Reviews

This is a starkly sad and beautiful film by the Indian filmmaker Santosh Sivan, in the Tamil language with English subtitles. It was shot in 17 days on locations in Kerala and Madras with a cast made up entirely of nonprofessional actors on a small budget.

The theme, however, is large.

The lead character, Malli, exquisitely played by Ayesha Dharkar, is a 19-year old woman who lives in a terrorist camp, fighting for her unnamed country. Her eyes are large and her expressions innocent and strong and even though we see her actively participating in an execution, she wins the audience's heart immediately.

She is honored by being chosen to become a suicide bomber. A very important person will come to the town, she will put a garland around his neck, and blow him and herself up by pushing a button which will ignite the bombs strapped to her body. But will she really do it?

When she leaves the guerilla camp she is led through minefields by a young boy named Lotus. We glimpse the horror of the war through his eyes and his boyish bravery. Then she is taken on a boat to spend a few days with a elderly farmer named Vesu who doesn't suspect her mission. As she dresses for the final event, she is torn with conflict.

By subtle complexities in her acting, the audience is drawn in to Malli's dilemma. However, the director sometimes gets a little too arty, with too many close-ups with raindrops on her face. And, in order to show every single emotion, the action of the story moves too slow for my taste.

However, the beauty of the film lies not as much in the actual story, but in the director's ability to put a human face on terrorism. The mood is somber, the cinematography beautiful and the emotions of the individuals caught up in the drama are captured well.

I recommend this film for serious film buffs only who are willing to incorporate sadness and starkness into their movie-going experience. Others will find it too harsh.

Based on the actual event , this epic, is set in the year 221 B.C and tells the true story of the unification of China. Action packed and filled with intrigue, passion, betrayals and unforgettable battle sequences, it held my attention throughout in spite of its 160 minute length.

The king, Ying Zeng, played by Li Xuejian is obsessed with unifying the seven kingdoms of China and becoming its first Emperor. His lover, Lady Zhao, played by the beautiful actress Gong Li, devises a plot whereby she will travel to the neighboring kingdom of Yan to set a fake assassination plot in motion which will give the king an excuse to invade Yan. However, she falls in love with the assassin as the king becomes more and more ruthless.

There are subplots, and tragedy and constant high drama. There are scenes of great beauty and of abject cruelty. There is great cinematography and brilliant use of physical space.

The deep characterization made me think of Shakespeare. And tragic events that call to mind Greek drama. And yet it is totally Chinese as it deals with age-old questions of whether the ends justify the means. And raises the questions dealing with life and death and good and evil and all the blurred edges in between.

It is the story of individuals against the backdrop of history, a history that has shaped China for the past two thousand years. I was swept up in the story as well as the moral questions raised. There are no easy answers and this was one of the strengths of the movie.

Recommended. But be prepared for the violence and gore.

When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.

This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.

The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.

Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.

Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.

Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.

While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.

Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.

Adapted by a novel by John Irving, this is a story about breaking rules and finding your own way.

Set in an orphanage in Maine in the early 1940's, it is a surprisingly humane place, where the good doctor who runs it, Michael Caine, really loves the children. One of the two dozen orphans, Homer, played by Tobey Maguire, has grown to young manhood in the orphanage and assists the doctor as he delivers babies and also performs abortions. The doctor wants Homer to stay and carry on in his footsteps, but Homer leaves the protectiveness of the orphanage and goes to work in an apple orchard, picking apples with a group of African American apple pickers.

The acting is superb and the story is deep on many levels, dealing the some tough questions of right and wrong. If anything, the characters are just a little too sweet, too loving, too good to be true. And this is the first movie I ever saw about an orphanage where the children were not mistreated. Frankly though, I found all of this refreshing and a new and interesting reality.

I understand that it is only a small portion of the novel that actually spans 30 years. Many years ago I read "The World According to Garp" by John Irving and have stayed away from him ever since. But, I would really consider reading the novel now because I was so involved with the characters that the 131 minutes of the movie just seemed too short.

Some might find this movie too moody and sentimental. I didn't.

Recommended.

Starring Pierce Brosnan as a wealthy banker who steals fine art because of the thrill of it and Renee Russo as an insurance investigator, this film is supposed to be witty, sophisticated and interesting.

