Reviews

I watch many films every year and I've been a fan of Glazer's scant filmography, but this film annoyed me to no end. That it's received 5 Oscar nods and 3 wins with BAFTA is excruciating.

Pretentious, unsubtle, repetitive, dull, and sickening, I can't remember disliking a film this much.

Add the offensive vomit scene with Hoss, a man who slaughtered and engineered millions of deaths as a clean, matter of fact was an offense. A horrible insult. This man had no conscience. And Hedwig cavalierly trying on the coats stolen from their victims was revolting to me.

My guess is this wins at least Sound with Oscar, a repellent thought.

I felt condescended to, by a film student pretending to be artsy. An amateur trying to channel Orson Welles.

I'll never revisit this exercise in banality again.

1 star.

Michael Clayton is one of the finest films I've seen, and certainly the very best of the many I've seen released this year. It isn't for everyone, but for me, oh, what an amazing, surprising breathe of fresh air. The storyline isn't original; but the dialogue woven around the events is absolutely sublime. Anchored by the pitch-perfect, controlled performance by George Clooney, and supported with complete deftness by the 'actor's actor' Tilda Swinton, the amazing Tom Wilkinson as Arthur Edens, and with the rare and precious appearance by Sydney Pollack, Michael Clayton is a performance-laden dream. Everyone who showed their faces in this film, was terrific. But it's this screenplay, which carries Michael Clayton, as precise as hand-blown glass. The film begins near the end, and folds in on itself in a very effective way; done better than most, and without gimmickry. When we catch up to the present, where the film began, the impact was surprisingly jarring. The technical aspects of Michael Clayton also excelled, with great cinematography, editing, and art direction. For me, this is the film I'm hoping most to see receive some hardware. It isn't likely, but I'd love to see Michael Clayton over-take the heavily endorsed, Atonement. Great work from Tony Gilroy.

I was uncomfortable through out this film, having to watch stereotype after stereotype, mean-spirited "jokes" and juvenile toilet humour. Let's look at the good:

Leslie Mann: Her shallow, annoying character was played very well by Ms. Mann; and by the end, she was even somewhat sympathetic. Harold Ramis: His two-minute scene was the ONLY truly likable character in this entire film. I loved him. Paul Rudd: Despite his woe-begone fatalistically brow-beaten character, Rudd was genuinely good. Too bad his character was "resigned" to what looked like a life not worth living.

The Bad:

The jab at a guy like Stephen Hawking. Yeah; this film sinks that low. The stereotype that "pot-heads" are all unemployed, long-haired dopes with prurient life goals; think again... Heigl with Rogen's character? No way. This is a guy who grabbed his BONG during an earthquake without a thought to her safety. I could relate to her exasperation with Ben and his friends...but ending up with him? Sure....

The conversations about Munich were very insensitive; but then, this entire film was, so at least it was consistent. Endorsing De Beers?? The toilet humour..really. The reference to a woman's anatomy using the C-word, more than once, is misogynistic and really dumb. The kids, played by Apatows daughters, were cute; but I felt like they were being exploited. "I googled murder" today? Lovely. That list with the Canadian Beavers, headed by Pamela Anderson, Lolita Davidovich, Natasha Henstridge, and another woman, wasn't funny for me.

Even the second bar scene, where Mann and Heigl, who had previously pushed their way to the front of the line without a thought to "the ugly people" waiting in line, didn't play out as sympathetic at all. We are suppose to laugh at a situation where, they are now barred from line-jumping because Heigl is pregnant and Mann is "too old"? And the 5% quota for certain races? I felt sick.

This film wasn't completely unfunny. Some of the scenes with the Hollywood execs. played quite well by Kristin Wiig and Alan Tudyk, were humorous. "This is Hollywood. We don't like liars here...".

Even the title of this film is offensive to me. I went because I loved The 40-yr Old Virgin, and because it was reviewing very very well across the board. Instead, what I saw was a crass piece of work that has been done many times before, by a director who is capable of much much better. If I were ever trapped with these characters, I would smile feebly and back out of the room asap.

What scares me is how popular this film is. What does that say about us? Maybe, this film isn't that influential in the long run. But it definitely reflects the taste rampant in the throngs of people lining up to see this horrible film, for a SECOND time, and declaring it the funniest "comedy" they've ever seen.

