I feel very neutral about him at this point.

Without a doubt, see this movie. See it soon.

The Terminal (2004)

Outline: Victor Navorski (Tom Hanks) arrives at Kennedy aeroport in NYC to discover that while he was in the air, his home country, Krakohzia, underwent a military coup. Until peace is restored or the U.S. government recognizes the new political state, Victor is a man without a country. As such, he cannot enter the U.S. . Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci), who refers to the place as “his airport”, allows Victor to stay in the international lounge until the situation in his home country is resolved. As the days drag into weeks, and the weeks fade into months, Victor is without a home, a job, food, or money. As such, Victor finds himself involved in some strange situations (including matchmaking) in exchange for food and other items. He also attempts to romance a sweet but romantically challenged flight attendant, Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones).

I have to tell you that the critics were way off on this one. Everyone was complaining about the “turbulent” transition from comedy to drama. First of all, everything has to transition at some point. That’s how the storyline progresses. It isn’t the transition that people should concern themselves with; it’s the tension.

As I have pointed out before, the tension in anything (a play, a book, a TV show, a movie) is within the audience. It is the audience’s desire to see the storyline progress and to see the storyline resolved. If you, the author/director, do tension well, then the audience will be torn between these twin desires.

And I can tell you, truly, that Steven Spielberg (director, and shame on you if you didn’t know that) and Sacha Gervasi and Jeff Nathanson (writers) didn’t disappoint me on that count.

Secondly, a lot of bru-ha-ha was made over the mysterious peanut can that Victor clutches to and what is in it when it is finally revealed (as you knew it would be). I don’t feel that this was disappointing either. Actually, it was sweet and serious and just the kind of thing that women like to hear. Everyone should like to hear it, on second thought.

The thing about this movie that the critics either didn’t get or didn’t appreciate is that it is great love. As in, “there is no greater love than this”. Love, real love, is all about sacrifice. I don’t mean that in a necessarily painful way. I mean that sometimes you meet someone so humble and caring that they can inspire you to give up what you never even knew you had. Frankly, it’s amazing that Hanks can inspire that in us from across the screen.

And let’s be honest: you all think that the Spielberg/Hanks combo is magic. Pure magic.

Okay, the film was a waste of Zeta-Jones. She’s charming and beautiful, even with an unflattering hair cut, but the movie was not the better for her playing Amelia.

Calendar Girls (2003)

Idea: After her husband John (John Alderton) passes away, Annie (Julie Walters) and her best friend, Chris (Helen Mirren), plan a fundraiser to donate something to the hospital in his memory. Much to their W.I.’s shock and chagrin, they plan a nude calendar. Even more shocking, of course, is the calendar’s international success.

And the magic words: Based on a true story.

I don’t believe I’ve had the chance to point this out yet, but I love Dame Helen Mirren. I don’t know what it is about her: her uncanny ability to imitate accents, her slight edge, or her courage to take her top of at the age of 57. Actually, now that I think about it, it’s not even an “edge” that she has. It’s like this inner strength that shines through in all her characters. A touch of class, even. Plus, she’s freaking hysterical.

Of course, I’m sure that Tim Firth and Juliette Towhidi (writers) might have had something to do with it. I haven’t seen much else that they have done (because they haven’t done much else), and the hilarity might have had more to do with the material they had to work with. Even so, I enjoyed it. They managed to fill you with laughs and tears without having to try to hard or pull at your heartstrings. I, for one, was appreciative of that.

As you know, I have been a Nigel Cole (director) fan since Saving Grace. What else can I say? I have so much respect and admiration for those who can do comedy well. I know I’ve said it before, but comedy truly is more difficult than drama. It takes a sense of internal timing that cannot be faked. You simply have it, or you don’t.

So, yes, see this charming comedy. It’s the kind of movie that we all want to see. We all want to laugh, we all want to cry, and we all want to feel like the impossible is possible. We all want to know that maybe, just maybe, we can do greater things than we ever imagined.

Donnie Brasco (1997)

Brief: In 1978, FBI Special Agent Joe Pistone (Johnny Depp) went undercover in the Brooklyn borough as Donnie Brasco. Lefty (Al Pacino) vouched for him, and the rest is history.

Man, did this movie ever make me upset. But we'll get to that later.

Oh, "based on a true story". Those words pretty much make my day. Serious, that's all it takes sometimes to get me interested in a movie. Except Radio. I just don't want to see that movie.