There are some cleverly conceived capers which are so unreal as to be comical, a clash of egos between the two lead characters who never rise above their pretentious characterizations, and some supposed sex scenes which show off the photographer's use of creative camera angles but lack any bit of real eroticism. The characters play mind games with each other and that's supposed to be sexy. The degree of luxury is unreal, and although Russo wears a different outfit in every scene, she never seems really attractive. Neither does Brosnan. Basically, they seem like dressed up dolls playing a silly game.

Faye Dunaway, who was in the original 1968 version with Steve McQueen, has a small and silly part as Brosnan's psychiatrist. Ben Gazzara also has a tiny part as Brosnan's lawyer.

At no time did I identify with or have any feeling for any of the cardboard characters. And there wasn't enough action to call this an action movie. I never got into the story and was bored throughout.

Not recommended.

When this documentary was being filmed in 1998, the CD which was issued in 1997 had just been released and went on to win a Grammy. It had been the result of American guitarist Roy Cooder's determination to bring the musical sounds of Cuban music to the public. Now he had with him the German movie director, Wim Wenders, who created this unique film about the music, the people and Cuba itself.

The musicians are elderly, their musical skills developed from childhood and are living memorials to the music they love. Once renowned in Cuba in the 40's and 50's, these men have lived through upheaval and changes in their country, and yet approach life with joy and freshness. The camera picks up the wrinkles, but it also picks up the twinkle in the eye of 91 year old guitarist/singer Compay Segundo who playfully talks about fathering another child to add to his family, or lead singer 70 year-old Ibraham Ferrer's affection for this wife, the 80-year old pianist Ruben Gonzolez who finds it hard to walk, but has no trouble making his fingers fly over the keyboard. And Omera Portuando, the female adds an ageless feminine presence to the group.

This is not just a movie about the music. The movie IS the music. And there are long musical sequences which will delight anyone with a serious musical interest. The movie is also about the individual people, whose interviews against the backdrop of a crumbling, but lively Cuba are testaments to the human spirit. Before they were rediscovered for this film, one of the men was shining shoes; another was working in a cigar factory. Politics are never mentioned, but the 1940s and 50s American cars and the disintegrating buildings is evidence of politics gone haywire four decades ago.

The movie culminates with a concert in Carnegie Hall and the musicians' first trip to New York. Their sense of wonder in viewing the skyscrapers, looking at store windows and visiting the Empire State Building is a sharp contrast to the confines of their restricted world in Cuba, which is nevertheless rich with the spirits of this indomitable individuals.

The movie does lack dramatic tension, and drags in places, but I still don't hesitate to recommend it. It spite of poverty and a humble economy, the movie captures the beauty and joy of the people. And it surrounds you with music.

Based loosely on the autobiography of the director, Franco Zeffinelli, this film is a light frothy comedy about a serious subject. It is the story of Italy in the 1930's and Mussolini's rise to power. It is also the story of the young illegitimate son of a textile merchant who gets adopted by a group of eccentric aging Englishwomen living in Florence.

I recommend this movie for what it is -- a couple of hours of light and charming entertainment. Florence is beautiful, the costumes are great, the acting is good, and the war is sanitized. However, if you are looking for depth and complexity, you won't find it here.

It's 1969 in a bungalow colony near Woodstock where husbands come up weekends to visit their wives and kids. Pearl Kantrowitz, at 32 is the mother of a 14 year old daughter and a 5 year old son. When a hippie salesman comes to the bungalow colony to sell blouses, she's drawn into an affair with him.

Diane Lane, cast as the mother, with her confusion and mixed loyalties, played her part well. So did the hippie lover, Viggo Mortensen, who has the kind of good looks that are sketched on the covers of romance novels. Anna Paquen is superb as the 14 year old daughter, coming of age herself, who goes to Woodstock and sees her mother there with the hippie. And the husband, played by Liev Shreiber is wonderful as he tries to cope with his wife's changes and his love for his family. Cast as Pearl's Jewish mother-in-law, Tovah Feldshuh should have been better. The role is a good one, but the Yiddish words as written in the script were awkward.

One of the reasons I hesitate to recommend this movie is that the setting was artificial. For example, in the few Woodstock scenes, the sun was always shining and it seemed to last just one short afternoon. The real Woodstock lasted 3 days and it rained constantly.

