jeanie-5

Three years ago, I found myself in a Saturday morning movie at a local arts theater viewing a film I knew nothing about called "Small Wonders." I was enchanted by the story, which is a documentary of the life of Roberta Guaspari. Roberta's courage is inspiring; her positive influence of her teaching -- both music and self esteem -- is awesome. Woven into her loud and gruff manner is a quiet and loving wisdom. If "Small Wonders" is available on video, it is well worth the watch, before or after seeing the current feature film.

"Music of the Heart" is Roberta's story, this time presented with well-known actors who honor her life and contributions. I laughed; I cried. Most of all, I appreciate that Roberta's gift has wider exposure. Thank you, Meryl Streep, for learning to play the violin and for being so true to the nature of this woman. This production is a fine tribute to the lives transformed by the music program in East Harlem. The members of the supporting cast also deserve kudos.

For me, this is a deeply touching film, which I expect will also touch many persons of many different backgrounds. The audience I shared this experience with appeared to be fully entranced with the unfolding of the film. The film helps to make this world a better place.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is entertaining, with a little bit of just about everything: humor, pathos, story, tension, authenticity, sex, mistaken identities, and even a true-to-its-title ending. For those who cannot stand to go to a movie without some violence (I'm not one of those), it even has some of that, but not so much that it is offensive to someone like me.

The story line is very original; the script, well-written; the rhythm well-paced. Some may criticize that the development of the story is "predictable" -- for me, though, it has a natural unfolding along with little delightful surprises. I became most interested in and appreciative of the development of the various relationships, which is no easy accomplishment in the 90 or so minutes available to a feature film.

"Happy, Texas" presents homosexuality in much the same way as does the movie "In and Out." Perhaps the portrayals are stereotypical, but I felt that it was devoid of insulting those who choose a means of expression different from society's norm. Since I'm not gay, I admit there may be an insult that eludes me, but I do hope not.

Kudos to the actors. In particular, I applaud Steve Zahn's dead-pan humor and antics; William H. Macy's totally believable and touching portrayal of a gay sheriff, evoking laughs and compassion; Jeremy Northam's straight straight-man; Ally Walker's honesty in the role of the small-town banker; and one of my favorite character actors, Illeana Douglas as an expressive school teacher.

I personally would like to see more movie making like this: original story, layered characters and plot, authentic touches, properly placed symbols, and fine acting. Some of the film is just plain silly, so if you are looking for a serious crime drama or violence, choose another film.

"Man of the Century" is inspired by silent comedies, early talking movies, vaudeville, and old RKO films.

It gives us a light-hearted look at the different ways in which cultural mores are portrayed in the 1920's and in the 1990's. The opening sequence has the look of the earliest films -- complete with scratches and grainy images and the jerkiness of old home movies. The rest of the film is in high-quality black and white with fine camera work. The film is co-written by Adam Abraham (who also directs) and Gibson Frazier (who stars in the title role as Johnny Twennies).

Johnny Twennies writes a column for a New York newspaper. The time is the 1990's, but Johnny is clearly living in the 1920's. We hear 1920's cliches from him and 1990's cliches from others. Johnny's tenacious innocence is refreshing and quite funny beside Samantha Winter's (Susan Egan) modern day social values. It is funny to hear Johnny swear with words like Applesauce! and Rats! while also hearing the ubiquitous use of f___ing by the others on

screen. The "endless stairs" is a brilliant sequence that breaks up the fast-talking dialogue. Since I love to dance, I was particularly overjoyed with a dance number with Johnny and Samantha dancing the Charlston while the others who are clearly older were dancing the jitterbug and swing and other more modern dances. Johnny's dance partner / leading lady is played impeccably by Susan Egan.

The film is face-paced. I know that I missed many of the innuendos and jokes. I love old movies, but I am not a student of those films or times. I found much pleasure in the experience even though I missed the significance of many one-liners. I also found that I had to adjust to the initial few minutes, first wondering if I was going to have to sit through 80 minutes of scratched film and then wondering what year it was because of the juxtaposition of modern cars and archaic language. About six persons left the audience in a group of about 100-120 individuals who were in an advance screening of the movie. Most of those who stayed were thoroughly engrossed in the film and applauded at the end.

It is similar in many ways to the "Purple Rose of Cairo" and "Pleasantville" in that it carries the charm of someone out of the current time or environment, frozen in another time and culture. Gestures, language, and tempo can be best compared to early films as a whole rather than to a specific film.

"Man of the Century" won the audience award at the 1999 Slamdance Film Festival. If the team of Abraham and Frazier can create another film of comparable quality in a different genre, they will make an enormous contribution to film making.

Watching Ashley Judd and the cinematography were highlights for me in the film -- the only highlights. Ashley Judd (who surely should have had top billing because of story, role, and acting) was strong in each facet of the character and circumstances of Libby Parsons. Stunning visual impressions (for example, that sailboat we see as the camera lens swoops smoothly around it) and ways in which the visual told stories were exceptionally good. In fact, I find I can almost overlook or forgive the other shortcomings of the film for these pleasures. Almost.

