Singles (1992)

Summary: Steve (Campbell Scott) tries to get together with Linda (Kyra Sedgwick); Janet (Bridget Fonda) tries to get together with Cliff (Matt Dillon).

I know that sounds very vague and boring, but if you listen to the track that covers most of the film, "Dyslexic Heart" by Paul Westerberg, then you will be begin to get a feel for this mockumentary. I say mockumentary because several of the characters spend their time explaining things into the camera and the film is divided into segments by titles, which we already know I like.

Yay for Cameron Crowe! If he wasn't so critically acclaimed as it is, I might declare an ode to Crowe week. Now, that said, I do think Crowe is a brilliant writer/director, but this is not his best work. I mean, I love it, I think it's quirky, sweet, and real, but it's no Almost Famous or even a say anything . . . . I would even venture to declare this work transitional.

Quite frankly, though, I don't know how Crowe does it. He makes all these crazy implausible characters so very real, so, while you are watching them, you start thinking, "Hey! I know someone like that!". And when you realize that you probably don't, you wish you did. How does he do it? He's a master of his art.

Of the four I mentioned, Fonda and Scott are my favourites, but Sedgewick and Dillon are great as well. Of course, who I really loved in this movie was Eric Stolz, but that was really more for personal reasons than his character/performance. I read once that Crowe, after say anything . . . , made a deal with Stolz to put him in all of his future movies, so I sometimes spend my time looking for Stolz. Serious, though, Steve is a hoot (yup, I went there), and he wouldn't be without Scott in the role. It's the exact same thing for Janet. I must admit, it's really more of an ensemble cast, and I am a sucker for a good ensemble. This movie is a sucker punch to people like me: you never see it coming, and it gets you every time.

So, yeah. It's a great movie, and you should see it. Transitional movies are important because, if for no other reason, they are the glue holding together the beginning and end.

That Thing You Do! (1996)

Brief: After Chad (Giovanni Ribisi) breaks his arm, the Wonders (Johnathon Schaech, Steve Zahn, and Ethan Embry) implore Guy Patterson (Tom Everett Scott) to join their band in time for a competition. Guy's catchy drum beat helps propel them to stardom.

So cute! This film is light and charming, and I just love "That Thing You Do!", the song. I was singing it earlier, which is what inspired me to write about it.

Okay, so as you know, I am somewhat obsessed with commenting on directorial debuts, and this is Tom Hanks' first. He also wrote the script and co-stars as the Wonders' manager, Mr. White. Alright, truth be told, he directed some episodes of TV shows before this, but they aren't shows that I have ever watched, so I'm not going to concern myself with them. Hanks has always struck me as a charming and delightful everyday man, and he appears to be attempting, through this movie, to shape Scott in his image. Now, judging by some things that Scott has made after this film (e.g. An American Werewolf in Paris), Hanks doesn't seem very successful, but every good star has a laundry list of crap movies behind him.

I love, love, j'adore, Embry and Zahn, and their characters in this movie torture me. They are zany and fun and cute and sweet. Liv Tyler is also in the movie, although I didn't mention it before, and she is as lovely as ever. I think she is so beautiful, and she genuinely possesses some light that seems to shine from within her.

But, my favourite character in this movie is Lamarr (Omar Babatunde), one of the staff at the hotel in Hollywood that the Wonders end up at. I remember watching this movie with someone who said that they hated Lamarr, but he just kills me. He's hilarious and warm. He makes everyone feel special and welcome at the hotel, and I swear that feeling carries right across the screen and inside you.

This movie is so happy! It's fun and simple, like sunshine.

Pan: Picking Up the Pieces, with Woody Allen, David Schwimmer, and Kiefer Sutherland, sucks. There is one, just one, funny joke in that entire disaster.

After Alice (1999) or Eye of the Killer (2000)

Short: An alcoholic detective (Kiefer Sutherland), following a head trauma, beings to have psychic vision when he comes into contact with a personal object of the deceased. He teams up with another psychic (Henry Czerny) and a parapsychologist (?) (Polly Walker) when a serial killer who has been dormant for a decade begins to kill again.

About the two titles: This is one of those movies that is released on video under a different name. So, if you are looking for it, you have to check both.

Whoa, can I just tell you that I liked this movie? That made me pretty happy. See, there's this thing with Sutherland: he's got huge talent, but the movies he often makes are lacking. Finally, this movie is starting to show a fit. Not quite like a glove, but we are getting closer. I love the way Sutherland plays this character, with him slowly getting his life together at the same time that he appears to be losing his mind.

Jeff Miller's (screenwriter) plot is something to behold. Yes, it's got some violence to it (it's about a serial killer, n'est-ce pas?), but it's got some clever twists as well. There are some moments of corny dialogue, but I've come to recognize that even people on this side of the screen say some lame stuff sometimes. Its major flaw is the couple of holes that are left gaping after the plot is seemingly all sown up. Of course, if you are not as neurotic as I am, you may not notice them.

Paul Marcus has directed only one other major motion picture, Break Up which was in the same vein, but not nearly as good as this one. Yes, I have seen Break Up. Marcus tells a good story, spins tension pretty well, and seems to like working with Sutherland. Good enough for me.

This movie is pretty good. I know I already said that, but it is. It's just the kind of movie I would like; it's got the paranormal, it's got people effecting change, it's even got a little love. And a murder mystery. I do love a good murder mystery.

Secretary (2002)

Premise: Upon being released from a mental institution, Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal) takes a job as the secretary of a demanding lawyer, E. Edward Grey (James Spader). Their relationship quickly takes a sadomasochistic turn.

Yes, gentle reader, I suppose you could say that I watched an S&M movie. It's not like I watched S&M porn, jsut a movie with an S&M plot. So what?

This idea may shock you, but it is actually a brilliant comedy. My affection for Jake Gyllenhaal also applies to his older sister. She positively shines as a quirkily sensual masochist, and Spader brings down the house as a reserved, repressed sadist. The film is bloody brilliant with their great performances.

I have not seen anything else by Steven Shainberg (director), but, from what I can tell, he is uncannily comedic. Honestly, just go with it. If you don't, you won't understand why it is so funny. Also, Erica Cressida Wilson doesn't seem to have written anything else, but her adaptation of Mary Gaitskill's short story is spot on.

Right at the end of the film, Lee gives this look into that camera at a friend aptly interpreted as "Don't judge me." That's the way I feel about the film. Just get over this whole S&M thing if it makes you uncomfortable. It's genius, and I think you'll love it. Especially those red sharpies.

Five Corners (1988)

Premise: When the man (John Turturro) who attempted to rape her is released from prison, Linda (Jodie Foster) turns to the man who saved her, Harry (Tim Robbins), who has in the meantime become a Buddhist/pacifist/civil rights activist. It's 1964 in the Bronx, what can I say?

What is this movie? Honestly? There's that slightly racist and scary plot, and one very strangely linked subplot. This guy sells his drunken girlfriend and her best friend to this teenager and the exchange student he's hosting, and they seem to get over it right quick. Plus, there's arrows flying everywhere. Arrows? Robin Hood? C'mon, now, that's just excessive.

What were Tony Bill (director) and John Patrick Shanley (screenwriter) thinking? Okay, Tony Bill also did
Untamed Heart, which has a power over me, so I guess I shouldn't be too disparaging, but . . . What is this? I have no idea!

The most strange and horrifying things happen in this movie. Everything about it is off. I don't know. Okay, Robbins and Foster are obviously two of the most talented people in Hollywood, period, so I can't blame them. It's that subplot. I don't get it. Is it social commentary? Is it comedic relief? A big waste of time?

The only unifying force (besides Robbins and Foster) is John Newton Howard's score. I don't know how he does it. Plus the kick period music. Can't let that go unmentioned.

So messed up. Just weird and little macabre. I shake my head in confusion.

Before Sunrise (1995)

Idea: Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) meet on the Budapest-Vienna train, where Jesse convinces Celine to get off the train and spend the day with him before he leaves for America the next morning.

Now, I may have personal grievances towards Hawke right now, but he used to be in my Top 5 actors. I find that difficult to ignore when writing this blog. Damn his easy talent!

As you might surmise, you can't put two good looking college-aged kids together like this and expect them not to get together. The power of the short time frame is that it causes them to dispense with all the bullshit. In the beginning of a relationship, most people spend their time putting their best selves forward instead of their real selves. Let me let you in on a little secret: no matter how great this character you have come up with to play is, the real you is at least ten times more desirable.

Delpy is so sweet, all quiet beauty and unassuming grace. Hawke, despite my present distaste, is as gregarious as always. Not in an overt way, but you can't help but like him. He comes across as this sensitive genius in a world of ignorance, and you find yourself falling for it until it's too late to get out. And he does what I refer to as "greasy 1994 Ethan Hawke" so well. Damn him.

Looking at Richard Linklater's (director and co-writer) filmography, it all make sense. He did Dazed and Confused, he did The Newton Boys, he did Waking Life. He also apparently did Before Sunset, the sequel to Before Sunrise, for 2004. I will have to look into that. He is the quintessential Gen X-er, portrayed on the screen by Hawke. Or he is has a big crush on Hawke. Tough call to make.

A story like this is only as good as its cinematography. Thank you, Lee Daniels, you made me fall in love with Europe far before I had ever been.

So, this movie is sweet and simple. It is a little over the top, but I think it needs to be to make this story believable. It is a valentine to love itself, and love is nothing if not over the top.

Suicide Kings (1997)

Summary: Four college students (Henry Thomas, Jay Mohr, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Jeremy Sisto) kidnap a mob boss (Christopher Walken) to enlist his help in locating one of their sisters who is kidnapped as well.