I don't think so.

BABEL wasn't a perfect film. it had more than a few plot holes. But i can say this about this gorgeous movie:

1) Adriana Barazza's performance as a short-sighted, yet tangible human being was amazingly good. 2) Rinko Kikuchi gave a heart-breaking performance as an isolated, deaf-mute girl desperate for intimacy. 3) Brad Pitt was robbed of a nomination. 4) the score by Gustavo Santaolalla was haunting and beautiful. 5) the film had a global feel; one of it's objectives, and yet interlocked the simultaneous events very well. 6) the cinematography was simple but breath taking. 7) the editing in this film was provocative, with time lines weaving back and forth. 8) police and other authorities are a pain everywhere, except, apparently, in japan.

I have nit-picky issues with the screenplay and Inarritu's direction. But personally, i loved this film, in particular for the performances by everyone in it, and also for the craft of it's technicians. yes, this film had deep, global messages about communication, politics, and the human condition. But i don't have any problem with that. In a tight race for BP like this year, closer than i've ever seen in this category, BABEL could emerge the winner precisely for those reasons: craft, and meaning. a beautiful film.

i would be lying if i said i understood this film the first time i saw it. and; i would be lying again if i said i understood it much better the second time around, although the message was clear from the beginning. i can only tell you this:

1)the score was familiar. Scorsese loves the stones. there were some great Irish tunes as well, and lots of the incomparable Patsy Cline, and the original music by Howard Shore was very good. 2) this was a dream ensemble cast. why Nicholson, Damon, and Di Caprio were overlooked is beyond me. Finally, some recognition for Mark Wahlberg, 3)the editing, particularly the sound editing, was phenomenal. kudos to the entire sound department. it reminded me of the work by the late great Akira Kurosawa, in RAN....well, maybe not quite THAT good, but good... 4) the production values were second to none. 5) the complexity of this screenplay, quite frankly, is brilliant.

Very much like last year's CRASH, but in a much much different way, Scorsese shows us that good and bad intertwine like the precision of a spider's web. After a while, i couldn't tell who was good and who was bad. Nobody was good. And a mass murderer could appreciate opera and the ironies of life. This was the point in the film. and it was relentless. The satisfaction of the last scene, when the awol Dignam (Wahlberg)shows himself, was perfection.

Even after having lauded this film for it's many areas of pure perfection, it doesn't mean that i particularly enjoyed it. But it was brilliant craft. This is finally Scorsese's year. Best Director is his, despite the very real argument that Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima was better directed. If you haven't seen Infernal Affairs, i recommend you give it a watch.

Scum on any surface tends to collect in one mass over time. But life thrives, even in a cesspool.

I thoroughly applaud THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA for several reasons:

1) it had what i consider to be a brilliant screenplay with amazing dialogue. 2) MERYL STREEP. nothing more needs to be said here. 3) Emily Blunt. she really did look like she was full of virii, and yet a sympathetic character. 4) Stanley Tucci. He grew on me. What a sweet heart. Like a bitchy version of Hector Elizondo from Pretty Woman.

i dare to say that the models in those astounding clothes made America's Next Top Model seem like try-outs for Walmart. Kinda cruel to say, but there it is. Is there any role that the divine Streep cannot do with complete credibility? In this shallow, superficial world of "fashion", she manages to give a complex and many-layered performance which leaves me without adequate words to describe. Anne Hathaway's character loses her way for a time, and loses herself, although she looked beautiful on the outside in those fabulous clothes. She plays her usual sweet self, which was fine; but i preferred her cold turn in BBM. The people she worked with were twisted and yet very human. And yes; she had a choice. Ultimately, she chooses her own path. The one detail i didn't find convincing was her partnership with Adrian Grenier, who looked like he was trying out for lead actor in a prehistoric film about early man. I didn't buy them as a couple. THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA captured my interest and held it through out right to the end. Yes; it is a ruthless and completely shallow world, but it is peopled with very real humans who have chosen to go along. I've seen these kinds of endings before; but nothing is truly original...except perhaps the absolutely divine Meryl Streep. I watched this film twice, the first time at Waterton Parks, a beautiful place where the highlight was watching this film in it's small theatre amongst the breath taking surrounds. If anyone can upset the brilliant performance by Helen Mirren, it's Meryl. It's not going to happen, but it wouldn't bother me at all if she did. The DVD version had some technical problems with the sound. But it didn't detract from Streep. Not one bit. A stunning performance by one of the best actors of our generation.