You know the story already -- if you have been to another movie in the last few months. After the faked murder, we don't get much insight into the trial, which seems to have been conducted by the family's (civil) attorney, which I suppose is appropriate considering the misinterpretation of the law which is reflected in the movie's title. I guess the producers forgot to hire a real attorney to check the law. We get a few vignettes in the prison and are reminded how easily the judicial system is influenced by contrition, whether real or feigned. Next we have the female version of "The Fugitive" complete with Tommy Lee Jones (this time playing Travis Lehman) running after the runaway running after the not-really-dead husband. Twists and turns of the plot give us mostly predictable actions.

Let me say again.... Ashley Judd is a joy to watch. She brings intelligence and depth to the character in the context of a flawed script. I recall being captured by her performance (Ensign Robin Lefler) in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." She is truly gifted. And I want to see more, more, more of her in some good films.

Beyond the flaws of the movie itself, I also want to voice my objection that through the movie's title and the many previews, I already knew the story and had guessed most of its turns with only a few minor surprises. I do feel it is an injustice of the movie industry to reveal pivotal scenes in advance promotion. Some trailer scenes do not even appear in the final cut! I am reminded of one of the BEST trailers I have seen: Albert Brooks talking about the film "Mother" several years ago. He sat on a stool and told us about his relationship with his Mother (played by Debbie Reynolds). We didn't see any scenes clipped from the film; we got a flavor of the theme instead of the actual movie. While "Mother" is not one of the world's greatest movies (I did enjoy it), it's trailer is one of the greatest. There is a current trailer (for Magnolia) which is also excellent: the members of the cast introduce themselves in character.

My overall feeling of Double Jeopardy (essentially negative) is colored by the high marks for the two highlights: Ashley Judd and the cinematography. So I have rated it in the middle, 5 out of 10.

I enjoyed this gentle, charming story that takes place in Small Sometown, USA. Likely it will not be overly popular or in the theaters long, as it is short on raucous humor, sex and violence. I like where the movie starts: in the middle. The script (by Lawrence Kasdan) gives us carefully-written dialogue that is sparse, knowing that an intelligent audience will fill or wait for the pieces. Its subtle humor will be appreciated by those who enjoy watching people transform in much the same ways we do in real time. This is a rare portrayal of the power of listening, a skill that I find is greatly lacking in our society and therefore is rarely shown on screen as a virtue.

Loren Dean's Doc Mumford is compassionate, quiet, non-judgmental, humorous, low-key. The audience sees his emotions that are, for the most part, hidden from his patients. The supporting cast is composed of a large number of familiar faces -- strong and interesting character actors -- each one showing unique and non-stereotypical personalities.

I had to maneuver through my own reactions to the implausibility of the basic premise of the film. I resolved this by reminding myself of one of the joys of the film medium: at its best, it mimics real time life yet can take liberties with logic and sequence and time.

Red Roses. The Red American Beauty Rose, an apt symbol for this film of deep emotions. Some films have an interesting beginning or ending with not much in the middle -- this film has it all! Narration in a film rarely works for me because I have found it is usually a cover up for a poor script or story. Here, narration does work for me (as it does in the classic, "Sunset Boulevard", worthy of comparison). Through the initial narration and a "preview" of a scene that is shown more fully later, we learn early that our main character will be dead in less than a year (or in 122 minutes, depending on whether you are in real time or movie time). It is appropriate that we know this because the comedy is so masterful, we might be tricked into thinking it is a comedy with perhaps some pathos. It is a movie which cuts across genres.

The foundation for the film is an intelligent, courageous script (thanks, Alan Bail) which was turned over to masterful direction (Sam Mendes ) and acting. I noticed and appreciated the crafting of little details, such as making Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) look small and lost in an office as he faces the potential of losing his job; red American Beauty Roses and rose petals carefully placed throughout; and varied settings/backgrounds that were perfectly suited to the individual personalities. It explores ordinary people somewhat reminiscent of "Ordinary People" and shows us intertwined neighborhood families somewhat similar to "Ice Storm."

The story takes place in an unnamed suburban town, which seems appropriate as this film does not need another character. We are taken into the intimate lives of nearly a dozen characters, each with different relationships. Each phrase, each action, each scene tells us about these characters and their relationships, while conveying several interwoven stories. I can only speculate at the many scenes that must have been written and eliminated in order to create the script that told so much. I found the sexual fantasy scenes to be very original, and the pacing to be steady.

Kevin Spacey is nothing short of brilliant, with his expressions of a full range of emotions, giving us Lester Burnham, an original character. He changes in many ways through this film; I especially appreciate the change that is shown in is face and actions and but a few words in the last scene with Angela (Mena Suvari), his teenage daughter's girlfriend. Carolyn Burnham is also a distinct character (Annette Bening, who did not look or sound anything like Sydney Ellen Wade in one of my all-time favorite films, "The American President"). Ricky's father is played eloquently by Chris Cooper, one of my favorite character actors. These three actors I have seen in many different roles: I say this is acting at its best -- unlike so many popular stars who play the same character again and again.

I also want to applaud the work of the three teenagers. The young women (Thora Birch and Mena Suvari) were believable and poignant. The 18-year old neighbor Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley) is wise beyond his years. The insights written into his dialogue seemed perfectly placed, as he is the one who sees the world through the eyes of a photographer.