The movie really threw me for a loop. Peter O'Fallon (director) and Josh McKinney, Gina Goldman, and Wayne Allan Rice (screewriters) did such a good job of messing me up. I spent the majority of the movie assuming it was all one kid, then they tried to cast the suspicion on another which I knew was crap, but when it turned out to be the third kid . . . man. Especially Peter O'Fallon. Whoa. Tension is so much more taut when drawn against the patience of friendship.

Regardless, what is up with Graeme Revell's score? There is this one scene which is supposed to be especially tense, only it isn't because of his rushing score. The scene would have been much more tense if there was no music at all, you know? The crackling fire in the background, the crunch of broken glass, the buzz of the bone saw. I would have bought that. A good composer knows that silence is just as powerful (if not more so) than sound.

I now have no doubt that Sean Patrick Flanery has got it. Jeremy Sisto, for the first time ever, wasn't the scariest character in the movie. And, I'm sorry to say it, but Henry Thomas is always going to the Elliot from E.T.. I know that's unfair, but it's true. Every time I see him in anything, I think, "Is that the kid from E.T.?" And then I spend the whole movie thinking, "That's the kid from E.T.!" I don't know why this phenomenon does not occur when I see Drew Barrymore.

So, is this movie good? Not particularly. But I will admit that it did, to a certain extent, blow my mind. I keep making this whoosh noise with my mouth, like all the air being forced out between pursed lips, but you can't hear it. If you have a vivid imagination and can figure out what I am doing, then you will know exactly what I think of the movie. Good Luck.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Plan: A group of teenage boys dissect the events leading up to the suicides of the shut-in teenage girls across the street.

Okay, so it's a bit depressing. It makes sense, though, to tell the story from the point of view of those they leave behind. Suicide is a very selfish thing act. It seems as though you are leaving all your problems behind, solving them for everyone else. Instead, the victims are all those you leave behind, simply foistering your problems onto them. As Mitch Anthony said, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

That said, beautiful movie. Sofia Coppola writes and directs with such poetry. Everything in her works always seems so fluid, never forced. She's like a breeze. Gentle, soft, but with the slightest hint of winter.

The girls, these blonde beauties, are so very empty. Their parents (James Woods and Kathleen Turner) live in a world apart. I don't mean that in a parents-do-not-understand-what-it-is-like-to-be-teens way because, trust me, they do. It is because they do that they strive to protect them. But, as every parent must realize, they cannot protect their children. In this case, their protection kills them.

Plus, if you don't like the downer plot line, there's always the kick 70s soundtrack. Did I mention that it is set in the 1970s? Well, it is.

To review: Sophia Coppola: bad actress, amazing director.

Return to Me (2000)

Short: A widower (David Duchovny) falls for the recipient (Minnie Driver) of his wife's (Joley Richardson) heart.

Yet another great movie from the year 2000. Good year.

What a fabulous romantic comedy. All the confusion and nervousness and meddling friends/relatives is great. Alright, it's sad at the beginning, but it has to be in order to set you up for the comedy in the rest of the film. It's so sweet, romantic, with a kick sound track. Exactly the way women and men deserve to be romanced.

Bonnie Hunt should definitely direct more movies. Her directorial debut has some of the best comedic elements I've seen in ages, just like under-rated Hunt herself. She's just hilarious and should make more movies. She's also credited with story and screenplay, and we should be so lucky to see more of her name in the future.

Driver and Duchovny are perfect in this attractive movie. The best, though, are Hunt and James Belushi as Driver's best friends, and Carroll O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Eddie Jones, and William Bronder as these four old men who play cards and argue. They are hilarious. Oh, they run a restaurant. An Irish-Italian restaurant. Yes, that is a source of much of the humour. What's your point?

Honestly, though, a romantic comedy as romantic comedies are meant to be. I know I've said that before, but I am forced to say it again. It's done too well not to say it.

Igby Goes Down (2002)

Plan: Igby (Kieran Culkin) suffers from what I have dubbed poor little rich kid syndrome, only he just runs away instead of becoming a drug addict. His mom, Mimi (Susan Sarandon), and his brother, Oliver (Ryan Phillippe try to reel him in to get him back to school and because Mimi is dying. He runs away to his godfather/sponsor's (Jeff Goldblum) mistress, Rachel (Amanda Peet). Also, he hooks up with Sookie (Claire Danes).

I suppose I could have bi-passed that whole explanation if I just said it was a lot like The Catcher in the Rye. Nevertheless, I think that even if you didn't like that book, you can still enjoy this movie.

To be honest, I find myself very torn while watching the film. On one occasion, I focused on the drama. I cried. On another, I focused on the comedy. I laughed a lot more.

And I think that is a testament to the high quality of the film. It is dramedy, but not in the way I have mentioned before. The drama and the comedy neither begin nor end. They overlap in every moment of the film. It all depends on your point of view.

Which must be that writer/director Burr Steers is "deeply and importantly talented", right? Well, for a directorial and screenplay debut, it shows promise beyond mention. It has all the elements of genius: great nuance and intelligent style. But, (and there's always a catch, isn't there?) he went on to pen How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, which was formulaic drivel. It could just be that he isn't meant for romantic comedies. So much the better.

But this character he has created in Igby is the stuff young careers are made of. He has cast Culkin in a stroke of the fortuitous for both of them, as Culkin shines in this role, bringing the necessary power to the film.

This film is the sort that I love to see because it is the sort that actors simply do. Do you know what I mean? You know when you watch some smaller indie pic, and, out of nowhere, you catch some big name star in a small role? It's like that. It is one of those few times when you see stars actually drop the character they project to the world and act. They put something out there. Some part of themselves, I suspect.

In that light, this is the best I have ever seen Goldblum, Sarandon, Phillippe, or Danes. Especially Goldblum and Sarandon. Wow. Just wow. I didn't think Goldblum could do things like this.

You must see this. Must. Okay, there's some nudity/sexuality/drug abuse/language issues. I don't really care. Unlike so many movies that claim they are representative of real life, I believe this one actually come close. That's too good to ignore.

American Outlaws (2001)

Plot: Jesse James, his family, and some town folk go to war against the railroad in order to keep their land after returning home from the American Civil War.

Okay, now it looks like I am my father's daughter and love westerns. Not in the slightest. After Colin Farrell's tour-de-force American debut in Joel Schumacher's Tigerland, I became interested in his career. He may be a powerhouse performer capable of stealing scenes from even Al Pacino, but I seriously doubt his powers of discernment.

If you recall my review of Young Guns, it's basically the same movie, only more stylish. Instead of the Brat Pack, it's Farrell, Gabriel Macht, Scott Caan, Gergory Smith, William McCormack, and Nathaniel Arcand as the required Native American. Actually, it's like Young Guns and Young Guns 2 all rolled up into one, so you could skip both of them and just watch this one.

Now, any movie with the tag line "Bad is good again" pretty much gives away how bad the movie is going to be. What can I say? Director Les Mayfield and writer Roderick Taylor do their best to piece together fact and fiction for their good-looking cast, but they fall short. As far as robbery movies go, it's better than Newton Boys (same concept) but not quite Point Break. Of course, I have a particular soft spot for Point Break, so that may be a poor comparison.

It's just fun. All I ever expected from it was fun, and I was free from disappointment.

Identity (2003)

Premise: Someone is killing off the visitors at motel in the middle of nowhere during a flood.

Okay, so I know that sounds like a really boring horror movie, and I bet you are wondering why I even watched a horror movie in the first place. If I reveal to you now what is really going on in the movie, you will have no cause to see it, except that it is a really, really cool idea.

So how can I put this? The killer is someone I found creepy right from the start, and there is a really sweet twist as well. Of course, when you figure it all out, you might get pissed off. I wouldn't agree with you at that point, but I know what it is like to finally know the truth and be unimpressed.

As you also know, nothing gets me like a great ensemble cast. John Cusack eventually establishes himself as the protagonist, but he has to wrestle the title away from Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet, Rebecca De Mornay, John Hawkes, Alfred Molina, John C. McGinley, Clea Duvall, Jake Busey, William Lee Scott, Leila Kenzel, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. Okay, I pretty much just named the entire cast. That's how ensemble it is. Just thinking about it makes me giddy.

James Mangold, who manages to get just the right amount of grit to keep my attention, also directed such films as Girl, Interrupted and Kate & Leopold. I think that is sufficient to suggest that he isn't a one-genre kind of man. Nevertheless, he could have done more to maintain the suspense the film requires. Not the best horror film director (who can beat Alfred Hitchcock?) but very, very far from the worst.

As for Michael Cooney, I haven't seen a single other film he has scripted. I will reserve my judgment until I know more.

I may have been cryptic about the plot, but your confusion now is worth the enjoyment of the film later. Such, such a great concept. Of course, Blockbuster and Sony Pictures may beshrew me yet and tell you more on the back of the box. Grrr.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Brief: Twins Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) believe that God wants them to rid Boston of all its "evil men". FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), with the help of three Boston policemen, seeks to capture them.

Boondocks, the: wilderness, hinterland. You figure out the connection.

Yay for Irish-Catholic Boston! So much more interesting than Irish-Catholic Brooklyn. Brooklyn is over done.

Of course, in this case, Toronto stands in for Boston in this case, but that makes no difference in movies. Also, Norman Reedus' accent slips from Irish to Southern United States, but he is convincing nonetheless. Sean Patrick Flanery, although apparently raised in Texas, doesn't seem to have the same problem. He seems to want to play straight man to Reedus' Murphy, all high intensity, but Murphy's not reckless enough to need someone to reel him in. Oh, well. He adds a guiding force to their quest.