Hurrah for Mike Newell (director) and Paul Attanasio (writer)! I didn't really think much of them before, but they did a good job here. I especially enjoyed the camera direction. It's not just an over-the-shoulder or a close-up, oh no. It's an over-the-shoulder zoom in. I dig that. I think close-ups and extreme close-ups are overdone nowadays anyway. Ooooo, drama.

Al Pacino, folks. I don't think I've kept the fact that he is my favourite actor a secret. I know that's pretty prosaic, but what do you want from me? He so subtle one minute then a roaring lion the next. His absolute magnetic charisma keeps my eyes locked on him.

And Johnny Depp. His invisibility, his intensity, his looks. A powerful combination. To be honest, though, I like him better now. He was always talented, and I was glad to watch him, but I think he's finally grown into himself, you know? Like he's reached the point where is comfortable in his own skin. In a profession where you are constantly taking on the characteristics of others, who you are is the most important thing you could ever know.

Alright, the part that upset me. Betrayal. Betrayal really gets to me. The thing about it is that isn't betrayal unless it comes from someone you know, trust, and love. It always comes sealed with a kiss. I'm not talking about the boy-steals-friend's-girl "betrayal"; I'm talking about the life-and-death real deal. Circumstances don't matter. It isn't about money or power or revenge - it's you and him. That's all it is.

And as the betrayer, you hold his life in your hand like grains of sand. You squeeze your fist, the grains slowly pour away, and he's gone. Just like that. Because you made the choice. Somewhere along the line, you decided that you were better than him, that you were worth more, that you deserved to live. And you have to live with that. For the rest of your life.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

Summary: After Joanna (Nicole Kidman) is fired from the network and suffers a subsequent nervous collapse, she moves with her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick), and their two kids to the quiet, upscale suburb of Stepford, Connecticut. Joanna has immediate difficulty fitting in with the 1950s husbands and wives of Stepford, embodied by Claire (Glenn Close) and Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken) and finds solace in the town's only other outsiders, the effeminent Roger (Roger Bart) and the outspoken Bobbi (Better Midler). The more Joanna learns about the wives of Stepford, the more she seeks to escape from what becomes a maximum security country club.

Oh, alright, since you know anyway, the husbands turn their wives into completely subservient androids. There, you know the truth now.

Now, I've got to tell you that my mom warned me not to see this movie. She thought it would "upset" me. I don't know how exactly it was supposed to upset me, but I considered myself forewarned. Maybe the original upset her. The case of the video of the original upsets me, but that's another story.

I can tell you truly that I was not upset. Okay, Jon Lovitz made this really rude and slightly frightening joke, and, while everyone in the theatre was laughing, I said, rather loudly, "That's not funny." That was the only part that upset me though.

For the record, having never seen (but knowing the entire thing) the original, what drew me to this remake was the stellar cast. I was not disappointed in that department. Close and Walken are two of the most talented people out there, and neither one of them miss a single beat. Close brings a psychotic refinement to a woman who cheerily exclaims that Stepford is a place with "no crime, no poverty, and no pushing." Oh, to be in a land without pushing.

I know this is going to sound horrible, but I am kind of glad that Kidman and Cruise got divorced. Finally, finally is a woman so obviously so much more than just another pretty face getting a chance to display her talent. She brings a quiet elegance to her every movement and a depth to every syllable that is almost unparalleled.

Also, good for Broderick. I really like him all grown up. Sure, like every other person alive I still like to think of him as Ferris Buller, but he really is a believable actor. I remember not too long ago someone I know referring to him as a B-List star married to an A-Lister (Sarah Jessica Parker). B-List, my eye!

And I don't know exactly why, but I just love Midler and Bart. Sure their stereotypes (a Jew and a flamboyant gay man) are milked for all their are worth by Paul Rudnick's over cooked screenplay, but that's hardly the point.

The point is that Frank Oz directs! I had no idea! I have even seen his movies, and I had no idea. In case you are wondering, Oz is pretty much the voice of The Muppet Show and Sesame Street. Turns out he directs, too! And he's not half bad. His previous work, The Score, is a study in intrigue in a heist film. This movie did suffer from moments of over-the-top insanity, but it's still quite good.

So, see it if you want. I liked it, and I don't regret spending $6.95 to see it. But you won't be missing out if you wait for the DVD.

Oh, and I watched thirteen again last night: still as horrifying as ever.

On a completely unrelated note, Have you no decency, Sir?

