Reviews

Bowfinger - **

Movies about filmmaking are so prevalent that they form an entire genre. Some of these films, such as They Player, focus on the rich and powerful elite in Hollywood. Others, including Mistress and Ed Wood, are more concerned with the bit players who toil in obscurity, hoping desperately for one shot at greatness. Steve Martin's Bowfinger falls into the latter category. It tells the story of nearly bankrupt moviemaker Bobby Bowfinger (Martin.) Armed with a screenplay entitled "Chubby Rain," which he is convinced is the next action masterpiece, Bowfinger attempts to secure megastar Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy) to play the lead role. When Kit promptly refuses, Bowfinger finds himself unable to deliver the sad news to his crew, which is composed of country rube Daisy (Heather Graham,) accountant turned screenwriter Afrim (Adam Alexi-Malle,) and a hammy prima donna named Carol (played by Christine Baranski.)

Instead, Bowfinger reports that Ramsey accepted the role, but on special terms. Ramsey, he claims, is a method actor who refuses to interact with any crewmembers while off camera. Moreover, Ramsey does not even want to see the camera during filming. Such a thing would distract him and break his concentration. Bowfinger's plan is an audacious one. He essentially stalks the megastar, engineering situations in which his cast members can approach Ramsey and deliver their lines while a hidden camera records the scene. Kit will star in the movie against his will. This setup is a brilliant basis for a movie, filled with comedic potential. Unfortunately, Bowfinger fails to deliver on the premise. The cause of its failure is in its lack of detail. A brilliant premise is not enough to sustain a film. A film also needs sharply written details, of which Bowfinger has precious few.

Take, for example, the character of Daisy. She is a wide-eyed country girl, just off the bus from a midwestern state. But before you can say "action" she is eagerly hopping into bed with whoever can advance her career that particular day. We are treated to several scenes of her seducing first Bowfinger, then Afrim, then another actor, then finally the cinematographer. Even the first scene was shaky in its comic potential. By the fourth, this plot line is merely tedious. Another weakness can be found in Ramsey's membership in "Mind Head," a new-age religious cult apparently modeled after Scientology. The sets, costumes, and performances in the Mind Head scenes are so outlandish that they stop being funny and merely become silly. One gets the distinct impression that these scenes were included simply because Martin could not mine enough material from his main plot to fill an entire movie.

These shortcomings are a shame, because there are several diamonds in this rough. While Eddie Murphy turns in a strong performance as the egotistical Kit, he outdoes himself in the dual role of Jiff, a wide-eyed innocent hired as Ramsey's stand-in. "Chubby Rain," the movie within the movie, is a hysterical parody of action film cliches. Indeed, I would have preferred that Steve Martin completely rework Bowfinger as Chubby Rain, an action film parody from start to finish. Many critics have praised Bowfinger as a superior comedy. The only explanation I can find for this is that, at its core, it is a sweet movie populated with fairly likable characters. This puts it in marked contrast with other big name comedies of the year, including American Pie and Bid Daddy, which use crude vulgarities and shock tactics to entertain. It is true that Bowfinger is not crude. But it is also not very funny.

Limbo - **1/2

This movie is so brilliant and artistic that I have no idea what it means.

It tells the story of a handyman who meets a singer. The singer has a troubled teenage daughter. The handyman and the singer engage in a courtship. Then they set out on a sailing voyage. (The handyman was once a fisherman, you see.) Then... well I'm afraid to give away the ending. Actually, I cannot give away the ending to this film, because it does not have one.

The posters for Limbo define the title as: A condition of unknowable outcome. Limbo, I suppose, describes the state in which the characters find themselves. But it also clearly describes how the audience is left hanging. I'm sure there is a singular, artistic statement being made here. I just don't know what it is.

If this movie baffles me, why am I giving it **1/2? Well, the performances by David Straithairn and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are strong. The movie is well made. And John Sayles' dialogue is as sharp and clever as ever. Overall, the film is a fun trip to take - until you fall off the cliff at the end.

Drop Dead Gorgeous - ***

This mockumentary follows the exploits of a half dozen teenage contestants in a beauty pageant staged in a small midwestern town. We meet the plucky, goodhearted girl (Kirsten Dunst) who practices her tap dancing as she performs her night job - applying make up to the corpses in the morgue. We also meet the beautiful, soulless, evil, Kathy Lee Gifford wannabe (Denise Richards,) whose enemies seem to meet with unfortunate ends. This film skewers everything, from beauty pageants to cheerleaders, from trailer trash to the gun culture. It is quite funny, but also merciless. Frequently, as when Denise Richards performs her talent number with a statue of Jesus on the cross, you may find yourself cringing as you laugh. Unfortunately, the film is a shade too hyperbolic. It takes too much glee in poking fun at its subjects as it leaves reality far behind. One character, for instance, suffers physical mutilation played for laughs.

The performances are strong. Kirsten Dunst is outstanding as the intelligent and charming lead character. Judging by this film, she will not join the long, sad list of child actors who lose all of their talent and charm when they turn fourteen. Denise Richards is well cast as the beautiful villain, because she is not a very good actress, and here she is playing the part of a vain, soulless mannequin. Ellen Barkin, cast against type as Dunst's trashy mom, is always entertaining. The film is directed and scored well, but I was dismayed by one thing: It did not make the best use of it's mock documentary format. The camera was too stable, the angles too well-planned.

My only other complaint is structural in nature: The film simply goes on too long. When the pageant is over and a winner is named, the movie continues for what seems an eternity, following the town's representative in the state and national competitions. Did we really need to see this? The answer is no. When the first pageant ends, so does the drama.

The Thomas Crown Affair - ***

Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) is a billionaire Manhattan playboy who has everything a man could desire - fame, fortune, success, even adventure. The adventure is supplied by Crown's risky leisure interests, which include sailing, gliding, and art theft. The movie opens with an elaborate heist of a priceless Monet from a heavily guarded gallery in New York. It is a long, complex, and wonderful sequence which keeps the audience guessing about its eventual outcome. Enter police detective Michael McCann (Denis Leary) and insurance investigator Catherine Banning (Rene Russo,) who join forces to recover the painting. McCann is quickly frustrated by Banning's tactics, which include approaching Crown and boldly announcing that he is the guilty party. What Banning understands, and McCann does not, is that Crown is basically a bored rich kid in search of a thrill. And what better thrill than to seduce an investigator who knows you are guilty, and will do anything to prove it?