Did I mention that this uber-successful cult movie is really hilarious? I know, I know, it's about people killing people, but it's still damn funny. Rampant homophobia, stereotypes, multiple languages, it's all hilarious. I just love it.

The Boondock Saints is pretty much the only movie Troy Duffy (writer/director) has done. Is his work any good? Is this movie really anything to go on? I don't know. We'll have to wait to find out.

I think it's hilarious, but it's a cult movie for a reason. Cult movies are never particularly impressive. They simply posses a "je ne sais quoi" that works for some and holds no power over most.

High Fidelity (2000)

Idea: Upon being dumped by his long-term girlfriend, Laura (Iben Hjejle), Rob Gordon (John Cusack), the owner and manager of an elitist record store, Championship Vinyl, decides to revisit his Top 5 worst break-ups to figure out why women keep leaving him. Jack Black and Todd Louiso also star as Rob's strange employees.

Secret: I just realized today what the double entendre in the title referred to. I only got half of it before. Nick Hornby, who penned the bestseller on which this film is based, seems to really like double entendres (e.g. About a Boy). Also, he always seems to revel in creating these absolute asses as protagonists, and he can endear them to you. Genius. Staggering genius.

So, yes, Rob Gordon is not a good person. Well, not particularly good. But, as always, Cusack with his disarming charm combined with Hornby's original talent, and its adaptation for the screen by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack, and Scott Rosenberg will win you over. Time and time again they cast their spell over you. In the film, as in life, it is the little things that get you. In fact, they just kill me. It's always the little things.

Of course, Championship Vinyl would be deathly boring without Black and Louiso to lend a hand. Black is his usual larger-than-life self (best in a supporting role, I feel), and Louiso's Dick has an inferiority complex to be reckoned with. Charm, again. All charm.

Oh yeah, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Springsteen, Lisa Bonet, Tim Robbins, Lili Taylor (who I love!), Sarah Gilbert, among others, all do their part to bring together this adventure into the mind of a music obsessed introspective nerd. Yes, when you love anything as much as Rob loves music, you are a bit of a nerd.

Stephen Frears' direction is as charming and active as the cast. I say active for it is the opposite of passive. He seems to get right in there with his characters, feeling and fighting and flirting along the way. Simple wonderful. He does it in all his movies, in fact, and quite the impressive list they do make (My Best Friend's Wedding, The Hi-Lo Country, and Dangerous Liaisons, just to name a few). I love that he does not restrict himself to any particular genre, and his eclectic nature gives power to his creations.

As Rob says, "it's not what you're like, it's what you like". I agree. Call it shallow if you want, but you will have to admit that you prefer similarities in people. You like that they like the same stuff as you (be it religion, movies, books, television, music, cooking, what have you) because it reinforces your feelings of self-worth and gives you something to talk about. So Rob is a bit of an ass. So what? This movie is all charm, and it will not fail to win you over.

Days of Thunder (1990)

Outline: Tim Dolan (Randy Quaid) hires Harry Hogge (Robert Duvall) to build a stock car and train his new driver, Cole Trickle (Tom Cruise). After Cole and a fellow racer are in an accident, Cole meets a beautiful neurosurgeon (Nicole Kidman), who helps him deal with his fears and race again.

Can I just tell you that this movie is another one of my childhood favourites? There is nothing particularly special about it, but I love it. I think it must have been something my dad really liked, so I watched it with him a bunch of times.

It was directed by Tony Scott, so you can see my opinion of his direction in my review of True Romance. It's pretty by the book; nothing spectacular for an action movie. It's also a classic Jerry Bruckheimer production, with the focus on action rather than talk. I guess that makes sense as it is an action movie.

As for the Tom Cruise bit, the jury's still out. I know, I know, he's been making movies for more years than I have been alive (I think), but let's be honest: can he act? He makes these critically acclaimed movies like The Last Samurai and Vanilla Sky, but he often fails to win awards or even nominations for his performances in them. So what's his deal? Can he act, is it the roles he chooses, or what? Anybody?

Duvall's his ornery self; Kidman charms. They all do they part, and I have no cause to either complain or exclaim.

Yes, everyone should watch this movie. Luckily, you are spared having to watch cars make endless left turns for the most part, and that way you can still claim you know something about stock car racing.

Dark City (1998)

Short: An amnesiac (Rufus Sewell) wakes up to find a dead body in his room. He receives a mysterious phone call from a man who claims to be his doctor (Kiefer Sutherland) and wants to help him. An inspector (William Hurt) tries to find the man with the help of his wife (Jennifer Connelly). And, of course, he is being chased by some scary men/little boy reminiscent of the Gentleman in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Hush".

Note: It was suggested that I add the year, so that is what 1998 means.

This film was considered visionary when it came out, and I must admit that it is pretty good. Don't get me wrong, the big reveal towards the end is a little stupid, but, if you overlook that, it's none too shabby.

My favourite part of entire production was the score by Trevor Jones. He has also scored other movies I enjoy such as Thirteen Days and Notting Hill, but neither of them were captivating like this score. So, so powerful. The final testament to that, of course, is my new-found desire to play it. Jones' bass infiltrated score is a force to be reckoned with.

Alex Proyas directed the film, and he is also credited with story and co-writer. Wow. The script and the story have their predictable points, but that does not negate their creativity and strength. Of course, they would quickly lose their power if it were not for the ominous cinematography of Dariusz Wolski. Smart, very smart.

Sutherland, as per usual, steals the show from Sewell. I have difficulty not seeing Sewell as a villain or anti-hero, but his performance is strong. He holds his own, to say the least. Satya Gumbert portrays Mr. Sleep, the scariest little kid. Why is it that evil kids are so much more frightening that evil adults?

Okay, that's all for now. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on that score.

With Honors

Premise: In a rush to photocopy his thesis after his computer crashes, Monty (Brendan Fraser) drops his thesis, and it falls into the hands of Simon (Joe Pesci), a homeless man doing his best impersonation of Walt Whitman. Simon blackmails Monty for food and shelter in exchange for pages of his thesis.

I won't lie to you, this film fostered my ideas of what university would be like for a good many years. Now, ten years after it came out, I am in university and a little bit jealous that things aren't quite like that . . . yet.

Of course, I still love the movie. It's one of those comedy dramas in that it starts out as a comedy, but, somewhere along the way, it turns into a drama (e.g. Pleasantville). And that is a tricky genre. Tricky because if the sentimentality of the drama is in any way forced, then it negates the comedy and, thus, the entire picture. Tricky, I say, tricky.

But, worry ye not, for it succeeds! Whoever the screenwriter is, their work is a gem. So what if Fraser and his love interest Moira Kelly don't have any chemistry! The main relationship is the one between Simon and Monty, and it sparkles. It's just how it should be, each using the other for what is missing, learning about themselves along the way. A nice warm fuzzy.

Besides, Patrick Dempsey as Everett and Josh Hamilton as Jeff are entertaining as the other roommates in this Ozzie and Harriet meets the Odd Couple household.

So, watch it with Kleenex. I always do.

The Emperor's Club

Summary: Kevin Kline is a professor at an all boys school where he teaches the equivalent of ancient civilizations. He attempts to put on the right path a troubled new student, Sedgewick Bell (Emile Hirsch). The film revolves around a competition to become "Mr. Julius Caesar".

It is my opinion that most comedic actors get to a point in their career where they deeply desire to win a Oscar for acting in a dramatic role. Kevin Kline is one of these actors, which is why he is now appearing in films such as The Emperor's Club and Life as a House instead of A Fish Called Wanda (which, incidentally, did garner him an Academy award).

This is not always the best choice. I think Kline bristles with talent, but The Emperor's Club may not have been the right venue to showcase it. Critics, I'm sure, are wary of any teacher/student movie that falls closely along the lines of Dead Poets Society. I ask you, why aren't any of these teachers science teachers? Why can't a math teacher be inspirational?

Alright, I admit that this film is quite good. The end both pissed me off and warmed my heart. I would say that the overriding theme is greatness. Greatness is a difficult status to achieve, and it is based in the most unlikely of circumstances. You'll see what I mean.

Although Kline is the star, he has tough competition from his students. Hirsch just may be going somewhere, and the rest are charming and funny. You'll like the somewhat stereotypical lot.

Everything else is a bit by the numbers, but the direction gives us no reason to complain. Michael Hoffman is telling a simple story on a simple background, but he doesn't let that stop him from making a few jabs. He sows it together well.

So, I think you'll like it.

Young Guns

Plan: Fictional telling of how Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) became Billy the Kid and the Lincoln cattle wars.

This movie is awful. I'm not saying it's the worst movie I have ever seen, because it isn't by far, but because the plot is remarkably similar to Swiss cheese.

However, yay Brat pack! I like them almost as much as I love the Rat pack. If you know them like I do, you find yourself exclaiming in excitement as the opening credits roll by. Seriously, the credits made me giddy.

Often the events and language in the film are as loosely related to the time period as the score by Anthony Marinelli and Brian Banks. They choose, for some unknown reason, to use strange 80s techno. I never figured that one out, and it certainly doesn't lend any creditability to the story.

I rather enjoyed the performances of everyone who wasn't Emilio Estevez. I don't like him. I'm not saying I don't like his crazy character, but I get the impression that everyone else was carrying him. Why was he then cast in the lead? You'll have to ask director/producer Christopher Cain for the answer to that one.