i'll begin by saying that i am a huge fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman. I loved his work in Boogie Nights, with a sensitive and moving performance; i loved him in Twister; his enthusiasm and animated character; and his brilliant turn in The Talented Mr.Ripley. I've never met Truman Capote. I knew him only through watching his interviews and taking a glimpse at his media image. I didn't like him. Perhaps this colours my feeling about Hoffman's portrayal of him. I credit him for his dead-on mimicry of the author of IN COLD BLOOD. But i didn't enjoy it. I found the scene with Clifton Collins jr much more intriguing; and the subject matter of his book far more interesting, in a ghoulish sense. Katherine Keener is always a marvel, and her under-stated portrayal of the great though non-prolific perfectionist Harper Lee was great to see. Chris Cooper is always good. To be true to my own feelings about this film, i didn't enjoy it. And i didn't think Hoffman was better than Heath Ledger. Not by a mile. Capote is on television now and i may or may not watch it again. I don't really want to. The questions as to why both Harper Lee and Truman Capote never topped their original and/or only works aren't compelling enough for me to care, just based on this film. Judging from it's accolades as a film and the awards for Hoffman's performance, i could be the only person on the planet who has watched this film that didn't like it. Oddly enough, the supporting characters peaked my interest more than the central character. And as i have already said, i am a huge fan of Mr. Hoffman. But not here. i watched this film last year and had difficulty with being motivated enough to even make a comment about it.... *check out the OTHER Capote film, INFAMOUS

i feel compelled to give this film a 9 and almost rated it a ten. It isn't original; it isn't award-winning craft or direction. The football scenes weren't that good. I'm not sure The Rock has improved or expanded his range as an actor or not. But this film is based on true events, and inspires a great deal of optimism for the nature of mankind. There is a sincere desire for reform and redemption as a mission here, by a penal institution no less. It is less punitive and more on the side of these kids who end up in the court system. Many of us don't consider ourselves to be "criminals", and yet, by definition, most of us have broken the law at some point in our lives. Perhaps they were for what might be considered minor infractions, such as coasting through a stop sign, or not declaring something at the airport. But they are still crimes. The big difference here, is, most of us don't get caught. And even if we do, many of us can escape a prison term. We are, after all, human. I really appreciated this film for it's compassion; it's desire to build self esteem in a person and give them a real shot at a fulfilling life; to turn their lives around. It went for a sincere attempt at eradicating recidivism and portraying "locked up" kids as complex human beings who want a better life. kudos to Grid Iron for that. Am i a bleeding heart? maybe. And if i am, so what? Better to give someone a chance for redemption than to shut them up and turn your back.

i'm not truly qualified to write a review about this film, because after just one minute, i knew i was in trouble, and wouldn't be able to watch this film. It made me sick. I watched as much as i could stand, which was less than five minutes. that was it. I love most martial arts films, and i've been watching them, both good and bad, for decades. But one thing i cannot watch is the exploitation of our fellow creatures. I don't give a damn if it is part of a nation's history or not. After thirty seconds, i could feel what was coming, and my hands were over my eyes before the credits stopped running at the start of the film. This film is still haunting me, and will probably continue to do so. I took it back to the video store immediately, and exchanged it for ANYTHING ELSE. If you're anything like me, a member of every animal advocacy and animal rights groups that exist, the selfless IFAW being just one example, animal protection groups, and love our fellow creatures great and small, stay away from this film. It may be good. But i don't care. Leave the elephants alone. they aren't YOUR elephants. they belong to themselves. i wanted to watch the martial arts but couldn't get past the beginning. i watched the protector kick a guy with glass bottle therapy on his back against a wall. that was enough.

this brilliant experimental film is a hallucinogenic homage to the great Philip k Dick, who's other works, such as, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? (blade runner)have become legendary. it is a world we are already all too familiar with, where everyone is on at least one government sanctioned drug, or otherwise, and an authoritarian pol-it bureau over-seeing everything. I'm not going to give anything away, except to say, that it is a work of art for serious film fans. a short review, yes. But one has to see it to perhaps understand why it is difficult to comment on, save that it is an unique, daring, brutally honest, engrossing film....and a theme about now. not tomorrow. With a great ensemble cast too; another bonus to a film which defies categorization. For adults.