Simple Irresistible (1999)

Short: After her mother’s death, Amanda Shelton (Sarah Michelle Gellar) runs her restaurant but with one small glitch: she can’t cook. While shopping in the market one day, she meets a business executive, Tom Bartlett (Sean Patrick Flanery), and buys a magic crab (yes, you read that right), which helps her to cook and makes them fall in love. In about four days.

Alright, I’ll come clean: this horrible movie is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. I don’t know why. Might just be the Flanery factor.

Honestly, though, Judith Roberts (writer) couldn’t hit a comic beat to save her life. There isn’t a single compelling thing about her trite and tired screenplay. That probably explains why she hasn’t done anything else. When you fail so convincingly, what else is there to do?

Mark Tarlov (director) can’t seem to make heads or tails of Roberts’ writing. He seems genuinely confused about what to do with his cast and his camera. It’s a romantic comedy, for Pete’s sake! The formula is pretty simple, but Tarlov can’t seem to catch on enough to make it worthwhile.

Where they really lost me, though, was with Gellar. I think this may have been an attempt to capitalize on the success of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, as well as Gellar’s attempt at a more serious/adult role. I cannot fathom why. Despite the fact that I love Buffy, and I love Gellar as Buffy, she simply cannot fill any other role. Outside of the Buffyverse, she can’t act her way out of a bag. It’s trying to watch.

The movie is a waste of Flanery.

And the music is gimmicky! There’s nothing more annoying than a gimmicky score.

Oh, there is one good thing about this movie: Patricia Clarkson, who plays Tom’s assistant Lois. I like her. And I like her in this movie.

Oh, and check this out.

The Shape of Things (2003)

Premise: Jenny (Gretchen Mol) and Philip (Fred Weller) become worried about the changes in Adam (Paul Rudd) after he starts dating Evelyn (Rachel Weisz).

You know what the best part is? Those are the only four speaking parts in the whole movie. That’s it. Four. There’s something about the simplicity of it that really appeals to me.

So my kudos go to writer/director Neil LaBrute, for this thought-provoking work based on his play. It’s not incredibly brilliant or beautiful, but it does make you think. It forces you think about love, friendship, honesty, and betrayal. Actually, much of what happens I found outrageous, but the characters don’t see things the way I do.

Or, as the tagline says, “Seduction is an art.”

The most impressive part, however, is that I didn’t want to kill Mol at any point during the movie. She’s a terrible actress, and I was so glad when the media got over her as an It girl. But her role in the movie isn’t so large that I would have to throw things at the screen. I think she might have even had a convincing emotion at one point. I could be mistaken, though.

The best parts were Rudd and Weisz. They were both very credible as seductress and seduced. Rudd manages to let his everyman charm carry him through another film, and Weisz is slowly proving herself a more than just a pretty face. She goes after Evelyn with well tempered gusto.

Oooo, you get new and old Elvis Costello music ta boot. It’s a nice bonus.

Oh, and if you are a James Joyce fan, this article will blow your mind. I don't even understand how it is possible.

One Fine Day (1996)

Short: Jack Taylor (George Clooney), divorced father of Maggie (Mae Whitman), meets Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer), divorced mother of Sammy (Alex D. Linz), when they both show up late to their kid's field trip. They decide, despite their quick judgements of each other, to help each other out for the day when it comes to looking after the kids. Sparks fly. Because love can happen in one day, right?

Except that it can't. But that's beside the point.

I remember when I saw this movie in the theatre, I was disappointed. But, when I watched it again, I was pleasantly unimpressed because I didn't expect much in the first place. When it comes to seeing a movie a second time, it's okay to lower your expectations. There are very few situations in which you should lower your expectations, but this is one where it is appropriate.

Here's the thing though: what is with this movie expecting me to believe that Pfeiffer doesn't have men throwing themselves at her? I mean it, I can't stand these movies where obviously beautiful women are supposed to be unattractive. Who are they kidding? It's not like they gave her a big fake nose or something.

As for Clooney, I think he wasn't really as good then as he is now. He was too stigmatized by Dr. Ross. I'm sure it was a tough mold to break out of, but I like him a lot better for it.

So, um, yeah, Michael Hoffman (director), Terrel Seltzer (writer), and Ellen Simon (writer). Not good. In fact, pretty bad. But cute kids and good looking adults do their best to save that.

But, to balance out this not-so-good feel good movie and to make up for my lack of recent posts, I thought I would throw in a Top 5 for good measure.