Before you write this one off completely, it does have its moments. Things I found hilarious: 1) everyone drinks some paodi (?), 2) Doc keeps a low profile by yelling in the street, 3) no one seems to realize that Doc doesn't write anything, 4) Billy is afraid of pigs. Funny, funny stuff.

In the end, all I can say is that it is good for a larf.

Donnie Darko

Plot: Donnie's girlfriend (Jena Malone) tells him that his name sounds like he should be a comic book hero. And he is, in a way. A giant rabbit saves him from certain death, so Donnie feels compelled to do his biding, borrowing from Graham Greene along the way.

The movie belongs under the film noir section, should Blockbuster ever make one. The first time I ever saw it, I spent more time saying "what the hell!?!" then actually paying attention, but I got over that one.

Now, this movie isn't terribly good. But it does have me hooked. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie, and, as you have read, I find him effective. Yes, he's effective because he never ceases to affect me. I think that's right.

What I find even more effective, though, are the smaller roles played by Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle, and Patrick Swayze. Barrymore and Wyle as his English and Science teachers, respectively, recognize that power in Donnie and want him to succeed. I don't know exactly what I mean by that. They just . . . believe in him. Not in his innate goodness or his leadership abilities, nothing like that. They believe in him. In flesh and blood.

As for Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed this masterpiece of depression, I've never seen anything else by him. In fact, I've never even heard of anything else he's done. He did this movie for only $9000, so I'd have to fathom a guess that he's devoted to his craft. I admire that about him if it proves to be true.

So, should you watch this film? Why not. You don't need me to tell you these things. It's about time travel, it's about adolescence, and it's about what you need to give up in order to grow up.

The Prince of Egypt

Brief: It's the story of Moses? I'm not really sure what I could write here that would make you know something about the story that you don't already now. Oh, his wife gets a name and a character. It also focuses on the most part on the relationship between Moses and his "brother" Rameses.

April's first cartoon review! At least I think it is. It's definitely my favourite.

The film is so good. Powerful and beautiful. I have no qualms with the way the Biblical material is presented as I do not feel that they stray far from the original story. In this case, when Moses murders the Egyptian, it was an accident. That kind of change makes sense because cartoons are generally geared for a younger audience.

Val Kilmer's voice lends the grandeur and trepidation necessary to Moses. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Rameses, giving him a superiority complex as long as the Nile.

As always, cartoons are only as good as their songs, and these ones are awesome. From the opening passionate plea of "Deliver Us" to the quiet success of the crossing of the Red Sea, the movie takes you on an emotional roller coaster through its score.

Well, all I can tell you is that this movie always makes me cry. Yes, you could argue that Sylvan Learning Centre commercials also make me cry, but this is different. This is about the passion of our God to save us from this world that seeks to oppress us. Now, my sister thought that her "Lord wouldn't have been so showy" in response to the parting of the Red Sea, but I'll let you decide for yourself. I think it is an appropriate time for wonder and awe.

The Good Girl

Short: A woman (Jennifer Aniston) who is bored with her life and her stoned husband (John C. Reilly) has an affair with a strange younger co-worker (Jake Gyllenhaal).

Now, I don't know about you, but, when I am bored, I go have an affair with a slightly psychotic younger man. Okay, so the point I was trying to make was that the actions of the characters are questionable. I've never been in the positions they are in, so perhaps they would seem more reasonable to me if I had been.

The film gives Aniston the opportunity to prove that she can handle something beyond Friends. Previous attempts such as Picture Perfect suggested that she couldn't, but, somehow, she pulls through this one to a fairly impressive performance. Her Justine is as naive as she is manipulative, and she balances both with a quiet introspective glaze over her eyes. I'm not ready to bet the farm on Aniston just yet, but she does have something to her.

As always, Gyllenhaal dives head first into his character, providing a powerful performance for Aniston to steady herself against. Gyllenhaal, with the exception of Bubble Boy, excels in the role of a youth that has been "put upon" in some way or another. I can't wait to see what he does as he continues to age.

The director, Michael Arteta, made a name for himself directing episodes of shows such as Freaks and Geeks and Six Feet Under. I am a fan of both, and he does pretty much the same thing with the same sort of material that writer Mike White gives him.

The movie is darkly focused on the perceived emptiness of people's lives. It contains no redeeming message of hope at the end, which could be considered a blessing or a downfall. You decide.

Fight Club

Summary: A man's empty life explodes along with his clever little condo. Alright, I should back this up.
An insomniac man joins some support groups, which help him sleep. He meets a crazy woman, and a guy who makes soap. He moves in with the guy who makes soap after his apartment explodes. Also, the soap guy and he start fighting each other, and then other guys join. Eventually, and inevitably, it gets out of control.

See, the film is told entirely from the point of view of the narrator (Ed Norton), surprise!, and the viewer only gets to know what he knows. It's really quite sad at the beginning because he hates his job, his life, he can't sleep - he has no escape. But then they come up with Fight Club.

As for the woman, Marla, I don't even know where to begin to describe her parasitic, self-absorbed, heroin-chic character. Actually, that's a pretty good description. She's portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, who I really don't care for, but I cannot continue to pretend that she has no talent. Darn.

Of course, the best part of the film is the wild chemistry between Brad Pitt and Norton, two of today's best leading men. I like that both of them tend to lean towards these sorts of roles rather than the run of the mill romantic comedy that many a leading man gets trapped in. To be honest, romantic comedy done often and done well is a level rarely achieved. Pitt relishes his insane, cruel, and twisted character. Norton, as usual, excels as a neurotic yes-man.

Overall, the movie is best when you recognize just how hilarious it all is. All of it. If you get caught up in revolting against the violence, the sexuality, or the amorality of the characters, then you don't get it. David Fincher, the director, and Jim Uhls, the screenwriter, don't want you to go out and start fight clubs of your own or destroy corporate art. Movies don't inspire such desires; movies give you ideas on how to bring your desires to fruition.

The Usual Suspects

Plot: Customs Agent David Kujan (Chazz Palminteri) forces Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey) to tell him when and how there came to be a bloodbath at Long Island harbour. Verbal's story revolves around five criminals (Gabriel Byrne, Stephen Baldwin, Beinico Del Toro, Kevin Pollack, and Spacey) who come together for the heist of a lifetime, guided by the invisible hand of the bogeyman of criminals, Keyser Soze.

Actually, Verbal claims from the beginning that it was all Keyser Soze, and Kujan dares him to prove it.

Whoa, this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It may come as a shock to those familiar with my period-piece, Shakespeare loving self, but I rather enjoy a good action flick. The problem is that the good ones are few and far between, so I don't watch them as often as would be necessary to demonstrate this preference. So it goes.

Bryan Singer's slick direction pulls taut Christopher McQuarrie's twist-filled script. Spacey's quietly detailed narration provides the perfect backdrop for the explosive film noir that follows. In fact, Spacey won a best supporting actor Oscar for his performance, and McQuarrie one for his original script.

The rest of the cast slow-burn their way to the intensity of the harbour scene. Byrne and Palminteri are among my favourite performers, and they shine in this gritty medium. Pollack, Baldwin, and Del Toro provide some comedic relief, perhaps not as overtly as one would like. However, the simple joy that comes from catching a quick turn of phrase or an off-the-wall comment is found in abundance with these three.

Stylish and smooth, this movie will keep you guessing until the last word is spoken. A quote from the film to help you understand (and a true one for real life): "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist."

Breakfast at Tiffany's

Blake Edwards received one of those life time achievement awards at the Oscars last night, so I thought I would review one of this films as a tribute.

Premise: A socialite (Audrey Hepburn) makes friends with a writer (George Peppard) who lives upstairs. He helps her out when she gets mixed up in the mob, and she helps him stop being a "kept man".

Breakfast at Tiffany's is the definitive romantic comedy. I don't know if you'll find it in the romantic comedy section, but that is where I feel it belongs. George Axelrod's take on Truman Capote's novel is sharp, smart, and sexy. He breathes life into what could have been two-dimensional characters in the wild world of the swinging sixties.

As for Edwards' direction, it is flawless and seamless. I know that seems extraordinarily high praise, but the director is who ties everything together to give it meaning, and he proves his prowess with this film. Hepburn is perfectly charming under his direction, and Peppard actually manages to not seem dull in her luminous presence.

Also, Buddy Ebsen is great in his bit part. As for Mickey Rooney, well, we'll just have to excuse the overt racism there because it was 1963.

Come to think of it, Axelrod and Ebsen also passed away last year. The lights in the Hollywood sign are beginning to dim. Good night, sweet princes of the silver screen's golden era.

Woman Wanted

Premise: A Yale professor (Michael Moriarty) hires a woman (Helen Hunter) to care for his house and mind his estranged, adult, quasi-shut-in, poet son (Kiefer Sutherland). Both men fall in love with her, and she teaches them to love each other.

Alright, when I first read that title, I was a little concerned about what would follow. Worry ye not, no porn here. In fact, while sex is discussed and inferred, you never see any, so feel better now.

Back to the review: Have you ever eaten baking soda? I'm not suggesting that you all go try it, but I think that most of us have, having been children, eaten a great number of things that we shouldn't have (boiled potatoes among my many). In any case, baking soda gives you a revolting basic taste in your mouth that makes you run your teeth over your tongue in an effort to rid yourself of it.

And that taste was left in my mouth by this movie. To be honest, I don't really know what happened here. Sutherland originally directed the film, but, when he saw the "finished" product, he demanded that he not be credited because the movie was not what he wanted. He claims that something went horribly wrong in the editing room, and that all the scenes that tied the story together had been cut.