so; this is the future then? it begins with the death of the youngest person in the world, barely eighteen years old. All around is a Ludite nightmare. It is a bleak world, with bombs going off, littered streets, gun fire, the presence of armed soldiers and resistance fighters. yes, the future. Governments and the media cast labels on characters as terrorists. It is illegal to avoid fertility testing. Schools, although not needed in this future, are in terrible shape. There are propaganda signs everywhere..."illegal" aliens are rounded up and detained. hmmm.... And yet in this dour world, the music of the Beatles, Stones, King Crimson,and Donovan lives on. There is graffiti every where, and yet there is also Guernica, colourful murals, and a beautiful country side full of plants and flowers. Animals are everywhere: cats, lots of dogs, sheep, deer, a zebra, horses, birds...some horribly exploited; others tenderly loved.... the most beautiful shot in the film for me was when Kee exposes her pregnant body, while modestly covering her breasts. She was beautiful, as all pregnant women are, with her swollen belly filled with so much promise. And life. It is described as "a miracle", since in this film, everyone is sterile. Since when has pregnancy and birth not been a miracle? it always was, is, and will be, regardless of the circumstance. Children of Men had some ugly things for sure, but it also had redeeming and wonderful things too, things like courage, self-sacrifice, nurturing, love. It had grief and sorrow, joy and happiness; desperation and commitment. It had a great ensemble cast, some of whom left all too soon. It also showed, that men who go to war don't sign up to kill children. I'd have to say that the biggest difference in this "future" world, is the lack of fresh paint and wall paper. they seem to be replaced by posters and newspaper article's with ominous words on them. i cant rate this film. It has brilliant moments, and yet it is left incomplete and has some plot issues. All i can say is, i am going to wait a while before i watch this again. It is an emotional exercise. In fact, it flexes quite a few emotions. I am a fan of Cuaron's films. He is flexible in his choices, and he takes chances. Children of Men is an important film about a terrible future (??). The sterile thing seems like a pretense for a film that is really about things which are happening to us now. I think we are better off watching this film, than not. It is a film which stays with you. ensemble cast: A; special kudos to Michael Caine cinematography: A+ art direction: A screen play A-

i always enjoy Rufus Sewell in a film. He doesn't always play "the bad guy", but once again he isn't exactly Santa Claus here, as crown prince Leopold. There was a Leopold about that time, uncle and father-in-law to the future Queen Victoria, but this Leopold is fictitious, i'm sure. Paul Giamatti is also very good and unrecognizable from his role in SIDEWAYS. His character is intelligent, complex, and has virtue. Edward Norton is an extremely versatile and gifted actor, and for the most part, he is up to the challenge here, as a rather morose "illusionist" deprived of the love of his life based on his lower class background. Mess with him, mess with his powers, which, by the way, makes Harry Potter look like an amateur. the film swirls like random yet seamless time and truly does have a magical quality to it. Burger does this with heavy use of dark tones, creepy music, and elusive visions. There is a narrative going on in the background as well, lending to the rather dark ambiance of this film. This film is a blend of gender and governmental politics, vengeance, jealousy, forbidden love, heart break, amazement, a puzzle-necklace of love, and mystery. Norton's character has seeming powers which threaten the ruling class, and even the normalcy of the times. Of course, these things are often not allowed, regardless of which time in history it may be. It isn't a good idea to accuse a crown prince of murder.And yet, "magicians" have a right to their secrets, do they not? Eisenheim does his best to convince the crowds that his feats are simply illusions, tricks, magic. But the crowds are not convinced, and nor was i. That old man by the tree when Eisenheim was a child gave him something, an invisible yet tangible gift. How he uses that gift is the driving force of this film. It's an intriguing and interesting ride. Personally, i would run from this character's magic....Paul's character, the chief inspector Uhl, says to Eisenheim, not wanting to arrest him, "you cant bring down the monarchy". Somehow i don't believe Oliver Cromwell would have agreed with that; nor the Bolsheviks.... Eisenheim's final act on stage is something to behold. I found this film somewhat difficult, and it requires some emotional energy to watch. But it was worth the watch. It is a well-crafted film with a seamless sense of time and action. Very good, although, if you're feeling depressed, i'd save it for another time....even with the "usual suspects" kinda "happy" ending....