If the plot sounds familiar, that's because it is. This story was originally told in the 1968 film of the same name, which starred Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, directed by Norman Jewison. In that version, however, Thomas Crown was a bank robber. But more likely audiences will be reminded of Entrapment, a film which came out earlier this year starring Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones. It, too, featured a rich art thief and a beautiful insurance investigator who conducted an affair while simultaneously plotting against each other. Of the two recent films, The Thomas Crown Affair is the more effective one.

The success of this story depends entirely upon the chemistry between the leads. We must believe that they are truly attracted to each other. We do. After all, who would not be attracted to either Pierce Brosnan or Rene Russo? (And what a wonderful decision to cast the female role in the same age bracket as the leading man. Sadly, this is so rare as to be groundbreaking.) We must also believe that each party in the relationship is capable of swindling, even abandoning, the other. While the attraction between Crown and Banning is evident, both actors maintain enough detachment to make the viewer believe they could each lower the boom on the other at any moment. The relationship is like a chess game, where each participant has hidden agendas that play out in the background while the romance fills the foreground.

Unfortunately, the screenplay calls for the Russo character to lose her edge fairly early in the game. Previously a hard-bitten investigator, she eventually degenerates into a lovesick puppy. This softening of her character, coupled with the overly conventional ending that it generates, is the movie's greatest flaw. But along the way, the viewer is treated to a well-made film. The locations are picturesque, from Crown's palatial Manhattan office to his secluded Martinique retreat. And the impeccable wardrobe seems to have been provided primarily by Giorgio Armani. Finally, the movie ends with yet another astounding gallery heist even more daring and original than the first. Robberies aside, however, the thrill of this picture is in wondering which of the lover/competitors will win the game. The disappointment comes when we realize there will be a draw.

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me - **1/2

The bottom line is this: If you enjoyed the first film, you will enjoy this one. If you disliked the first film, you will probably dislike the sequel. In other words, it is simply more of the same.

The plot... such as it is... goes a little something like this: Dr. Evil (Mike Myers,) banished to space in the first Austin Powers adventure, returns to earth and creates a time machine. He then travels back to 1969 in an attempt to steal Austin's mojo. Meanwhile, in 1999, Austin (Mike Myers) learns that his new bride Vanessa Kensington ( Elizabeth Hurley) is really a FemmeBot. Austin reluctantly dispatches the evil machine before traveling back to the swinging 60s himself to foil Dr. Evil's nefarious plot. Dr. Evil and his son Scott (Seth Green) still do not get along. Even an appearance on the Jerry Springer show fails to bring them together. So Dr. Evil creates a clone that is identical to himself, only 1/8 the size. This character (Verne Troyer) is dubbed "Mini-Me" by his creator. Once he arrives in 1969, Austin joins forces with CIA agent Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham.) Together they travel to the volcanic island which serves as Dr. Evil's stronghold and attempt to foil his scheme: destroying the earth by firing a giant laser cannon located on the moon.

Who are we kidding, here? The plot of this film could not be less important. What is important is the yuk-yuks. Are they fast and frequent? Yes and no. The film certainly features moments of hilarity, as when Dr. Evil and Mini-Me engage in a performance of "Just the Two of Us," when Dr. Evil begins quoting The Exorcist after his electronic chair begins to malfunction, or when Scott Evil argues with his father about he proper way to capture and kill Austin. But all too often the gags run on and on, wearing out their welcome. Prime examples are the tent scene, where Dr. Evil's henchmen believe they see Felicity removing all manner of strange objects from Austin's... uh, private regions. And then there are the two (not one, but two!) scenes in which various passers-by note Dr. Evil's spacecraft in the sky and comment upon its unique appearance, which resembles... uh, more private parts.

That brings us to another flaw in the film. It is obsessed with pre-pubescent toilet humor. Don't get me wrong. I love low-brow comedy as much as the next male. But this film reveled inordinately in it. Aside from the scenes noted above, consider the following: (a) The character of Fat Bastard (Mike Myers,) whose sole purpose is to disgust the audience, (b) Austin's accidental drinking of a substance he THOUGHT was coffee, and (c) The opening sequence in which Austin prances nude around a hotel, cleverly (so we are supposed to think) obscured by mirrors, babies, titles, etc. (Never mind that this exact gag appeared in the first film!) The comedic element which works best is Dr. Evil. His relationships with Scott and Mini-Me are both funny in their own way (and neither one involves jokes with bodily fluids.) Finally, Rob Lowe is fantastic as the young Number Two, essentially delivering a perfect imitation of Robert Wagner.

In some ways this film is funnier than the original. The inclusion of Mini-Me is a particularly good addition. But the film suffers because it repeats many of the jokes from the prequel, which causes them to seem old and tired. When you add to this the film's practice of dragging out every joke to the point of annoyance, one can see why this film is a moderately funny comedy of two hours, instead of the hilarious comedy of ninety minutes which it should have been.

Bowfinger - **

Movies about filmmaking are so prevalent that they form an entire genre. Some of these films, such as They Player, focus on the rich and powerful elite in Hollywood. Others, including Mistress and Ed Wood, are more concerned with the bit players who toil in obscurity, hoping desperately for one shot at greatness. Steve Martin's Bowfinger falls into the latter category. It tells the story of nearly bankrupt moviemaker Bobby Bowfinger (Martin.) Armed with a screenplay entitled "Chubby Rain," which he is convinced is the next action masterpiece, Bowfinger attempts to secure megastar Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy) to play the lead role. When Kit promptly refuses, Bowfinger finds himself unable to deliver the sad news to his crew, which is composed of country rube Daisy (Heather Graham,) accountant turned screenwriter Afrim (Adam Alexi-Malle,) and a hammy prima donna named Carol (played by Christine Baranski.)

Instead, Bowfinger reports that Ramsey accepted the role, but on special terms. Ramsey, he claims, is a method actor who refuses to interact with any crewmembers while off camera. Moreover, Ramsey does not even want to see the camera during filming. Such a thing would distract him and break his concentration. Bowfinger's plan is an audacious one. He essentially stalks the megastar, engineering situations in which his cast members can approach Ramsey and deliver their lines while a hidden camera records the scene. Kit will star in the movie against his will. This setup is a brilliant basis for a movie, filled with comedic potential. Unfortunately, Bowfinger fails to deliver on the premise. The cause of its failure is in its lack of detail. A brilliant premise is not enough to sustain a film. A film also needs sharply written details, of which Bowfinger has precious few.