In this case, I am inclined to believe him. The plot is just plain nuts. I spent the majority of the time going, "what? what?!". Now, I know I do that a lot, but here it was well deserved. Sutherland's character is wildly anxious, Moriarty's overly lonely, and Hunter's just odd. I understand the motivation behind all their actions, but I feel it was poorly explained in the film. Also, the score made it come across like a Hallmark-made-for-TV-warm-fuzzy instead of the heart string tugging drama it could have been.

If it wasn't clear, this movie left a bad taste in my mouth. I do not recommend it. It is lacking. Lacking in style, in grace, in sense. Great performers, possibly great performances, lay in shreds on the editing room floor.

Hamlet

Premise: A prince returns to his family's kingdom to avenge his father's death. In this version, Hamlet (Ethan Hawke) is a disillusioned university student, and Denmark is a corporation. If, for some reason you are unfamiliar with the rest, Hamlet's father, Hamlet Sr. (Sam Shepard), tells Hamlet Jr. that his brother, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan) killed him to steal his queen, Gertrude (Diane Venora), and his throne. Also, Hamlet Jr. was having a secret affair with Ophelia (Julia Stiles), who is the daughter of Polonius (Bill Murray), the court advisor, and the sister of his friend, Laertes (Liev Schriber).

Okay, that's close enough to what happens. It's one of Shakespeare's four great tragedies, so I bet you can guess what happens in the end. Also, I bet when you saw Hamlet in bold there, you wondering which version I would write about. Guess what?! I am going to tell you about the latest and shortest version I have ever seen on film. Excitement!

So, if you are looking for a version that is literal visual representation of Shakespeare, this isn't it. If that is the case, get the Kenneth Branagh version. In fact, Branagh seems to believe himself to be the crowned prince of Shakespeare, so you can trust him to deliver whatever Shakespeare would have wanted.

Enough about Branagh. This version was directed by Michael Almereyda, who seeks to do visually what Shakespeare often did with his plays. Shakespeare, although a dirty old man highly concerned with sex and death (aren't we all?), focused very heavily on imagery and metaphor to bring meaning to his plays. Almereyda often uses the visual image to suggest much of what is cut out of the script: Shakespeare's Hamlet is four hours long; Almereyda's Hamlet is under two. You will find that conversations, monologues, and soliloquies are cut up or voiced over images not mentioned in the script. He also uses the modern time/space setting (2000, New York City) to suggest meaning beyond what Shakespeare had written. My personal favourite: the "to be or not to be" soliloquy in a Blockbuster. You figure it out.

Another thing I love about this film is that many of the actors have portrayed Hamlet at one time or another (e.g. Sam Shepard, Kyle MacLachan, Diane Venora). Although the iambic pantametre is abandonned in favour of making the speeches sound more realistic, none of these actors allow nuance to slip through their fingers. Venora and Murray especially bring rich drama to their roles.

Now, as you may know, if it's Shakespeare, then there must be a hundred or more theories swirling about each and every syllable, from Hamlet's inaction to his love for Ophelia, from Gertrude's foreknowledge of the murder to the passionate scene when Hamlet confronts her. I believe that Almereyda suggests that the answer to these questions is summed in his chosen profession: Hamlet appears to be some sort of amateur, indie filmmaker.

I was thinking that I don't want to give it away, but, c'mon, who doesn't already know the story? Okay, here's what I get from Almereyda: Hamlet overthinks the whole thing and really does love Ophelia; Gertrude probably did know but couldn't deal, and there is no incest. The film/play is concerned with the relationships between parents and children (specifically fathers and sons), but it's a different kind of love than what many are thinking of.

Overall, this is an art film of a heavy subject. You may not be ready for it.

Memento

Premise: Did you ever see the backwards episode of Seinfeld? Well, it's like that, only not as funny. Leonard (Guy Pierce) seeks to avenge the rape and murder of his wife with the help of a police officer, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), and a waitress, Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).

The film does indeed go backwards from the death of Leonard's suspect to his clues of who the subject was/is. It also goes forwards in black and white to tell a similar, but equally disturbing, tale. Some flashbacks are in colour, others black and white. I'm sure you can pick up the significance of this one. The reason the film itself goes backwards is Leonard was smacked in the head during the attack on his wife, and he suffers from anterograde memory loss. Basically, he cannot form new memories. By consequence, the film occurs in fifteen minute segments like Leonard's memory does. You'll notice that a heightened anxiety level shortens those segments.

This film is powerful. Christopher Nolan's direction is masterful. He has a gift for timing, creating and sustaining suspense as time goes backwards and forwards simultaneously. He adapted the screenplay from a short-story by his brother, Jonathan Nolan. I believe because he was close enough to the writer to do so that his adapted screenplay is better than many out there, and, thus, he garnered himself an Academy Award nomination.

Guy Pierce, although he has gone on to some questionable material, is provocative as the crippled and crippling Leonard Shelby. Movies are generally shot out of sequence, so the case could be made that acting in this film is no different than any other. I disagree. Pierce must inhabit a character who does not inhabit his own body. His disturbing quest to avenge his wife's death is his only motive to get up in the morning, and, even then, his first thoughts are not of her. Because, as he says, he "can't remember to forget [her]." What I found to be the most sad of all was his first thought when he does wake up: "Awake." I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live when life holds no meaning for you.

Carrie-Anne Moss, who pushed to have Joe Pantoliano hired, and Pantoliano himself are excellent supporting actors. They shape the film's mood because they shape the actions of Leonard. They both seem to know their power, and their performances are demonstrative of such.

I have to admit, no matter how many times I watch the film, I find myself rooting for the wrong guy. You'll see what I mean.

Overall, this film is the best of 2000. If you haven't already seen it, then you should. Take time to watch it. Take time to savour it, to ponder it. It will control you, if only for couple of hours.

Grosse Pointe Blank

Plot: A professional killer, Martin Q. Blank (John Cusack), goes to his high school reunion in the hopes of winning back his high school sweetheart, Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver), whom he stood up on prom night. At the same time, a fellow hitman, Grocer (Dan Aykroyd), and the government try to take Martin out.

Just in case you don't know, Grosse Pointe is the well to-do section of derelict Detroit.

Hilarious! As you may know, I think John Cusack is just about the best, and he does a tremendous job with Tom Janiewicz's sparkling script. He also does two other things I notice about many of his films: 1) his sister, Joan, is in it. She plays his secretary/receptionist/assistant. 2) Jeremy Piven plays his high school best friend and, I suspect, is his best friend in real life. They have amazing chemistry together. Also, if you subscribe to the idiom "a friend will help you move; a best friend will help you move a body", then Piven is worth his weight in gold.

To be honest, I don't think I've seen anything else directed by George Armitage. The Big Bounce, which either is out now or will be out soon, is his handiwork if you decide that you like him. It was very nicely done, I feel. He has a good sense of comedy. However, when I googled him, I saw he also directed something called Private Duty Nurses, so I do not recommend checking out his earlier work.

As with every John Cusack movie I have ever seen, it is lovely and well worth the rental fee. I say "lovely" because he does both drama and comedy, and he does them both very well. Now I have begun wondering about comedic actors who do comedy. Some of them get away with it, and some don't. I recall that in French we learned that an "acteur/actrice" was someone who could do a specific genre, but a "comedien/comedienne" was someone who could do any genre. So I tip my hat to John Cusack, a true comedien.

Last little note: the scenes Cusack shares with his therapist, played by Alan Arkin, are fabulous.

13 conversations about one thing

Plot: This one is going to be difficult . . . here we go. The complex weave of a boss obsessed with "knocking the smile off" a rather happy employee, an executive in a spiral of depression after driving drunk, a maid in love with one of her clients gets hit by a car, a man leaves his wife to discover that his lover doesn't want to leave her husband, the boss' son involved with drugs, and it goes on.

To be honest, it isn't that difficult to keep up with the plot while you are watching the movie. I apparently should have taken notes in order to recall it later.

The film is divided up into chunks that are introduced by a sentence that one of the characters will say in the next scene, e.g. "18 inches of personal space". I liked that. It gave the intertwined plot more meaning, making the stories almost more theatrical. I don't mean that in an overdone way.

The film is impressive, the script, by Jill and Karen Sprecher, is well written, and the ensemble cast plays beautifully. The problem is that the film tries to be Magnolia. Magnolia is a brilliant film, but Magnolia it cannot be. And I think that's okay. I just don't think that they think that's okay.

Following my interpersonal communication class, I now believe this film is about self-disclosure, but you can decide for yourself. I will end with some wisdom from the film and for the film: "Life, it only makes sense backwards. Too bad we have to live it forwards."

True Romance

Brief: Christian Slater meets Patricia Arquette. After they have sex, he discovers that she is a call girl hired by his boss. They get married, and he goes to her pimp to pick up her stuff. He kills her pimp because he beats up women and was going to come after them, and he accidentally takes the wrong suitcase. He grabs one filled with uncut cocaine, and they decide to go on the run and sell it. Craziness ensues.

So I watched this movie because someone told me that it was my kind of movie. It was written by Quentin Tarentino and directed by Tony Scott. I get the impression that people consider me a Quentin Tarentino kind of girl. To be honest, I'm not sure why. Previous to this, I had seen one, only one, Quentin Tarentino movie: Four Rooms. And, I swear, I'm the only person who has ever seen Four Rooms. I was quite young then, and I thought it was really weird. Other than that, I have little to no Quentin Tarentino experience, but I do know that he loves his violence. In fact, I understand that usually everyone dies in his movies.