i watched SPIDERMAN and SPIDERMAN 2 when they were released, and i didn't write a review about either of them. Better late than never. This wont be much of an overview of the films; just a great big thank you Mr Sam Raimi for your great comic book hero come to life. I saw what you could do with no money, a great friend/eternal hero, camera angles, and sound, with your EVIL DEAD series, and look at what you can do with a budget. This is one of those rare times when the sequel was as good if not better than the first, and i am looking forward to SPIDERMAN 3 with anticipation. I wouldn't mind seeing another A SIMPLE PLAN type of film from you either. These are some of the best action-hero comic book character(s) i've ever seen brought to life. The ensemble casts with the likes of Alfred Molina, Thomas Hayden Church, Willam Dafoe, Cliff Robertson, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco, Bryce Dallas Howard, Theresa Russell, Topher Grace, and of course, the spiderman himself, Tobey Maguire, is a treat in itself. Nice touch with Ted, Lucy, Bruce, and Briget too. gotta say, i'm a big Raimi fan....

well, i just watched Click win best comedy at the People's Choice, and it reminded me that ya, i did see this film. What can i say? i FORGOT about this movie. It's not that i don't appreciate Adam Sandler. He can be hilarious and he is what he is. He showed his range in Punch Drunk Love, and he was hilarious in The Wedding Singer, imo. Plus, generally, he's a likable guy playing fairly likable characters. Click is not what i consider to be even, an average film. It's not good. It's not a comedy and it's not a credible drama. In fact, the closest i came to laughing is at the end, when Adam is moaning and groaning on the road, more from his short-sighted decisions and shallow screen play than any physical damage. It's one big cliché with meaningless dialogue and predictable turns at every corner. When this airs on the networks, i wont be watching it. Once was enough. This is quite a shame, when you look at the cast and even the director. I was disinterested, and even more disappointed than i was afraid i was going to be. This movie didn't really need to be made. We've seen it before, many many times; and done much better as well. I suppose it may appeal to some demographic; i wasn't on that list. And the trailers? A bit misleading, but all you really need to see. i don't blame Sandler for this; it's the simply indescribable "screen play", written on toilet paper by someone who may not be able to vote yet, not meaning any disrespect to children, of course. the TWILIGHT ZONE's by Rod Serling in the fifties, who took at look at this premise, were better and more creative than this film.

i watched this superlative documentary months ago and am surprised i didn't write a review, which is more like a letter of gratitude. There are no spoilers here. just accolades from a grateful viewer. this montage of famed politicians, historians, people of courage and amazing intelligence is enough to recommend this documentary, if only to see a piece of history put together in such brilliant fashion, and with such a clear, unabridged message. There isn't any preaching, finger wagging, lecturing...none of that. Only pure, clear-minded analysis on an aspect of human nature which we need to expose, and understand. Hind sight is easy. Seeing the future path becoming wider is a different matter. humanity needs more films like this one. It has a way of exonerating our blackest characteristics, not by making excuses, but by making it clear that the Why of fighting is understood. If we can disseminate, expose, and understand, we can stop. kudos to Eugene Jarecki.

i cant say that this film is a real stinker, compared to some of the stinkiest films i've ever seen. But as i was watching it, i couldn't help but think of the guy who started this all with the classic, SCANNERS, and other films with mind-power guys such as the much much much better than THE COVENANT: DARK CITY, STAR WARS, LOTR, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, KUNG FU HUSTLE, as well as that episode on SOUTH PARK where Cartman was wee-wee weening people with his brain powers. I'm pretty sure i'm forgetting some of the other films too. I find it hard to even comment on the content of this movie, such as it is. This movie is what it is. You may even like it better than MATERIAL GIRLS, BLOODRAYNE, and BASICALLYITSTINKS2 (thank you, Mr.Wilson). During the fifties many directors made films about the latest and greatest technologies and space ventures to show how science and technology could go so terribly wrong. Some of them were great; some of them were so bad they were camp. THE COVENANT is neither. I wont be watching this movie again because frankly, it doesn't interest me. i've seen better X-Box commercials with clearer intent.