Take, for example, the character of Daisy. She is a wide-eyed country girl, just off the bus from a midwestern state. But before you can say "action" she is eagerly hopping into bed with whoever can advance her career that particular day. We are treated to several scenes of her seducing first Bowfinger, then Afrim, then another actor, then finally the cinematographer. Even the first scene was shaky in its comic potential. By the fourth, this plot line is merely tedious. Another weakness can be found in Ramsey's membership in "Mind Head," a new-age religious cult apparently modeled after Scientology. The sets, costumes, and performances in the Mind Head scenes are so outlandish that they stop being funny and merely become silly. One gets the distinct impression that these scenes were included simply because Martin could not mine enough material from his main plot to fill an entire movie.

These shortcomings are a shame, because there are several diamonds in this rough. While Eddie Murphy turns in a strong performance as the egotistical Kit, he outdoes himself in the dual role of Jiff, a wide-eyed innocent hired as Ramsey's stand-in. "Chubby Rain," the movie within the movie, is a hysterical parody of action film cliches. Indeed, I would have preferred that Steve Martin completely rework Bowfinger as Chubby Rain, an action film parody from start to finish. Many critics have praised Bowfinger as a superior comedy. The only explanation I can find for this is that, at its core, it is a sweet movie populated with fairly likable characters. This puts it in marked contrast with other big name comedies of the year, including American Pie and Bid Daddy, which use crude vulgarities and shock tactics to entertain. It is true that Bowfinger is not crude. But it is also not very funny.

Mickey Blue Eyes - *

Mickey Blue Eyes is an example of that rare type of comedy I do not enjoy: The unfunny type. This is doubly disappointing because the concept is a solid one. Michael Felgate (Hugh Grant) is an effete Brit who runs an auction house in the Big Apple. Gina Vitale, played by Jeanne Tripplehorn, is the love of Michael's life. After a three-month courtship, he proposes marriage. But Gina rebuffs him because, we later learn, she comes from a Mafia family. Gina does not want Michael to wed into the family because she fears the corrupting influence it may have on him. Michael insists that he can marry into the mob literally without doing it figuratively, and Gina relents. Before you can say "fugedaboudit," Michael finds himself embroiled in money laundering schemes and body disposals with Gina's father Frank (James Caan.)

The comedic principle employed here is the same one used to much greater effect in last year's Analyze This. By juxtaposing the extremes of mob life with the trivialities of everyday existence, the filmmakers hope that hilarity will ensue. It doesn't. There are so many problems that I almost do not know where to begin. Let us start with the auction house. Michael's boss, played by James Fox, is a broad caricature who seems shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason other than to set up a few flat jokes in the final scenes. A subplot involving a nearly deaf widow who mistakenly bids on mob paintings is laboriously established in painstaking detail. It is an obvious sequence totally lacking in comedy. Even greater is the sin when we learn the purpose of this scene - to set up a bizarre and unconvincing death scene which could have been engineered countless easier (and funnier) ways.

The movie is simply tone deaf when it comes to comedy. Michael's proposal to Gina occurs in a Chinese restaurant, where he conspires with the manager to slip his proposal into a fortune cookie. Predictably, the plan goes awry in standard sitcom fashion. Meant to be charming, the scene is simply obnoxious. Then there is the accidental shooting of the don's son. Instead of serving as the climax, as it should, it occurs early in the film, leading to a bizarre FBI sting which culminates at Michael's wedding reception. It is a mark of this movie's misplaced efforts that the sting operation is staged and filmed as though it were part of a thriller. Director Kelly Makin apparently thought we would actually be thrilled by the slow buildup of tension, instead of merely annoyed.

Another severe drawback is the screenplay's reliance on broad cliches. Analyze This was at its funniest when it dealt with specifics of mob life, such as the term "consigliere" as used by Billy Crystal, or DeNiro's observation, "I was Fredo? I don't think so." in response to Crystal's Godfather-like dream. Mickey Blue Eyes does not possess a single scene depicting Michael's failed attempts at conforming to specific elements of mob life. There is a sequence in which Michael and Frank must take a body out by the river and bury it. Instead of receiving clever observations about the morbid task, the audience is treated to a poorly directed shootout between rival Mafia factions. Time after time, the movie goes for broad, easy punch lines instead of clever observations.

Despite its many and massive flaws, I cannot bring myself to give this film zero stars. Why? Because it stars Hugh Grant, who puts forth a valiant effort to save the movie from itself. As Michael, he is always witty, charming, and self-deprecating. When he attempts to adopt the persona of a notorious mobster named "Mickey Blue Eyes" by using the accent and lingo of the American mob, one cannot help but smile. True, the scene plays far beyond reason, wearing out its welcome. But the blame there goes to the director, not Grant. Aside from his winning performance, there is no reason to recommend this misfire. The funniest line in the film, "I have opposable thumbs," is delivered by a stuffed gorilla. Need I say more?

Instinct - ***

As "Instinct" was created by the writer/director team of Gerald DiPego and John Turtletaub respectively, who brought us that cinematic equivalent of nuclear waste known as "Phenomenon," I would say that "Instinct" marks a considerable advance.

For the most part, the creative talents are strong. Sir Anthony Hopkins, potentially laughable as a primatologist gone native, somehow manages to pull it off. He is capable of conveying both intelligence and wisdom, as well as a feral madness. Cuba Gooding, Jr. is less successful as Dr. Theo Caulder. He delivers a restrained performance for much of the film, but during the last reel commits the "Jerry McGuire" sin of going over the top, seriously damaging the movie's finale. The score is spare, but powerful. And Turtletaub's direction is, for the most part, focused and unobtrusive. Unfortunately, he makes the embarrassing decision to pilfer a key shot from "The Shawshank Redemption." Note to filmmakers: If you're going to steal an image from another movie, don't steal the signature shot of a superior work. It only invites unfair comparisons from the audience.

The story of "Instinct" is a remarkably simple one. And as the majority of scenes are dialogue exchanges which occur in a prison cell, the movie flirts with redundancy. Yet it works. And the reason it works is the secondary story. Not Dr. Ethan Powell and his experiences with the apes (although these scenes work well,) but Dr. Theo Caulder and what he learns from Powell. In this regard, the film's best scene is the one in which Powell steals Caulder's illusions. Granted, sometimes the movie is ham handed in its sermonizing (as when Powell paints his jail cell with a map of the world and gives Theo a history lesson,) but it still delivers the required emotional impact. The overall message is simple, but powerful all the same.