That said, this movie is crazy. At first I was really excited as the opening credits rolled by because it is a star-studded extravaganza! Let me name off some names for you - Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Chris Penn, Tom Seizmore, Michael Rappaport, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Val Kilmer. Okay, it's mostly men, I see. Whatever.

But, as the movie rolled by, I became more and more upset. I found myself yelling about how this movie was by crazy people, about crazy people, and for crazy people. It sounded like this, "This movie is crazy! It's for crazy people! Crazy people!" Apparently, it is believed that that is what I like.

Well, I don't know. The movie had tons of violence/nudity/sexuality/coarse language. I've noticed that I rented the director's cut, so it is possible that the regular version has less of all the above.

I'd love to give you an opinion, people. Even now, days later, I find myself just muttering "crazy" under my breath when I look at it, which, in turn, makes me look even crazier. I admit that much of what happens is funny, especially Brad Pitt's character, Floyd. In the end, I have no opinion. It's just crazy. That is my opinion. If you want crazy, go ahead and rent it.

Beat

Premise: The true story of the 48 or so hours before Joan Vollmer's (Courtney Love), the second wife of William S. Burroughs (Kiefer Sutherland), death. Also, flashbacks of when and how Lucien Carr (Norman Reedus) killed Dave. Story slightly explained by Allen Ginsberg (Ron Livingston).

If you aren't familiar with beat writing or its authors, the historical context of this film may be lost on you. Jack Kerouac is probably best remembered as the definitive beat writer, but he only plays a small part in the film. His Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is the best place to start if you are interested in learning more.

This film is dark. Very dark. It is concerned with a generation of alcohol-soaked drug addicts highly uncomfortable in their own skin. The way that Gary Walkow's script has the characters speaking to each other suggests that their minds are somehow apart from their bodies. They sound like people who must actually take the time to think before they speak, to slowly form their words and sentences with delicious intent, but they speak too quickly for that to be true. Perhaps the writer never turns off. It reminds me very much of the end of the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot.

Gary Walkow also directed, and he does a brilliant job of it, wringing emotional, exploitative performances from a deeply talented group. I would like to take a minute to point out that people should just leave Courtney Love alone. She is a beautiful and talented woman that shouldn't be blamed for being widowed.

The film is a scant 93 minutes, but its effect on you will last much longer. It is difficult to let go of something so sorrowful. It is difficult not to ponder to love between a husband and wife, and the nature of friendship. Are we drawn together by what we have in common or is there an unifying force that holds us together socially?

There is a question you will need to ask yourself when it is finished. Here it is - did he do it on purpose?

Stand by Me

Premise: Based on Steven King's novella, The Body, the film follows the journey of four boys in the summer before the seventh grade to locate the body of another dead boy. Also, a gang of older boys eventually decide that they want to be known for locating the body and head on out, too. Richard Dreyfuss does an excellent narration.

This movie is so good. I do question the strange number of life or death situations that these twelve year-olds seem to get into, but it is nothing too unbelievable about it. In fact, despite being a Steven King story, it is highly believable.

The story centres around Gordie Lechance, who is played by Wil Wheaton. He does a good enough job, but young River Phoenix outshines him as Gordie's troubled and troublesome best friend, Chris Chambers. It's great to watch scenes between him and the scene-stealing gang leader Ace, played by Kiefer Sutherland. Also, you can glean some pearls of heterosexual wisdom from Ace if you listen carefully.

Did I mention that this is all set in the fifties? I know that may not seem like much now, but it does a lot for the plot and the characterization.

Spoiler! I don't want to ruin to movie for you, but you will appreciate it much more when you realize exactly whose dead body Gordie is really looking for. I guess that that isn't that much of a spoiler.

Overall, the film is about exactly what childhood friendship is about. It is passionate and fiercely loyal. Dreyfuss strings it all together with his witty and soulful narration. You'll like it - it is too difficult not to.

In my defense

In my defense is not the title of a movie that I am going to review. I get the feeling that the rules here aren't very clear. In order for a movie to be reviewed, I must have seen the entire movie. I also like to avoid movies that are already highly critically acclaimed classics like The Godfather or Gone with the wind because I don't think there's much I could say about those that hasn't already been said. I like to stick to either newer movies, or movies that most people haven't heard of in order to educate you about the many great films out there. So here we go:

She's the one

Premise: Mickey picks up Hope in his cab and takes her to the airport. She convinces him to drive her to New Orleans, and, when they get back, they are married. Mickey's brother, Francis, is married to Renee but hasn't had sex with her in months because he is having an affair with Heather, who just happens to be Mickey's ex-fiancee. Mickey, Francis, and their father go on weekly fishing trips.

While the plot has ingenuity behind it, it is rather uninspired. The direction lacks creativity, and I seriously wonder about the acting. Let's take Edward Burns, who plays Mickey, for example. I used to think Edward Burns was a good actor. I thought his only flaw was that he never has any chemistry with any woman. Seriously, no on-screen chemistry. Now, I realize that he plays the same character every time. I understand not wanting to stray too far from where you came from, but this is too much. Think about any movie you have seen him in. Life, or something like it: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. Saving Private Ryan: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. His promising directorial debut, Sidewalks of New York: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. And the movie in question, She's the one: IRISH-CATHOLIC FROM BROOKLYN!!!!!

I'm sure you are shocked. Don't get me wrong; I like Edward Burns. I am just starting to wonder about him. I also like Cameron Diaz as Heather before she lost crazy amounts of weight and started impersonating a walking stick bug. I like John Mahoney as the patriarch one seriously stupid Irish-Catholic family. But they aren't enough to save this movie from its own insipid plot. They try, they really do. There's just not enough there to work with.

Conclusion: Unless you happen to love Irish-Catholics from Brooklyn, then this movie probably isn't worth the rental fee. If you should, however, happen to come across it on cable on some lazy afternoon or quiet evening in, then give it a try. You can always post a comment on how much you hated it later.

State and Main

In brief: A movie production descends on a small town. Comedic chaos ensues.

I don't even know where to start. How about telling you who is in the best ensemble comedy ever? We've got Philip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, Julia Stiles, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Alec Baldwin, among others. And they all play off each other brilliantly. I tell you truly though, you will quickly discover how much more amusing the lives and ideas of the town's folk are compared to the antics of the actors. They provide all the best material.

Despite the fact that the plot and its events are a source of amusement, keep your ears open for the one-liners. I know, you might associate one-liners with things that aren't really funny to begin with, but you would be mistaken. In this case, they guarantee that you will never stop laughing.

David Mamet, the writer and director, is sometimes associated with some of his darker films such as Hannibal or Ronin, but I assure you that he does comedy just as well. In fact, he may do it even better. His timing is perfection itself. As for his writing, you will love the solutions he comes up with for such problems as pushing through a stain glass window and the fallout of a traffic accident.

Last little note: keep your eye on the town doctor. He is quite possibly the greatest source of amusement in the whole film if you are quick enough to catch it.

Pleasantville

Summary: Two nineties teens, David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) get zapped back into a black and white fifties sitcom, Pleasantville. The more they rock Pleasantville's pleasant existence, the more colourful everything becomes.

Amazing. Truly, this is an ingenious comedy with some great comments about the civil rights movement in America in the 1960s, as well as some shades of Nazi Germany. Watching as everything goes from black to white, the juxtaposition of the greys with the colours is so beautiful. Also, the reasons why people turn into colour and when are both poignant and fun.

It's also a well put together ensemble cast featuring Joan Allen, William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh, Paul Walker, and Jeff Daniels. So beautifully done. Props to Gary Ross, the writer/director. Steven Soderbergh was one of the producers, and there are a few hints of his unique directing style in here.

Alright, I feel like keeping this one brief. It's funny and smart, a combo you don't always get in movies today. So enjoy it.

The New Waterford Girl

Premise: Mooney (Liane Balaban) longs to leave her boring Atlantic Canadian life behind her and move to New York or Paris or . . . anywhere, really, to pursue her dream of becoming an artist. Along comes Lou (Tara Spencer-Naim), a tough gal from the Bronx, who just happens to move in next door. Mooney concocts a surefire scheme that will guarantee her release from her ho-hum small town life, and Lou starts hitting everyone. Did I mention that this all takes place in the 1970s?

You need to get up out of your chair right now and go find this film. I'm serious. Get up! Get going!

Are you still here? Well, I guess I should point out that this film isn't for everyone. It's only for people who find Mary Walsh, Mark McKinney, and Andrew McCarthy (yes, he's still alive) funny. If you are Canadian, then you should know just how funny those first two are. However, if your only experience with McCarthy is Pretty in Pink, then you've got some work to do.

It's also directed by Allan Moyle, the same guy who brought you off-kilter comedies like Pump Up the Volume and Empire Records. If you are not off-kilter like he and I are, then, again, this might not be the movie for you.

Basically, I'm beginning to wonder if this movie is for anyone who doesn't share my sense of humour. Wait a tic, of course it is! Here's why: it will still be damn funny to you. You and I just won't be laughing at the same parts. And that's okay. There are laughs in it for both of us. In fact, there may just be laughs in it for everyone. And who doesn't like a good laugh?

Truth or Consequences, N.M.