Samuel Jackson doesn't die in every film i've seen. he even finds redemption in one classic film. in SNAKES ON A PLANE he isn't eaten, shot, swallowed by a shark; he doesn't commit vigilante justice, nor shoot someone who isn't wearing a bullet proof vest. does he shout? why, yes he does; but not as much as usual and not much until near the end. this film has huge plot holes, lost characters, and unresolved non issues (the best way i can describe it for now). But, so what? SNAKES ON A PLANE never tries to be anything more than entertaining, which is what it is. Once i stopped listening to the screen play, it was fun to watch. some of the scenes were preposterous, but that can be a nice touch in a film like this. I believe Anthony Hickox was a stunt man so this film makes some sense. Julianna Margulies, Nathan Phillips, and everyone else with perhaps the exception of Keith Dallas keeps a straight face throughout. i admit to feeling sorry for the snakes, although some were fx'd; but i'll betcha the real ones didn't have a choice about being in this film. Still, i would eat some popcorn with lots of real butter, some natural salt, and sit back and enjoy.

this is a fine film filled with sarcasm, scary truths, and sadly, an accurate depiction of the times we live in and what we have come to accept as the truth based on advertising, coalitions, and constant bombardment with misleading "information", all in the name of profit. the truth is that there are real Nick Naylors out there, brilliantly portrayed with such cavalier bravado ( a contradiction and a good one for this film) by Aaron Eckhart. He could have been pitching nsaids, otc's, prescription drugs, unnecessary operations, life insurance, pyramid scams...he could be John Edward's agent....heck he could have been one of O.J's lawyers. He is convincing, charismatic, and committed to his actions even as he is aware of the questionable ethics he is engaging in. He is unapologetic, but is far from stupid. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is a great film that makes a statement about individual rights, gullibility, and freedom. A brilliant mix. Oh, and Monsanto; you guys make me vomit. Literally. Got this one in your collection do you?

well well well well well....this Rocky is good. It was good enough to, perhaps not forget, but forgive the Rocky win in 1976 over the brilliant NETWORK. once again, this is a simple story, touching upon the very best in mankind. We have a young, real boxer, who is not demonetized at all, and listens intently to his older mentor, much the same way Rocky listened to his, the late great Burgess Meredith. This time, we have a world champion criticized for never having been challenged for his crown. And then we have Rocky, remembered and respected by his home town Philadelphians, and acknowledged as one of the foremost champions of his era. But he's aging, and almost sixty. He has lost his beloved Adrian...it leaves me wondering why Talia Shire did not return for this final installment, and also wondering whether she wishes she had done the film now...Rocky is still in mourning for her, and this is touchingly brought across by Stallone without a bunch of hokey malarkey. In fact, Sylvester Stallone is the best i've ever seen in a film he has starred in. His character is kind, and humane. He rescues old, discarded dogs left to their fate; he offers a teen a job to help occupy his time in better ways, and helps the teens mother too, his new love interest, who, amazingly, was in the original Rocky. He feeds a former boxer in his restaurant, named ADRIANS (of course)and later lets him work in the kitchen, because he's ready to, and he strives to be a good father to his son, who is estranged from him because of "this big shadow" which was cast over him by his father's fame. a pretty selfish reason to avoid his dad but not atypical and very human. So why did Rocky fight this final, "exhibition" fight? His character had nothing left to prove, although he claims to have some kind of fire in his "basement". i believe that this film was for Sylvester Stallone, looking to put a classy closure to his Rocky franchise, the first one made on a shoe string budget; and also to regain his own self respect as an actor and a film maker, and a writer. It was treat seeing Burt Young again, who was so great in that short turn he did on the SOPRANOS as the murderous old school family member with the bad lungs. New comer Antonio Tarver was great too. In fact, this entire film was a treat. It was simple, heart felt, sentimental, nostalgic, well edited, and had a great score. It was over before i knew it. Rocky didn't care whether he had won the fight officially or not, because he was already a winner when he entered the ring, and a bigger one when he left. bye Rocky. Thanks for all those years.