I also thought the Jewishness and silliness of the bungalow colony was overdone. Every single cliche and Yiddish expression were thrown in. I found this distracting from the central human story of a family trying to cope with a changing world.

The scenes were much too long and the story moved too slowly. Too many scenes that were just talking and no action. The plot was predictable and there were no surprises. And I kept looking at my watch every ten minutes.

The title refers to the moon walk by the astronauts, watched on flickering black and white television sets that summer. It's a big theme reflecting a changing world. But in spite of good acting and interesting story, this film tried hard, but just didn't make it.

This is the story of a Julia, young Englishwoman who travels to Morocco in 1972 with her two young daughters in search of enlightenment. Kate Winslet, of Titanic fame, plays the lead, and evokes the experience of the early 70s, with its innocent hippie culture. The two young daughters, 6 and 8, are delightful and seem much wiser than their mother, who loves them dearly but is somewhat overwhelmed by the world around her.

Perhaps it was the sound system, but my American ears missed some of the British dialog and I wished I was watching it on videotape so that I could rewind and hear some of it again. Also, some of the editing seemed disjointed, and episodic rather than a smooth flow. However, I loved the cinematography, the setting, the realistic portrayal of Morocco. Casting was more than excellent, especially the two young actresses who played the daughters. Much of the story is told from the children's point of view, which added dimension and insight.

There's a romance between Julia and a charismatic street acrobat, played by a hunk of an actor named Said Taghaoui, who also works at a quarry doing hard physical labor. We get a serious glimpse into his character and his world. One great thing about the film is that the story moves along with twists and turns and, at the same, time, there are culture clashes and explorations of responsibility, escapism and common sense. Always, there is a sense of tension and a constant concern for the children.

The movie portrays a time and place and mindset that has a sense of authenticity. I give it one of my highest recommendations.

I was so bored with Waking Ned Devine that I kept dozing off. And when I woke up I kept waiting for something to happen. The joke of tricking the government agent into giving them the money wears thin in about five minutes, and even though the acting was good, I didn't even chuckle. I don't like comedies, but this wasn't even a good comedy, just a bit of silly heartwarming nostalgic muck. As far as I'm concerned this was a waste of my money and my time.

I really shouldn't have liked this film as much as I did. After all, it had no plot to speak of, was much too long at three hours, used voice-overs speaking poetry and tried too hard to be arty. However, it was the only war film I've ever seen that defined the experience of war in a way that I felt it to my bones. It put me, personally in the action. I felt the fear, the fatigue and the hard questions that each man had to deal with, and left me with an appreciation of what it is to be a soldier as well as a total disgust at the futility of it all.

The director, Terrence Malick, did an outstanding job of conveying all this. He used nature in a way I have never see in a war film. The beauty of Guadacanal from the trees and birds to the native people is shown over and over again in stark contrast to the slaughter of both the Japanese and Americans. The tagline of this movie is "every man fights his own war" and the close-ups of the men's faces manage to show their inner struggles by the use of lighting and perhaps a leaf against the backdrop of nature.

There is star power in the cast - Sean Penn, John Cusack, Woody Harelson, Nick Nolte, John Travolta, and George Clooney. They all have small parts and, with the exception of Nolte as the aging Lt. Col. who has been passed over for promotion too many times and must prove himself on the battlefield, they all blend into the composite of soldiers at war that the director was trying to achieve.

I didn't like The Search for Private Ryan. I thought it was a rehash of every war cliche I ever heard in a predictable story. I feel completely differently about The Thin Red Line, which rings true from its very core. So deeply did I sink into the movie, that I wasn't bored for one moment. Instead I was there, in the trenches, waiting for the next bullet and captured in the experience. This kind of movie, of course is not for everyone. But for those of us who look for the emotional catharsis that is possible in a work of art, I recommend The Thin Red Line.

Starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck, this 1945 movie reflects the nation's love affair with Freudian psychology and gives me a clearer understanding of way our culture looked at psychology in those days. Looking back now, it all seems rather naive, but way back in 1945, it was a way of explaining the mysteries of behavior and a breakthrough in modern thought.

Ingrid Bergman plays the lone female psychologist among her male peers. They work at an upscale mental hospital in Vermont. When Gregory Peck comes on staff as her boss, they immediately fall in love. But in classic Hitchcock form, all is not what it seems. Gregory Peck is gets strange fainting spells and is suffering from amnesia. He is not who he appears and has no memory of who he really is. Perhaps he has murdered the real doctor and taken his identity. They flee from the police.