Premise: Eight months after he is released from jail, Vincent Gallo decides to pull a drug heist and escape to Mexico. Things go wrong with his muscle, Kiefer Sutherland, starts killing everyone. Then, they go even more wrong when he tries to sell the drugs back to the man he stole them from. Eventually, everyone ends up at a little desert cottage just outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

Just in case this comes up, Truth or Consequences is a real place. Back in 1950, Ralph Edwards, host of the radio show Truth or Consequences, offered national publicity to any city in the U.S. who would adopt the name. Hot Springs, N.M. took the challenge and has been known as Truth or Consequences ever since.

Plus, I like how the title gives this movie its feel. The events are very much wrapped up in the honesty of the characters and the assumptions they make based on that honesty.

This picture is Kiefer Sutherland's feature film directorial debut, and, if you know me, you know I love to see just about anyone's debut. I found it to be slow and sensual. He seems like the kind of man who likes to take his time to get things right. If you aren't used to that or prefer a more jumpy/handheld/indie style that many Hollywood films attempt to copy today, then you probably aren't going to "get" this movie.

As for the performances, Vincent Gallo doesn't really have what it takes to be a leading man. It really is more of an ensemble than a leading man situation, and I believe that is why it is difficult to notice when Gallo is struggling. Kiefer Sutherland's hair trigger cocaine addict blends insanity with intensity well, and his dancing adds some needed comedic relief. Kevin Pollack's character isn't funny at all, and, while he plays it well as he is talented, I am simply not comfortable with him in serious roles. I think it's because I know just how damn funny he is.

Also, Martin Sheen's character does this thing where he puts his finger on his nose and pushes it to the side in one scene. For all of you who get that little inside joke, you will just die.

In the end, it is not the best movie ever, but it is definitely worth a look, if only to see that dance.

Thirteen

Summary: Evan Rachel Wood plays a 13 year-old who does a lot of stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do. Holly Hunter plays her disillusioned mother.

Warning! These girls are 13! Thirteen! If you don't want to see 13 year-olds do stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do, then don't rent this movie because it's a true story. Yes, true. Just thought I would warn you.

Aside from my absolute shock over the plot, this film is bloody brilliant. Catherine Hardwicke, who also co-scripted, explores the taut relationship between mother and daughter when a girl comes of age in this shocking drama. Yes, I know I just used shock twice. That's what it is. Hardwicke uses coloured lenses to help express pathos. Nicely done.

Evan Rachel Wood is a deeply talented actor. Her pale skin is the physical representation of her acting style: she is transparent. She plays everything with simplicity, grace, and beauty. There are many more critically acclaimed actors who would do themselves a service by taking a page from her.

As for Holly Hunter, I just feel so bad for her. I feel so bad because she plays this mother so well that I wish I could help her. Her character struggles so hard to help her daughter, but her daughter just keeps shutting her out. And it's so sad because she is one of the coolest movie moms ever.

In the end, the movie could be more than you can handle. It's difficult to process how such things could possibly happen to someone so young. But they do happen. Sometimes, I think there may not be much we can do about it. Except pray.

Career Opportunities

Precis: A teen (Frank Whaley) is hired as a night watchman/janitor of a store akin to K-Mart. On his first day, he is locked in with a rich girl (Jennifer Connelly), who was considering shoplifting in a dressing room when the store closed. Fun comedy turns to drama when Dermot Mulroney attempts rob the place.

John Hughes rocks! This movie, however, does not. But I have the feeling that none of you have heard of it anyway. You should probably stay that way.

Now, I'm not going to lie to you. I used to watch this movie all the time on cable when I was younger. All the time. But when you are 9 or so, your tastes aren't as discretionary as they are when you are, say, 29. So it goes.

In any case, John Hughes' screenplay reads like something he came up with on a cocktail napkin after a few too many. Honestly, he writes teen in incredible situations tremendously well the rest of the time, but something is lacking in this movie. Sparkle, I think. It needs more sparkle.

Bryan Gordon's textbook direction doesn't really help. If you have seen Whaley, Connelly, and Mulroney in anything else, then you know that all three have talent. This movie simply does not give them the opportunity to showcase it.

If you do choose to rent it or catch it on cable, make sure you watch for John Candy's unbilled cameo: it has sparkle.

Some Kind of Wonderful

Plan: Eric Stolz loves the unattainable Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), and his best friend Mary Stuart Masterson is so clearly in love with him. Also, Stolz is an artist, so everyone at his high school needs to make fun of him for that.

John Hughes continued! To be clear, he only produces and writes this one, but his handiwork is still evident. In this case, it's actually directed by Howard Deutch, who directed Article 99, which I already reviewed.

The love triangle is pretty obvious and now considered trite, but I am not sure it was at the time. Even so, let's pit the redhead against the blonde, the popular against the loser, the rich against the wrong side of the tracks, the girlie girl against the tomboy. Oh, wait, high school really is stupid like that, so I cannot fault Hughes.

Plus, you get some stellar performances. Stolz is as adorable as he is clueless, Thompson manages to rescue her character from becoming just another rich bitch, and Masterson is as plucky as she always is. Honestly, she should make more movies.

Did I mention that Masterson plays some sweet drums in the movie? Drums are always a plus. Overall, an adorable movie.

The Breakfast Club

Plot: Five vastly different high school students spend Saturday detention together. Once again, not like detention ever was for you.

Second day of my John Hughes overture! Once again, Hughes' puts together the perfect 80s cast: Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy, and Emilio Estevez (?). I swear, this man does teen angst in a way that I cannot even use words.

Hughes' seamless writing and direction lends credibility to the unbelievable adventures the gang undertakes. Their run-ins with the (vice?) principle are somewhat abusive, but Hughes balances it will. Ah, balance. It is definitely one of the keys to creating a movie with lasting appeal. Unless it's an epic. Epics have an entirely different set of rules.

Don't be surprised if you find some of it lacking in what you would look for in a movie today. That's not what it's about when you watch an 80s teen movie. I tell you truly, 80s teen movies are there own genre. When you consider their stars (e.g. the effervescent Molly Ringwald, the charming Patrick Dempsey), you'll understand why.

In short, a nice mix of comedy and odd-drama peppers this classic 80s fare. Bon appetit!

Oops! His girlfriend's name was Sloane not Skye. Sorry about that one!

Ferris Buller's Day Off

Basic Premise: I cannot believe you don't know the plot. Ferris, his best friend Cameron, and his girlfriend Skye take the day off school and have unbelievable adventures.

Welcome to April's overture of love for John Hughes. John Hughes is the classic eighties teen angst movie director. In fact, he tends to write them, too. And I salute him.

Hughes' unique narrative reflects the film's far-fetched plot. But I think that's the point. Events like these never happen when you skipped school, but, the more you get to know Ferris, the more reasonable it seems that they should happen to him. He is one of those guys who is insanely popular in the way that everyone knows him, and everyone likes him. A rare combo indeed.

And Matthew Broderick plays it off with an easy charm. It's all in a sly smile and a flick of the wrist, so to speak. The supporting cast is well chosen, and their remarks show a gift for comedic timing. All in all, a sparkling, very 80s comedy. Salut!

This hour has 22 minutes, Made in Canada, Train 48, Corner Gas

Don't freak out, that isn't the name of one crazy movie. I decided to make an exception today to talk about something I feel is tremendously over-looked: Canadian television.

I know, everyone thinks that Canadian TV sucks, but they are wrong. Most people who have a misconception about it have never seen it. In fact, I doubt many of you have seen anything outside of Mr. Dress-up. And you are definitely missing out.

So let me give you a basic plot description of each of the aforementioned shows.
This hour has 22 minutes: satirical recap of the news event of one week. Airs Friday nights on CBC and re-runs daily on Showcase at 6 p.m.
Made in Canada: chronicling the producers of "Beaver Creek" (read: Anne of Green Gables). Just finished its five year run, re-runs on Showcase at 6:30.
Train 48: follows the lives of ten commuters to and from Toronto on the GO train. Airs on Global at 11:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. May be on later at night as well.
Corner Gas: Revolves around a gas station and coffee shop in small-town Saskatchewan. CTV, usually Thursdays at eight, but tonight (Wednesday) at eight as well.

Alright, those four shows are the funniest I have ever, ever seen. Yes, it is true that I am prone to laughter when no one else is, but they are still hilarious. Check them out. In fact, if you can, do it right now.

First Knight

In brief: Sean Connery is King Arthur, Julia Ormond is Queen Guinevere, and Richard Gere is Sir Lancelot. Guinevere gets herself into lots of trouble, Lancelot rescues her lots, and Arthur gets nagged lots by the other knights of the round table. Oh, and he says, "Welcome to Camelot."

Serious, though, the movie is pretty good. Connery's performance suggests that Arthur's flaw was uxoriousness, and Gere's interpretation of Lancelot very clearly demonstrates obsessive love as part of the chivalric code. Julia Ormond doesn't do anything special.

The fact that the Arthurian legend survives despite the fact that there is no written mention of it until about 600 years after it was supposed to happen is enough to explain its importance.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more this movies seems key to understanding the chivalric code and gaining some basic knowledge of the Welsh myth. I know, you are wondering why you need to know Welsh mythology. Why? It's just one of those things that everyone is supposed to know. Like, Romeo and Juliet. Is there honestly a person who goes through school that doesn't know the story of Romeo and Juliet? That's just messed up if you don't.

Election

In short: Matthew Broderick is a teacher at a high school where some students take the school elections very, very seriously. So I guess it's like any other school in that sense. Until you see what they will do to win and what makes them get involved in the first place.

Macabre. Macabre is the best word to describe this kind of film. Well, within reason. It's a film noir without a doubt, but a film noir with the blackest sense of humor. After all, it is a comedy.

Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon's obsessive characters are too darkly humorous for me to use any other superlatives. They attack their characters with relish and positively chew up the scenery. It's beautiful. Plus, the idea of a teacher trying to take down an over-achiever sparkles.

Also, the film provides a reminder that every vote counts, which is why I'd like to remind all U of O students who read this post that elections are happening this week. Check out the platforms on SFUO's website, then log on to www.vote.sfuo.ca and vote. I'm so serious.

The Lost Boys

Premise: Jason Patric, Corey Haim, and Diane Weist move to Santa Carla, CA, the murder capital of the world. They soon discover that the high murder rate is largely due to the city's vampire gang, led by Kiefer Sutherland. Patric is turned into a half vampire, and he and his family must locate and eliminate the head vampire in order to reverse the process.

Oh my, oh my. This movie is so very bad. It's definitely got the cult classic elements in it, but it's still so bad. One character does her best Esmeralda impression (I swear it's the exact costume Victor Hugo described), and Jason Patric cannot, at all, act. He simply cannot. For some reason, the director/screenwriter assumed that this meant that they should have a completely gratuitous sex scene smack dab in the middle of the movie.

Corey Haim, however, best known for portraying Lucas in the 80's classical of the same name, provides much need comic relief. Serious, he has all the best lines. As for Kiefer Sutherland, he makes a fairly good vampire. Vampires/vampire mythology is a highly sexualized metaphor for rape/violence in combination with sex, and Sutherland does his best to bring a much needed sexuality to this movie.
Nit picky point: He bites some guy on the top of his head. Why? That's just stupid. Go for the major arteries! That's where the good stuff is.

Overall, you aren't going to be able to handle this movie if you cannot recognize how bad it is. That is why, of course, it is so good.

Article 99

Plot: Kiefer Sutherland is the new doc at a veteran's hospital, where the administration is in bed with the HMO's. Ray Liotta leads a team of renegade surgeons who perform necessary procedures, regardless of insurance costs. Although initially resistant, Sutherland eventually joins Liotta.

Alright, so that's really only the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the movie, but I feel it is enough for you to understand. I know that the premise of HMO's screwing hospitals/patients isn't entirely an original one, but Howard Deutch's interpretation is a heartfelt one, if a slightly disappointing one.

Sutherland and Liotta give impressive performances despite the one-dimensional roles. It's also a great opportunity to check out some of the earlier work of great actors like Lea Thompson, John Mahoney, and Forest Whitaker.

This film is one that does not require excessive brain power or emotional involvement, thus making it perfect for a snowy Saturday afternoon.

Bowling for Columbine

Basic Plot Summary: To be quite honest, I'm not sure if a documentary can have a basic plot summary. It's about gun culture in America.

To those of you out there who have yet to see it: why not!! It's the top grossing documentary of all time and an Oscar winner for a reason. Besides, we Canadians love to make fun of Americans, do we not? So does Michael Moore, and he's not even one of us. How great is that?!

Consider your self forewarned: honesty is painful at times. Michael Moore is the more radical film equivalent of Noam Chomsky (if you can be more radical than Noam), and he is not above biting satire. In fact, biting satire is his modus operandi. He is at times as snarky as he is hilarious. Plus, he plugs my hometown and his own, and I've got a soft spot for loyalty.

In sooth, I do not believe I need to convince anyone to see this film. I also do not believe in providing you with an unbiased criticism of it. It is brilliant and epic. Yes, I went there. Epic, I say, epic!

Serious, why are you still sitting there? Go out and rent it immediately. Invite everyone you know to watch it with you. It will spark conversation for here to Kingdom. And who doesn't need some good conversation?

Coyote Ugly

I feel it's about time for an introduction. Welcome to the movie-fanatic concept of the "guilty pleasure". Now, a guilty pleasure is not a movie you watch obsessively, it is not a movie you think about when you should really be concentrating on something else, it is not a movie that would make your mom and dad disappointed in you to know you watched it. Okay, maybe that last one is true. In any case, it is a movie that isn't good, but you watch it anyway. In fact, you even like to watch it. Because you are a sick, sick freak.

One of my guilty pleasures is Coyote Ugly. It is a bad, bad movie. Jerry Bruckenheimer (?) set out to hire someone who can sing and dance. Instead, he hired Piper Perabo, who can do neither. In reality, she cannot even act. But, somehow, she is the star. Hmm . . .

I cannot even tell you why I like it. I think it must be all that dancing. Seems like a grand ol' time. For serious, though, if you want a movie with good acting/script/direction, then this is not the movie for you. The plot is predictable and boringly done, and the direction is uninspired. Who cares! I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously anyway.

Honestly, would you take a bunch of quasi-strippers seriously? I didn't think so.

Mostly Martha

Whoo-hoo! April's first foreign film review!

Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit Martha, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.

So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).

As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definitely the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humor or sad with being dark. Go Germans!

Mostly Martha

Whoo-hoo! April's first foriegn film review!

Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit her, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.

So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).

As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definetly the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humour or sad with being dark. Go Germans!

A Few Good Men

Plot: Tom Cruise is assigned to represent two Marines held on charges of murder, conduct unbecoming an officer, and other such things that would be included in a charge of murder. Kevin Pollack is assigned to assist him, and Demi Moore fights for her right to represent the two men as well. They attempt to prove that the officers in question were ordered to give Sanitago, the dead Marine, a "code red" (an act of discipline through humiliation), and that his death was an accident. Cruise, Pollack, and Moore go up against Jack Nicholson, Kevin Bacon, and Kiefer Sutherland.

Yes, this movie has been largely parodied. Honestly, though, in this case, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I hold this opinion because I know that Aaron Sorkin rocks. He is one of the best screenwriters out there, and I don't think anyone could convince me otherwise. He creates characters that are realistic, smart, and funny in a taut, intricate drama.

Two) this film is a star-studded extravaganza! Did I mention that Noah Wyle and Xander Berkley are in it, too?

As for Rob Reiner's direction, I know he has had accolades heaped upon him for many a film, but he just doesn't do it for me this time. Think about it, it's a movie about a murder and a conspiracy. Sounds gritty, right? Not with his cinematography! It's too . . . pretty. Everything is picture perfect. It's the kind of direction that worked well for other films of his like When Harry met Sally . . . and The American President. When it comes to romantic comedies, you want sunsets and flowers and vistas. But a murder drama? There's this scene were the camera does a close-up on Cruise, pushes past him to Moore, then to Pollack. And it's all so very, very nice. That's just not right in this case.

Regardless, Aaron Sorkin's script is worth the rental fee. Anything he writes is worth the rental fee.

Personal Velocity: Three Stories

First Premise: Delia (Kelly Preston) takes her children and leaves her abusive husband.
Second Premise: Parker Posey gets a great promotion.
Third Premise: A girl picks up a hitchhiker.

Alright, I know that those plot descriptions were rather vague, but I didn't want to spoil this amazing movie. I wrote the descriptions out separately because the movie is divided into three parts. They are not intertwined but clearly indicated by titles.

The film is a combination of live action and stop photography that goes forwards and backwards in time. Each tale is told with precision and patience. I'm not saying that the movie moves progresses slowly; I'm saying that the director, who I believe is also the narrator, allows a certain grace in his storytelling that can only come with time.

Kelly Preston's highly sexual Delia is fantastic portrait of the way a woman can manipulate a man through actions alone. Parker Posey brings new insight to a cold-hearted wench. As for the other girl, I cannot recall the name of the actress or the character, but her story is worth watching if only for the pure strangeness of it.

As for the title, each story is about the woman in question coming to terms with who she is and what she brings to the table. In each case, the women have to lose what has held them down and, perhaps, even fall into old patterns in order to grow.

The film is powerful but also sexual explicit in some parts. Also, Delia takes a pretty bad beating in the beginning. On the other hand, that's only the beginning, and it is integral to the story line. If you can get past it, the movie is by far worth your time.

One more small note, this movie was either a limited release or an independent film, so you may have difficulty finding it. I suggest including your local library in your search. Libraries have tons of great movies, new and old, which they will happily give you for a standard week for FREE. And then you can join the three percent of us who have library cards.

Disclosure

Premise: Michael Douglas thinks he's getting a promotion, but Donald Sutherland brings in Demi Moore to take the position instead. She sexually harasses Douglas, an ex-lover, then accuses him of sexual harassment. Douglas beings to uncover a plot to force him out of the business.

Warning! My critique will include a spoiler today, so I advise you to avoid it if it will upset you to know what happens in the movie.

Reading the premise, you'd think this movie sound pretty promising. You've got Douglas, Sutherland, and Moore, all seasoned professionals with time-tested box office appeal. And then you are all, a man accusing a woman of sexual harassment? Sweet rubies, could this be any more exciting?

Yes, yes it could. Because this movie falls flat on its face. Sure, there are some fun little twists in there; I won't deny it. Nonetheless, the movie is bizarrely boring. In the scenes where Douglas and Moore present their sides of the story to a mediator, both lie. I mean, Moore's character makes up a convoluted story, but Douglas lies, too! What? Why would he bother doing that? To express that he is in some way culpable? Forget that!

I know you could argue that we live in a world full of shades of grey. Things aren't always black and white, you might say. So?! is my reply. When is comes to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, things are very black and white. I realize that some may have a different interpretation of events (i.e. violator v. victim), but the fact remains that we have little recourse but to trust the victim.

Overall, Disclosure is a disappointment. The best part in it occurs when another woman gets promoted after Moore is fired. She, unlike Moore or Douglas, is promoted on the merit of her achievements and her seniority. Good for her. If only we could say the same thing was consistently true in the workplace today.