When i see the names Jude Law, Jack Black, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz in the cast, i'm likely going to see the film. Nancy Meyers is a writer first, and i enjoyed Baby Boom, so i went hoping for the best. Although there were no surprises in this boy)s) meets girl(s)film, it was a charming piece brightened by the performances by all four principals. i especially enjoyed Kate Winslet, who woke up air-rocking to the music in the morning, and Jack Black playing that theme-song game in the video store which i have done myself many times for a lark. Jude Law was a great love interest, this time not an AI love droid, nor an assassin, sniper, sky captain, paraplegic, rich playboy, cad...he has a surprise about his life sure, but a normal one, and a sweet one to boot. Oh, and the wonderful Eli Wallach; he was simply a joy to see in this film. Nobody ran away from love, at least not true love. The characters were running from relationships which weren't reciprocated nor appreciated, only to run in to the love of their lives while on the run. Not particularly inventive, but charming and satisfying all the same. Is it a date movie? yes. Is it a deep film with deep meaning? nope. Is it a pop-corny movie? yup. nothing wrong with that. A very charming, sweet-natured film.

well, this is an Ivan Reitman film. with the rare exception, Ivan likes to entertain. His films generally aren't "deep", but they are often entertaining enough. My Super Ex-Girlfriend surprised me in that i laughed more than i thought i would. Uma Thurman is just so grand, and i love her portrayals. I like Luke Wilson too, and Rainn Wilson was a straight hoot. Never taking itself seriously, the film is over the top and yet isn't very unique, nor does it go where no one has gone before.... it's a nice rent though and probably an OK date movie, especially if you have a headache and don't want to strain your brain. It's escapist fun and there's nothing wrong with that. When you strip away the "super-girl" stuff, you're left with a story about relationships, and relationships gone bad. It's a boy meets girl, boy leaves girl thing. And in the end, the characters are looking for love. Not all of them take being "dumped" as well as they could....a slice of life with a twist.

Little Miss Sunshine is a bright, gentile, sweet-spirited film with an outstanding ensemble cast and a fresh and enchanting screen play by Michael Arndt. I have nothing but respect for Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Alan Arkin, and Steve Carell; and Paul Dano, whom i remember from his small stint on THE SOPRANOS, and Abigail Breslin, with such raw and natural talent, are fresh and flawless additions to this amazing mix of actors. Dano spoke volumes about his character with a minimum of words. These characters are flawed, complex, and fully fleshed with idiosyncrasies and quirks that we can relate to, characters we have probably met or perhaps are ourselves, part of the charm of this movie. Alan Arkin left the film all too soon, but he is memorable and likable,like all of the principals in this adventure. i took a road trip across Canada a long time ago in a Volkswagen van, and the landscape and ambiance, the lay of the land, brought back some great memories. The unexpected happens and the good times too. These are real people with intriguing personalities, and the getting there, is most of the fun. There is physical comedy here too, subtle and funny. When they finally arrive at the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant, there are girls dressed in glittery outfits, primped and excited. And yet, i didn't get the feeling that they were being exploited, nor that their dreams of being beauty queens were derided. The twelve little contestants were hilarious, and with the exception of Olive, were already seasoned pros. The MC was hilariously terrifying with his glib parody and terrible singing voice. Dano says, "i don't want these people judging Olive". And really, who could disagree with him? but in the end, this was Olive's dream, and she's entitled to them. Olive's dance was a tribute to her grandfather, and a tribute to the sheer joys of life. Shake up the conventional, kids. Put that fly in the ointment. Little Miss Sunshine is an absolute joy. We can all get behind a dream, and the dreams of our loved ones. We don't always have to win, as long as we enjoy the journey. And if we keep our individuality and our sincerity, then, we are winners. i loved this film. Proust, nihilism, brilliance, support, and joy...i have to admire how Dayton, Feris and Arndt mixed that concoction together in such fine fashion. warning*** if you think you are "normal" and that there is no dysfunction in your family; if you prefer big-budget action films;if you have LITTLE MAN, THE ANIMAL, and WHITE CHICKS in your DVD library; if small films which succeed despite everything doesn't interest you; or if you are mildly offended by subtle smarts, and familiar themes even when performed and produced exceptionally well, all of this is OK. For me, this is the message i received from this wonderful film. Be your glorious self. Life is a wild ride. I'm guessing this film wins best original screenplay at most of the awards this season. brace yourself, because Abigail has a shot here too, along with the venerable Alan Arkin...actually, simply a great ensemble cast.