The Sixth Sense - ***

Bruce Willis plays Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a gifted child psychologist down on his luck following the tragic suicide of a former patient. Dispirited, the good doctor finds himself burnt out and emotionally distant from his wife Anna (Olivia Williams.) Then along comes young Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment,) an eight-year-old boy clearly struggling with inner demons. Cole's mother Lynn (Toni Collette) is having difficulty enough raising the boy on her own. It does not help that the child is shy, sullen, and prone to sudden fits of unexplained panic. Grasping for redemption, Dr. Crowe treats the troubled lad, eventually befriending him. For only when Crowe earns Cole's trust can the boy fully explain his secret. It would be wrong of me to divulge anything further. The rest of the movie's secrets I shall leave for you to discover.

The Sixth Sense is a triumph of tone and ambiance. It manages to startle us, to make us grab the forearm of the person at our side, and to gasp at strategic moments. With the aid of cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (The Silence of the Lambs), director M. Night Shyamalan infuses every shot with dread and foreboding. In short, it is a highly successful thriller. Yet its most impressive accomplishment is that it does not skimp on drama. The movie is populated with three-dimensional characters that behave in real and honest ways. Take Toni Collette as the boy's mother. In a standard thriller, this character would be a throw-away, serving no purpose other than to complain to her son and disbelieve him at crucial points. But in The Sixth Sense, the mother is a concerned parent who is struggling to put food on the table and maintain her own sanity, much less the sanity of her son. She is a living, breathing person with strengths and weaknesses. As a result, we empathize with her. The same holds true for all of the supporting players, including the Doctor's neglected wife.

The heart of the movie lies is the burgeoning friendship between Willis and Osment. It works wonderfully, thanks in large part to Osment's outstanding performance. Not since Radio Flyer and E.T. have I been so impressed with a young actor's abilities. When the boy is in the throes of a panic attack, you feel it. When he warily backs away from Dr. Crowe during their first meeting, you feel his hesitation as if it were your own. By his own standards, Bruce Willis turns in a relatively strong performance. It may lack the emotion of In Country and the flair of Death Becomes Her, but it is certainly two notches above his typical action work, such as his role in Striking Distance. One element that I found lacking for much of the film was the relationship between Crowe and his wife. Their estrangement seemed arbitrary, more a result of screenwriting necessity than of real life problems. By the picture's conclusion, however, this plot line was sewn up nicely.

The film has a unique conclusion, which will have viewers discussing it in the lobby, in the car on the way home, and around the water cooler the next day. Some will love the ending. Most will be surprised by it, but some will not. I have mixed feelings in that while I found the final revelation to be intriguing, I wonder if it throws off the movie's delicate balance, sending it into standard thriller territory. The conclusion is not gimmicky, yet it is startling. The Sixth Sense is such a sincere and honest film that I question whether it needed that final twist. Oh, and I also saw it coming from a mile away.

Dick - ***

Betsy Jobs (Kirsten Dunst) and Arlene Lorenzo (Michelle Williams) are two ditzy fifteen-year-olds who inadvertently find themselves playing a crucial role in the Watergate scandal. Arlene lives in the Watergate hotel with her mother Helen (Teri Garr.) When Betsy and Arlene sneak outside to mail a fan letter to Bobby Sherman, they place duct tape on the door to aid in re-entry. A security guard stumbles upon the infamous tape, which leads to the apprehension of the Watergate burglars. During a field trip to the white house, Betsy and Arlene are recruited by Nixon (Dan Hedaya) to be the official white house dog walkers. The intrepid girls even become involved with Woodward and Bernstein (Will Farrell and Bruce McCulloch.)

Dick is a cross between Clueless, Nixon, and Forrest Gump. Like Nixon, it deals with the downfall of our nation's most notorious president. But unlike that surprisingly sympathetic Oliver Stone opus, this movie, while a comedy, cuts the president no slack; the title says it all. Similar to Clueless, the central characters are shallow, uninformed teeny-boppers who never-the-less possess insight and compassion for others. And, like Forrest Gump, the stars of this film walk through history and make crucial contributions without ever realizing it. Some of Dick's funniest passages come when Watergate secrets are finally revealed. We learn what was on those 18 minutes of erased tape, for instance. We even learn the identity of Deep Throat. But the heart of the film lies in Arlene's infatuation with Nixon. During school one day, she practices writing the name "Mrs. Arlene Nixon"!

Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams are good in the lead roles. They both manage the tricky task of being ditzy without inspiring contempt from the audience. Dan Hedaya is strong as Nixon. He wisely copies Nixon's general posture, mannerisms, and tone of voice, without resorting to a full-fledged impersonation. Ditto for Saul Rubinek as Henry Kissinger. However, I believe it was folly to cast so many "Saturday Night Live" alumni, including Will Farrell, Jim Breuer (as John Dean,) and Ana Gasteyer (as Rosemary Woods.) In small roles, their campy overacting is nothing more than a distraction. Dave Foley acquits himself nicely as Bob Haldeman.

Despite its light tone and silly plot lines, Dick is a surprisingly scathing film. Betsy and Arlene, basically representing innocent America, are devastated when they learn of Nixon's illegality, bigotry, smallness, and "potty mouth." Arlene's romantic image of the president is shattered. So the girls conspire to expose Nixon's treachery and help remove him from office. But despite their sobering lesson in the true nature of politics in Washington, they retain some naivete. Watching Nixon's resignation speech, Betsy remarks, "Well, they'll never lie to us again."

Deep Blue Sea - ***

In her quest for a cure to Alzheimer's, Dr. Susan McAlester (Saffron Burrows) unwisely begins to genetically alter killer sharks, enhancing their brain mass. The plan is to harvest the altered tissue and use it to regenerate human brain cells. Uh huh. Sounds like McAlester could use a few more brain cells her own damn self. This is not so much the plot of Deep Blue Sea as it is an excuse for a series of action set pieces involving humans and killer sharks. Naturally the malevolent meanies escape from their pens and storm Aquatica, the floating science lab where McAlester performs her experiments with the aid of shark wrangler Carter Blake (Thomas Jane,) cook Sherman "Preacher" Dudley (LL Cool J,) and millionaire businessman Russell Franklin (Samuel L. Jackson.) Also assisting in the experiment are scientists Jim Whitlock and Janice Higgins (Stellan Skarsgard and Jacqueline McKenzie,) along with technician Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport.)