Bergman must now discover who Gregory Peck really is, have him remember his childhood trauma, cure him, and then find the true murderer. She does this with class in this interesting role which portrays her as a strong woman, and which is counter to the kinds of sexist attitudes which I thought were typical at the time.

The story holds my interest but certainly was not one of Hitchcock's best. It just hints at the kind of tension that Hitchcock later mastered, moves much too slowly, and keeps taking time to explain to the audience just what psychology is and how it helps people. Bergman is a good actress and lights up every scene. Gregory Peck is weaker, and the role he plays casts him as wimp. It's a role that some men might have declined to play during that period of time, and it is to his credit that he took it on.

A film like this makes me realize just how far the pendulum has swung in our attitudes towards psychology in general and how much of the Freudian logic is still etched deeply on our consciousness. For that reason, I recommend it as glimpse of a bygone era, and to experience Ingrid Bergman at a high point in her career.

Based on a novel by Russell Banks who also wrote "The Sweet Hereafter", and directed by Paul Schrader of "Raging Bull" and "The Mosquito Coast" fame, the winter landscape and cold bleakness of the town sets the tone for this exploration of the dark legacy of what it is to be a man.

Nick Nolte stars in this dark story of the lone policeman in a small New Hampshire town investigating a hunting accident. He is divorced and trying and to get custody of his young daughter who rejects his fumbling efforts to be nice to her. James Coburn is excellent as Nick Nolte's father, a brutal and angry old man who typifies a sick machismo which has in turn afflicted his son. His acting is extraordinary as is Nolte's although their styles are different. Noltle is subtle; his facial expressions are controlled and typical of a man who has learned to hold in emotion. Coburn's face, on the other hand, is more deeply expressive; his eyebrows move, his mouth hardens, his eyes glare.

This is the kind of dark, brooding movie that I like. For a brief few hours I enter its world and get completely absorbed in the characters in the way I did with "A thousand Acres" or "The Horse Whisperers". Like these films, there are no easy answers and the conclusion does not wrap up in a neat little Hollywood package that is soon forgotten. Recommended.

Based on a novel by Russell Banks who also wrote "The Sweet Hereafter", and directed by Paul Schrader of "Raging Bull" and "The Mosquito Coast" fame, the winter landscape and cold bleakness of the town sets the tone for this exploration of the dark legacy of what it is to be a man.

Nick Nolte stars in this dark story of a the lone policeman in a small New Hampshire town investigating a hunting accident. James Coburn is excellent as Nick Nolte's father, a brutal and angry old man who typifies a sick machismo which has in turn afflicted his son. His acting is extraordinary as is Nolte's although their styles are different. Noltle is subtle; his facial expressions are controlled and typical of a man who has learned to hold in emotion. Coburn's face, on the other hand, is more deeply expressive; his eyebrows move, his mouth hardens, his eyes glare.

This is the kind of dark, brooding movie that I like. For a brief few hours I enter its world and get completely absorbed in the characters in the way I did with "A thousand Acres" or "The Horse Whisperers". Like these films, there are no easy answers and the conclusion does not wrap up in a neat little Hollywood package that is soon forgotten.

I wasn't disappointed in this movie, although it actually used only a few of the high points of the book. The case is true and brings out the very real issues of water pollution and the responsibilities of corporations. The theme is the realities of law today. Well cast with some excellent performances by Robert Duval, the lawyer for Beatrice Foods Corporation and John Travolta, the lawyer from the people of Woburn, MA, this film that will leave you thinking long after you have left the theater. Recommended.

Clever and fun, enjoy this flick for what it is. The story of Shakespeare in love, his inspiration to write Romeo and Juliet -- and a good love story. It's lighthearted and a good story and has enough just enough of historical accuracy and quotes from Shakespeare to appeal to a wide variety of audiences. See it for the mistakes it makes in history. See it for a spoof of Shakespeare. And see it to enjoy Gynyethn Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes and Ben Affleck. Not only do they all look good, as does the sets, but they can act too. And for anybody remotely connected with the ups and downs of theatrical performances, this is a lighthearted look at this special world.