Top 5 Tear Jerkers
1. Dead Poets Society (O captain, my captain!)
2. Swing Kids (Swing Hiel, Peter! Swing Hiel!)
3. Frequency I can't handle fathers and sons who say I love you
4. With Honors close enough to the above
5. The Prince of Egypt parting of the Red Sea, enough said.

The American President (1995)

Summary: The President, Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas), is a widower who falls for a lobbyist, Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening), as he gears up for re-election, much to the chagrin of his staff (Martin Sheen, Michael J. Fox, Anna Deavere Smith, Samantha Mathis, and David Paymer) and the pleasure of his opponent, Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss).

You should all be really pleased that I held this one in as long as I have.

As you well know, Aaron Sorkin is by far one of the most talented writers in Hollywood today, as well as my personal favourite. This movie was actually my introduction to his work. He manages to spin a golden thread of ideals and then deftly cut it with the crushing weight of reality. That’s the reason why The West Wing was so successful in its heyday. He writes with political savvy and perfectly nuanced satire. Nothing, it seems, escapes him.

And, frankly, who doesn’t love it when Sorkin gets together with Rob Reiner (director)? They work beautifully together. Reiner’s direction comes across as a certain awe of Sorkin’s genius. Plus, the man knows romance. It’s almost as though he breathes it.

I was going to have a paragraph for each of the different actors in the movie that had an impact on me, but it’s really an ensemble piece. A true ensemble is a lot like a jigsaw puzzle. Even though there is a main image, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense unless the pieces are put together correctly. And there’s even more actors that I didn’t even mention before that are great. People like John Mahoney, Wendy Malick, and Joshua Malina.

Okay, I will say one thing: I really like Douglas in romantic comedies. I think he’s a convincing comedian, and he should make more movies like this one. I will say that.

And you know what else? My mom loves this movie. That’s got to be a good thing. Honestly, my mom has very impressive movie tastes, and she’s seen everything. I’ve learned a lot from her.

And one thing that I’ve learned is that feel good movies aren't bad. You should watch them. You should feel good. So watch this movie, and feel good. There’s nothing wrong with that.

On a completely different note, check out this article from CCN.com:
The personality of cult. It's right up my ally, and it should be right up yours.

A Simple Plan (1998)

Plot: Two brothers, Hank (Bill Paxton) and Jacob (Billy Bob Thornton), find a bag full of cash in a crashed plane, and, together with Hank’s wife Sarah (Bridget Fonda), they plan to steal the stolen money for themselves.

I don’t know why, but I felt compelled to share with you one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. It’s right up there with Memento and The Talented Mr. Ripley in my mind. Those are the kinds of movies that scare me, by the way. It’s that whole accidental sociopath thing. I’m watching it, and I know exactly how it’s going to turn out, and that petrifies me. It’s not the violence, the gore, or the death; it’s the impact these things have on people, what drives them to act the way they do.

I think what truly makes these films so horrifying is the writer’s ability to make you identify with the accidental sociopath. In this case, it’s Scott B. Smith’s ability to make you feel like you would do the same or similar in the given circumstance. He’s playing on the whole American dream: you know, big house, nice job, beautiful wife. It’s almost as though he is saying to the audience, “Is it really so wrong to want to get ahead?” He’s taunting you, daring you to say you would never act this way.

N.B.: A psychopath is someone who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. When a psychopath does something that society deems wrong, the person believes that s/he is doing the right thing. A sociopath, on the other hand, knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses wrong anyway.

Whatever happened to Paxton? I know he still makes movies, but I feel like he had a heyday back in there or was on the brink of one that never panned out. Same with Fonda. I think she’s awesome, but she hasn’t done anything in years. She’s beautiful and talented in a way that we don’t see too often any more. She can be transparent one minute and shadowed the next. Go ahead and look back on her early to mid-nineties heyday. I recommend singles, It Could Happen to You, and Bodies, Rest & Motion.

Can I just say this: Stupid Billy Bob Thornton. I don’t like him. I think he’s so annoyingly overrated, and I don’t like him in real life. Don’t get me wrong, he’s good. But he’s not that good. I’m sick of everyone swooning over his alleged talent. It’s clear to me that he gets a kick out of playing more subversive characters, but that doesn’t make him as impressive as the media makes him out to be.

I just talked about Sam Raimi, but let me just mention that he has a great eye for the detail of the everyday. There’s true tension and drama there, and Raimi gets it.

But, yeah, scary as all get-up. Watch out for this one.