The mayhem is helmed by director Renny Harlin, who is no stranger to the action sequence. (For proof, I refer you to Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, Cutthroat Island, and The Long Kiss Goodnight.) Harlin's ability to construct a thrilling scene cannot be disputed. Unfortunately, his penchant for completely ignoring plot and character also cannot be argued. Technically this film is well mounted. And the actors do an adequate job with what they are given. But the screenplay simply does not allow for any real character development or involvement. Jackson, Skarsgard, and Rapaport all do their usual top notch work, but in small and uncomplicated roles. LL Cool J is adequate in his comic relief function. But what about the leads? Certainly Saffron Burrows is easy enough to look at, but can she really be believed as a genetic scientist? No. It is evident that the filmmakers realized this, for they managed to write in a scene whereby McAlester must strip down to her skivvies to escape from one of the sharks. (A writer myself, I can admire the ingenuity which this required.) As Blake, I initially feared that Thomas Jane was cast merely because he looked good in the bathing suit. But I was pleased to find that he delivered a surprisingly sympathetic and well-rounded performance. More than any other, I wanted his character to survive.

Which brings me to the true fun of this movie - guessing who will die next, and how, and when. What this film lacks in depth and insight, it makes up for in body count. If you are familiar with the genre and think you already know all of the cliches, you will enjoy Deep Blue Sea. It takes relish in subverting those standard cliches, in killing off characters in an unlikely order, and in surprising ways. Indeed, the final action scene is practically groundbreaking in what it asks the audience to accept.

The sharks are scary enough, I suppose, but I found them a bit disappointing. Perhaps this is because we are simply allowed to see too much of them. The reason that Jaws was so terrifying was because the shark remained a mystery. We did not get a good look at the beast until the end. It left a great deal to the imagination. Deep Blue Sea makes the unfortunate mistake of taking an omniscient point of view, frequently showing the sharks beneath the surface of the water. Wouldn't it have been scarier to see the sharks only when the human characters see them? I suppose the filmmakers were too impressed with their CGI effects to let that happen. It is telling that the most riveting scene in the film is one in which characters are suspended from a great height, trying to climb skyward as the water level below rises, bringing a shark with it. It is the fear of the shark, not the shark itself, which thrills.

The Blair Witch Project - ***

In October of 1994, Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard and Michael Williams hiked into Maryland's Black Hills Forest to shoot a documentary about a local legend, "The Blair Witch." They vanished, never to be heard from again. One year later, their footage was found. It records the filmmakers' frightening five-day journey into the woods and captures the events that led up to their disappearance.

The Blair Witch Project was unveiled to the world at the Sundance Film Festival, where it generated tremendous buzz. Glowing word of mouth has followed the picture ever since. Critical quotes such as "Scary as hell" and "The scariest film since the Exorcist" have been splashed across newspaper and television ads. Audience interest is so high that the two screens in Washington, DC which run the film sell out days in advance. Given all of this hype, my disappointment in the movie was inevitable. If you walk into the theater expecting the scariest experience of your life, chances are you will be let down. However, I suspect that if I had walked into the movie cold, with no expectations and no knowledge of the hype or the reception in Park City, I would have been pleasantly surprised.

To be clear, The Blair Witch Project is not a true documentary. The three people we follow are portraying themselves, and the Maryland locations are authentic. But the actions are staged (as are the fates of the characters.) Unlike Drop Dead Gorgeous (another mockumentary), this one is so believable, so successful in its authenticity, that many people are fooled into thinking it is real. Directors Eduardo Sanchez and Dan Myrick shoot only in 16mm and High-8, the film stocks available to the three lead characters. While this crudity of form sometimes impinges on the viewer's ability to discern what is happening (what IS that wrapped in the cloth!?!), it is essential in establishing the documentary's authenticity. Indeed, the unclear sound and the limited night vision only add to the movie's bag of scary tricks. The Blair Witch Project, with its low budget and documentary feel, relies upon implied menace to scare its audience. It does not use CGI or state of the art make-up effects. It uses piles of rocks and twigs bound together. (I'm not kidding.) I rather enjoyed this new slant on terror, and admired the ingenuity employed to actually make piles of rocks menacing.

The film possesses a certain streak of artfulness not typically found in a Hollywood horror movie. I was particularly intrigued by an implied theme about moviemaking in general: It must be lived to be authentic. Three students set out to film a movie about a scary legend. But when they get lost in the woods, they forget about shooting their planned documentary and instead shoot "behind the scenes" footage of the trio's quest for civilization. Only when they deviate from the script and abandon any pretense of being outsiders or observers do they REALLY document the power of the Blair Witch legend. In essence, they must become a part of the story in order to capture the story. The entire form of the film, a mock documentary, serves to emphasize this principle.

Is it scary? Yeah, sure. It is scary in the same way that most horror films are scary - some guy is walking backwards through the dark and you just know he is going to get an ice pick in the eye. But it is not bone-chilling terrifying, like The Exorcist or The Shining. Quite to the contrary, the first two thirds of the movie is quite funny as it traces our filmmaker's journey through Burkittsville while interviewing the locals. Only in the final act does the tension really take hold. Even then, it does not reach its stride until the final sequence, when our intrepid filmmakers stumble upon that house...

American Pie - ***

This film tells the story of four male high school friends in Michigan who enter into a pact with each other to lose their virginity by prom night. Jim (Jason Biggs) is an average kid who finds himself tongue-tied whenever he attempts to speak to a beautiful classmate like Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth,) a foreign exchange student. Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) has already gotten to third base with his longtime sweetheart Vicky (Tara Reid,) but he cannot figure out how to... steal home. Oz (Chris Klein) is a Lacrosse jock who joins the choir in order to meet chicks. There he meets Heather (Mena Suvari,) who becomes his duet partner. Finally there is Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas.) A true outsider at the school, Finch supplies his friends with homework assignments and refuses to use public restrooms. During the weeks preceding prom night, the guys pursue various romantic entanglements. Sometimes they find enlightenment, sometimes they find humiliation, but mostly they find humor.