Edward Norton's performance was great. He is a fine actor who has a natural mastery of difficult roles and made me feel that he actually WAS the skinhead he portrayed.

Southern California is a hotbed of racial tension and it's time that someone finally was willing to deal with this problem in a film.

Ed Norton plays the role of a skinhead who has a change of attitude while in prison and then tries to keep his younger brother from following in his footsteps. There's lots of brutality and violence. And lots of excellent directing. Flashbacks are in black and white. There are good uses of slow motion and cuts. But not every performance was as stellar as Norton's, and there was way too much psycho-babble instead of some thought-provoking scenes. Recommended for the curious, but it is certainly not a great film.

This is an action-adventure movie with a message. It is about terrorist attacks in New York by Arab extremists and our government's reaction to it. I understand that Arab American groups have protested about this movie. I don't understand why because, on the contrary, the movie does much to promote understanding by depicting the result of over-reaction. Indeed, Brooklyn is put under siege. Arab-American young males are rounded up. And democracy flies out the window. A chilling thought.

The casting is perfect. Each character really gets into his or her role. And the budget is big enough to have overhead airplane shots and special effect explosions. I was caught right up in the story as the tension mounted, waiting for what would happen next and thinking about the hard choices that the characters had to make. Many reviews have suggested that this movie missed its mark and that the action got bogged down in the message. I disagree.

I expected more from this film because its supposed to be a classic. But I found the plot contrived and confusing and the acting wooden.

This independent film is a soap opera that dares to tread in some heretofore unexplored places. Loosely, it follows a dysfunctional family through a variety of perverse situations. There's a lot of masturbation, as well as other types of scenes played for shock value, and lots of twists and turns to the plot. There's also some incredibly good acting and directing.

However, the director, Todd Solondz, didn't seem to quite know whether to play this film for comedy or pathos and most of it is not funny, just sick and depressing. It moves too slow and is too long and even though the characters are interesting, they're cardboard cartoon sorry versions of human beings. Like other recent independent films, small parts are played by name people --Ben Gazarra, Louise Lasser and Marla Maples. None of their performances are noteworthy. However, the rest of the cast is excellent.

Interesting, but not memorable, and certainly not for everyone.

I recently discovered the reruns of "ER". And I'm hooked.

I love the excitement. The life and death situations. The very human struggles and emotions that each of the characters have to deal with. I find myself totally caught up in the story and feel real and complex emotions for the interesting characters. There's a lesson to be learned in every episode. Real and human stuff to think for the rest of the evening. I identify with the characters and feel I'm right there, inside the emergency room.

There's high drama here and I live voraciously in it, without having to take the consequences for making a mistake. Highly recommended.

This is an important film of Academy Award caliber. The characters are unforgettable and the story, with its haunting surreal quality, will linger long in my mind.

I read the book and found it difficult to read. Translated to film, however, the story works, and I found myself intrigued and interested in the tale set in 1873 of former slaves, making a new life for themselves and still living with the horror of the past.

Hooray for Danny Glover. He is outstanding in the part of Paul D, the former slave who comes courting Sethe, played by Oprah Winfrey, who is living with the effects of one horrible act of desperation. Oprah brings her presence to the film and is a good actress. Alas, though, perhaps it is because she is so very very well-known, she was always more Oprah to me than the character she was playing.

The transitions and flashbacks within the film are seamless, so much so that I didn't realize until the list of credits rolled, that the part of Sethe as a younger woman was played by a different actress, Lisa Gay Hamilton. She is in the scenes that give the movie its dramatic punch and drive the story and her acting is outstanding. If Oprah gets nominated for an academy award I certainly hope that Lisa Gay Hamilton is not forgotten.

At almost three hours the movie is too long. Some of the middle could have been honed down. Sethe's daughter, Denver, played by Kimberly Elise and the strange young woman visitor named Beloved, played by Thandie Newton, have many scenes together. The audience guesses, long before the characters do, as to exactly who Beloved is, and there are much too many scenes illustrating the same points. While played beautifully by the two young actresses, a few less examples would have served the movie better.

Beloved is the story of some troubled people told against a historical background that has never been really done well in a film before. Its a somber story, with not a bit of comic relief to relieve the tension that keeps mounting. It is also a classic tale of sin and punishment and, finally, a sort of redemption. Recommended. But be forewarned that you will not come out of the theater smiling.