When American Pie arrived in theaters, it was already cloaked in controversy. Here is a mass market comedy, geared toward teens, which barely escapes the dreaded NC-17. The film is so raunchy that it has been dubbed "There's Something About Pastry." Consider the tag line on the poster: "There's Something About Your First Piece." Is the movie too raunchy? No - but it pushes the envelope. There are three scenes in particular which will probably achieve a certain infamy. Let us quickly dispense with them so we can move on to the rest of the film. (1) The opening scene, in which Jim finds a unique use for a tube sock. (2) The party scene, where Stifler (Seann W. Scott) takes a drink of beer only to find that it is laced with a certain bodily secretion that was taboo in the mainstream cinema until 1998. (3) The scene in which Jim has intimate relations with an apple pie. Yes, the aforementioned scenes are crass, but are they funny? Jim's scenes are, because they both end in his being caught by his father. And they both reinforce the awkwardness and desperation of the teenage male. Stifler's scene, however, is merely gratuitous.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about American Pie is its warm-hearted center. Unlike Porky's or any of the other alleged "sex comedies" of the 80s, American Pie gives all of its characters, both male and female, well-rounded personalities. Of course the guys are interested in sex. But they're also supportive friends to each other, and they're interest in women is multi-dimensional. Oz, for instance, finds that he falls in love with Heather. What started out as a crass conquest turns into a rather sweet romance. The picture is also quite funny at times. I particularly liked the scenes between Jim and his father (Eugene Levy.) Another blockbuster scene is the one in which Jim performs a striptease for Nadia. What Jim does not know is that his performance is being beamed across the internet. American Pie is also successful in the way it presents us with the standard teenage stereotypes (jock, nerd, choir girl, band girl, etc.) and then proceeds to tear them down and show us that all of these characters have other dimensions.

Alas, the film sometimes gets in its own way. The direction, by Paul Weitz, is rather rudimentary, even clumsy at times. The truly romantic moments are undermined by dreary, by-the-numbers musical interludes. Finally, I felt that the film sometimes reveled too much in the humiliation of its characters. Granted, humiliation is a part of life in high school. That is why I liked Jim's sexual encounters with Nadia, the sock, and the pie; while Jim was humiliated, his father would painfully try to explain that "it's perfectly natural." But I felt the movie crossed the line when Stifler slipped Finch a laxative, leading to an embarrassing encounter in the women's restroom. This served absolutely no dramatic purpose. Likewise, the character of Sherman (Chris Owen) achieves total public embarrassment at the conclusion of the picture. Dramatically it is meant to be Sherman's comeuppance, but I felt that it was too harsh - even for him.

Runaway Bride - **1/2

Faced with a looming deadline, USA Today columnist Ike Graham (Richard Gere) writes a story about the "Runaway Bride" of Hale, Maryland. Maggie Carpenter (Julia Roberts) is called the runaway bride because she has developed a nasty habit of leaving grooms at the altar (literally.) Upon reading the damaging article, which portrays her as a heartless man-eater, Maggie complains to the newspaper, which promptly fires Ike because of 15 inaccuracies in the column. Determined to prove that he is right about Maggie (and score a feature article in GQ,) Ike trots off to the tiny hamlet of Hale to get the real scoop on Ms. Carpenter. Once there, he meets Maggie's father Walter (Paul Dooley,) her zany friend Peggy (Joan Cusack,) and her current fiancée Bob (Christopher Meloni.) Will Ike and Maggie fall in love? Will the story end happily? Will I quit asking stupid questions?

As everyone on this planet knows, Runaway Bride marks the on-screen reunion of Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, who last shook the worldwide box office with the monster smash Pretty Woman. In fact, Runaway Bride reassembles much of the talent behind that earlier success, including director Garry Marshall and costar Hector Elizondo, among others. It is a talented cast and crew. Roberts is charming, as always. Here she proves, once and for all, that she could charm the pants off of an audience just by reading the phone listings. Marshall's direction is appropriately unobtrusive. Stylistically, he wisely chose to get out of the way and allow his stars to radiate across the movie screen. The real standout, though is Richard Gere. Normally a serious and aloof screen presence, Gere manages to be completely relaxed, almost zany at times. This is exemplified by the scene in which he runs through a field, afraid of being attacked by snakes. I found his easygoing performance to be the most enjoyable part of the film. Apparently when Gere is not obsessing over the fate of Tibet, he can be a really fun guy.

I will not waste your time with an actual review of this film. If you want to see the picture, you will see the picture - regardless of what I say. And those of you who do not want to see it (like that guy I ran into in line at the theater who was dragged there by his wife) would not be swayed, no matter how glowing my comments. Let me say simply that the story is as predictable as an episode of TVs "Matlock", but less complicated. The plot is so light, so airy and insubstantial that it almost floats away. Yet I enjoyed the movie anyway, if only for the chemistry generated by the two charming leads. Runaway Bride, an otherwise middling comedy, receives **1/2 simply because of their amazing screen presence. Imagine what they could do with a quality script!

Summer of Sam - **

Well, here we are again. Another year, another bad Spike Lee joint. I resolve today to stop following Lee's career with any real interest - it's just too depressing to see a talented, potentially brilliant filmmaker squander his talent.

Summer of Sam is not so much a motion picture as it is a collection of directorial tics. We have all of the usual Lee gimmicks: characters "walking" on dollies, 16mm and other film gauges, portentous street signs, squeezed anamorphic widescreen, etc. What we don't have is a story... or interesting characters... or a message. I will not deny that Lee is successful at evoking a time and place - Brooklyn, 1977. And, as usual, he coaxes some wonderful performances out of his actors (particularly Adrian Brody as Ritchie.) But for what purpose?

The alleged plot is as follows: It is the summer of 1977, and Son of Sam is terrorizing New York City. It's the hottest summer on record. A city-wide blackout leads to looting and rioting. And amidst all of this, a Brooklyn guy named Ritchie returns home from Europe, only to find himself suspected of being the serial killer. Sounds like a decent plot, yes? Well why, then, does Lee spend more than half the film following the exploits of Vinnie (John Leguizamo) and his wife (Mira Sorvino)? Does their estranged relationship have any bearing on the other stories? No. Is it an interesting plot line? Only marginally. We also meet two cops working the Son of Sam case, only to see them lost among the film's numerous plot lines. We meet a local gangster, whose scenes go nowhere and add nothing to the story.

The film has a great soundtrack. That's about the best I can say.

The General's Daughter - **

John Travolta stars as Paul Brenner, an army officer in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID.) We meet him as he is attempting to infiltrate an illegal arms ring operating out of Fort MacCallum. Undercover, Brenner uses an irritating southern accent all too similar to Travolta's Clintonesque performance in Primary Colors. Thankfully Brenner quickly dispatches with the arms dealer (and the accent) before moving on to another case - the apparent rape and murder of Captain Elisabeth Campbell (Leslie Stefanson.) It is quite a horrifying scene: Captain Campbell lies nude on the ground, cord around her neck, arms and legs spread and tied to tent pegs. As if this case were not bad enough already, it gets worse. Brenner learns that the Captain is the daughter of General "Fighting Joe" Campbell (James Cromwell,) famous war hero and highest ranking officer on the base. And then worse again: Brenner is teamed up with a former flame, also working in the CID, named Sara Sunhill (Madeleine Stowe.)

Paul and Sara engage in the requisite relationship banter as they move about the base, examining the evidence. Their search takes them from a local deputy whom Captain Campbell dated, to Campbell's secret S&M lair beneath her house (yes, you heard me right), to the office of the Captain's commanding officer, Colonel Moore (James Woods.) Finally, the big secret is revealed when Brenner and Sunhill pay a visit to West Point, and learn what happened to Captain Campbell there. Much of the investigation feels rather mundane, only to be punctuated by the overly gratuitous nature of the crimes involved. Indeed, when all of the secrets are revealed and the culprit is unmasked, the plot turns out to be amazingly simplistic, not to mention ridiculous.

Which is a shame. Because the production was well mounted. Travolta, as always, never disappoints (once he loses the accent.) Stowe is adequate in her small and, frankly, throwaway role. But the man who steals the show is James Woods as Colonel Moore. It is a small role. Woods probably has only three scenes, comprising ten minutes of screen time. But I found myself praying that those ten minutes would stretch out to thirty or more. Watch closely to the scene in which Brenner questions Moore for the first time. The dialogue (no doubt scripted by cowriter William Goldman) is clever and intelligent. But Woods' performance puts the scene over the top. In his face and body language he is completely calm. But if you watch his hands you can see how nervous the character really is. The direction, cinematography, and score are all top notch. Even the banter between Sunhill and Brenner works rather well. But the basis for the story - the crime itself - is simply ludicrous.

In short: When you find yourself investigating a murder in a movie, ask yourself the following question: Which role is played by a star who is too well known for such a small part?

Big Daddy - **

Big Daddy is one of those films that is impervious to film criticism. Adam Sandler fans could not care less what the critics think of his films. And those who take film criticism seriously need not read a review of a Sandler film because the trailers alone make it clear the movie should be avoided. I have seen only one other Sandler flick, Happy Gilmore. This film and that one are about equal, I'd say.

The plot goes a little something like this: Sandler plays Sonny Koufax, a lazy underachiever who lives off of a $200,000 legal settlement he received when a cab ran over his foot. One day, shortly after Sonny's roommate Kevin (Jon Stewart) leaves for a trip to China, a young boy appears at Sonny's door. The tyke, named Julian (and portrayed by Cole and Dylan Sprouse), is Kevin's illegitimate son. Apparently the mother is sick and wants Kevin to raise the lad. Sonny pretends to be Kevin, adopts the child, and presents this to his girlfriend Vanessa (Kristy Swanson) as evidence of his maturity. Vanessa dumps him anyway, and Sonny finds himself a single father unprepared for the duty.

Much of the film depicts Sonny's unorthodox fathering style, which basically consists of letting the child do whatever he wants. He wears whatever he wants (including a cummerbund,) eats whatever he wants, and even urinates wherever he wants. To be honest, I found a lot of this material amusing. But I also found it to be repetitive, crude, and even sad in a way. Luckily, Sonny soon realizes that fathering is more than mere friendship. So he makes the kid shape up, do his homework, and relieve himself in the proper fashion. Just when things are going well, however, a courtroom finale rears its ugly head and Sonny must prove that he is fit to be a father.

Adam Sandler may be a gifted comedian, but he is not a talented actor. He walks though this film as if in a drug-induced trance, barely ever showing a hint of emotion - or even consciousness. As Julian, the Sprouse twins are even less successful. Certainly they are cute, but they have no acting skill whatsoever. Whenever Julian is called upon to cry, for instance, the actor must turn his back to the camera. The courtroom scene which concludes the film is positively baffling. It lacks realism, insight, comedy, even coherence. And why the bizarre obsession with the Hooters restaurant chain? It is a running gag whose comedic value is questionable the first time it is used, much less the twentieth. Yet the movie is not a total loss. There is a certain charm in seeing a kid trying to raise a kid.

Run Lola Run - ***

Franka Potente stars as Lola, a young woman who has exactly 20 minutes to acquire 100,000 Deutsche Marks in order to save the life of her boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu.) It seems that Manni has been serving as a courier to a local gangster. When he accidentally leaves a bag full of money on the subway train, Manni frantically calls Lola. He tells her that the kingpin will arrive in 20 minutes - and he'll want his money. Lola must not only get the cash, but travel halfway across town to deliver it. This is the simple premise of director Tom Tykwer's 81 minute film. But it is not as simple as it first appears. Much like Groundhog Day and Sliding Doors, Run Lola Run presents us with alternate versions of reality. In effect, we see differing takes on the same scenario. Lola gets not one, but three chances to successfully complete the mission.

In comparing the three scenarios, one finds that many of the elements change only a little. For instance, Lola may barge into a room thirty seconds later in Take 2 than she does in Take 1. But these little differences can have enormous implications. By running into the street and nearly getting hit by a car, Lola prevents the driver from crashing into oncoming traffic. But if Lola is thirty seconds faster, and misses the vehicle, then an automobile accident may occur. You can see the possibilities. In other respects, the takes vary dramatically. In Take 3, for instance, Lola attempts to acquire the money by gambling at a casino. In Takes 1 and 2, she tries to "borrow" the money from her father the banker. What are these "Takes?" Are they alternate, concurrent realities? Are they "redo"s of the same reality? Interestingly, the picture hints that Lola actually learns things from take to take. And the character of the bank security guard also seems to be aware that events are repeating themselves.

As Lola, Potente creates a strong-willed, fiercely determined, and intelligent character. As she runs through the streets, with her bright red hair flowing in the wind and her tattooed torso wrinkling with effort, the audience cannot help but root for her. Stylistically, the movie is reminiscent of the recent work of Oliver Stone. It contains scenes of cartoon animation, alternating film stock, and pulsating music. Right from the opening shot, the film loudly and proudly declares its artistic intentions. Perhaps the movie's most audacious artistic endeavor is its use of the "And Then" montages. Occasionally when Lola will come into contact with an incidental character, the film will pause for a moment to flash photographs from that person's life. These photographs show not what happened to the bystander in the past, but what will happen in the future. We learn that people's futures will change depending upon their interactions with Lola.

An Ideal Husband - ****

In 19th Century London, Sir Robert Chiltern (Jeremy Northam,) is a successful member of parliament married to the virtuous, fabulously popular Lady Gertrud Chiltern (Cate Blanchett.) Sir Robert's sister Mabel (Minnie Driver) is infatuated with Sir Robert's friend, Lord Arthur Goring (Rupert Everett.) The dashing Lord Goring, the wealthy son of the Earl of Caversham, is an inveterate bachelor who lives a life of leisure. Into this already crowded picture drops Mrs. Laura Cheveley (Julianne Moore,) an Austrian socialite with two ex-husbands and a convoluted past. Not only was she briefly engaged to Lord Goring, but it seems that she possesses evidence that the noble Sir Robert once committed a terrible indiscretion. Mrs. Cheveley uses this explosive evidence in her attempt to blackmail Sir Robert into voting against his conscience on the floor of Parliament. What ensues is a fascinating examination of honor and idealism. We learn that the noble Sir Robert is less than perfect, while the rakish bachelor Lord Goring possesses a surprising level of honor and insight.

If Shakespeare in Love deserved an Oscar, this film deserves the Nobel Prize. It is simply outstanding in every respect. The first thing one notices is the dialogue. It is a bit stiff and stilted, as was the custom in London at the time, but it also possesses a razor sharp wit and sly sense of humor. Every last character speaks with intelligence and humor. The verbal fireworks, particularly as provided by Lord Goring, illuminate character and motivation while simultaneously producing guffaws from the audience. The plot structure is a marvel. There are no explosions, fireballs, or car chases, but the picture achieves a certain breathlessness simply through its intricate layering of multiple characters, all with intertwining motivations, interests, and connections with one another. A prime example of this is the scene in which poor Lord Goring receives multiple visitors at his home in a single night. All of the visitors have conflicts with one another, so Lord Goring must segregate them and move from room to room, listening to their problems and providing insights. The costumes and locations are all excellent. I particularly liked the manner in which Sir Robert's bright home is contrasted with Lord Goring's dark and cavernous bachelor pad. The one complaint I have is with the film's music; it seemed too light and frivolous, overplaying the "madcap shenanigans" element of the picture. But this is a minor quibble indeed.

The acting is first rate across the board. Jeremy Northam (yes, he could play James Bond) is well suited to the role of Sir Robert. He exudes intelligence, honor, and duty. Julianne Moore, as Mrs. Cheveley, seems to relish the conniving and scheming of her character. Cate Blanchett and Minnie Driver capably bring depth and intelligence to their limited roles. But the true star of the film is Rupert Everett as Lord Arthur Goring. Mr. Everett has had a promising career to this point, but An Ideal Husband is his breakout role. In this film he is witty, charming, caring, wise, devilish, and childish all at once. Lord Goring is the kind of man that makes women swoon and men flock around to hear funny stories. He reminded me of Cary Grant - only better. Someone give that man an Academy Award.

Eyes Wide Shut - ***1/2

Director Stanley Kubrick's final film is a probing, thoughtful, occasionally baffling exploration of relationships.

Dr. William Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) are smoking pot one night, after a party during which both spouses flirted with others, when Alice reveals that she once had thoughts of cheating on her husband. She did not act on the impulse, she explains, but she considered giving up her marriage and her daughter to pursue a mysterious Naval officer. Dr. Bill is startled by this, but finds himself summoned to a house call before he is able to respond to the revelation. That night Bill finds himself caught up in a series of increasingly bizarre circumstances. 1) A grieving woman makes a pass at Bill right beside her father's deathbed (literally.) 2) Bill is accosted by a gang of young hooligans, 3) He is propositioned by a prostitute named Domino (Vanessa Shaw.) He goes back to her place, but a phone call from the wife dampens the mood. 4) Bill meets up with an old friend named Nick Nightingale (Todd Field.) Nick is a struggling piano player who explains that he has a gig later that night at, well. an orgy. It seems that Nick plays blindfolded. 5) Bill memorizes the password needed for admittance to the orgy and quickly sets out to acquire the prerequisite attire (tuxedo, cloak, and mask.) Apparently he is after a little revenge nookie. 6) Bill visits the Rainbow costume store in the middle of the night and encounters Milich (Rade Sherbedgia,) the eccentric owner, and his daughter (Leelee Sobieski.) 7) Finally, Bill arrives at the big "party." I will not spoil the rest of the film. Let me say simply that Bill's covert presence at the orgy is uncovered, and he finds himself afraid for his own life as well as the lives of others. The final third of the film chronicles Bill's search for answers: Who are these people? What happened to that mysterious woman? Where is Nick Nightingale?

Eyes Wide Shut has Stanley Kubrick's fingerprints all over it. All of his signature traits are here: The pregnant pauses, the dramatic silences, the somber music, the stillness of the camera, and - most of all - the cold detachment. It is highly Kubrickian (to coin a phrase) in its refusal to editorialize. What is the point? What is this film about? Kubrick never tells us. He simply presents us with the facts and lets us draw our own conclusions. As a result, every viewer comes away with a different message, because every viewer goes in with a different frame of reference.

Much has been made of the technical production of this film. Yes, it is true that Harvey Keitel and Jennifer Jason Leigh were cut from the movie and recast. Yes, it is true that Stanley Kubrick filmed numerous takes - sometimes more than 100. Yes, the shoot lasted for several years. Yes, it was filmed entirely in London, even though it is set in New York City. And yes, some of the cloaked figures in the orgy scene were digitally inserted to cover strategic areas and thereby earn an R rating - as opposed to an NC-17. But none of this matters. What matters is what ended up on the screen. And what ended up on the screen is an artful, insightful, and mysterious film.