I highly recommend this as one of the finest films of the year and beyond. It is deep, likely to make a lasting impression.

I saw this film with the title "The Very Thought of You" and think that "Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence" is far more apropos and distinctive, although a bit of a mouthful to casually mention the film to friends. I expect that far too few persons will see this delightful film. I was particularly charmed by Laurence's description of the "perfect woman" and even more charmed when (as if I might have missed it) it was replayed! The film is worthy of smiles and laughs throughout, with an especially funny moment which rippled through the audience in laughter for many moments into the next scene. It is artistically directed and edited, intelligently written, and well acted (except when Monica Potter seemed to sound like Julia Roberts -- I can't imagine why she would want to do that). Interestingly, Joseph Finnes is also outstanding in one of the films that I believe is among the best of the decade: "Shakespeare in Love." I find the implausibility of this is irrelevant -- it's an 83-minute movie that sets out to capture a mood, tell a story, and entertain. I expect that many will easily brush this film off as "cute and sweet" but I personally would love to see more films that are as well-constructed and intelligent.

I found the first 3/4 of the film to be well-constructed and

mostly believable; the last 1/4 seemed to fall apart perhaps

with a mad scramble to tie up the ends, though missing a few.

In spit of its flaws, I found it good movie making.

I've read criticism of the rape scene; however, I considered it

essential to the story to tie in with Tom's (Kevin Bacon)

earlier experience that was pivotal in his exploration into the

paranormal. I felt absorbed during most of the film, even

though some of the gory violence which I half watched through my

parted fingers. Tom's obsession was also annoying.

I appreciated Jake (played by Zachary David Cope) and his

low-keyed characterization, as I have noticed that children are

much more matter-of-fact about experiences that adults name

"supernatural" because they do not fit widely-accepted human

ideas. I generally like Illeana Douglas' approach to a role,

but viewed her as mostly outside of and aware that she was

playing a role rather than being the character -- tentative in

places.

I came away with a list of unanswered questions, which I will

not articulate because they reveal too much of the story. While

I saw some inconsistencies, I do not feel frustrated by them.

Comparing it to Sixth Sense.... I found "Stir of Echoes" to be

a much better story, unfolding in a more absorbing way, with a

more intelligent script. (And I think "Stir of Echoes" is a

masterful title. Hollywood, pay attention!)

I found the first 3/4 of the film to be well-constructed and

mostly believable; the last 1/4 seemed to fall apart perhaps

with a mad scramble to tie up the ends, though missing a few.

In spit of its flaws, I found it good movie making.

I've read criticism of the rape scene; however, I considered it

essential to the story to tie in with Tom's (Kevin Bacon)

earlier experience that was pivotal in his exploration into the

paranormal. I felt absorbed during most of the film, even

though some of the gory violence which I half watched through my

parted fingers. Tom's obsession was also annoying.

I appreciated Jake (played by Zachary David Cope) and his

low-keyed characterization, as I have noticed that children are

much more matter-of-fact about experiences that adults name

"supernatural" because they do not fit widely-accepted human

ideas. I generally like Illeana Douglas' approach to a role,

but viewed her as mostly outside of and aware that she was

playing a role rather than being the character -- tentative in

places.

I came away with a list of unanswered questions, which I will

not articulate because they reveal too much of the story. While

I saw some inconsistencies, I do not feel frustrated by them.

Comparing it to Sixth Sense.... I found "Stir of Echoes" to be

a much better story, unfolding in a more absorbing way, with a

more intelligent script. (And I think "Stir of Echoes" is a

masterful title. Hollywood, pay attention!)

I consider this is a love story. Love for other persons as well

as for a thing, the game of baseball. Baseball is more than a

mere backdrop or love object, it is integral to the relationships and the story. Since I am not a baseball fan, I

cannot speak to the authenticity of the game shots, though my

experience suggests that they might be inauthentic. To be

truthful, I find watching baseball boring; the baseball scenes

in the film were not boring to me, so likely they are not

authentic. My logic would lead me to surmise that baseball

aficionados might not be as pleased with this film as others.

I appreciated Billy Chapel as a character -- all male, all

masculine. Surely Kevin Costner could have played him softer,

but he didn't and I'm glad. It is an act of courage (and surely

"love" as the title suggests) that Billy Chapel pitches in spite

of the pain in his arm. This character is the epitome of

male-masculinity -- tough, courageous, self-centered, and

needing lots of extra time to acknowledge his own and others'

feelings. He is mystified by the femininity in both Jane Aubrey

(Kelly Preston) and her daughter, Heather (Jena Malone) as well

as pushing away the caring of his friend Gus (John C. Reilly).

Considering the overall quality of the film (which I considered

high), I was surprised at several technical problems: music

with words so loud they competed with dialogue, confusion on

time/flashbacks, and lack of clarity about passage of time (ie,

is this a minute later or two days later?).

I left feeling satisfied as a movie viewer. Thanks, Hollywood,

for making an absorbing film.

Twice seen, with eyes wide open, I observe both mastery and

non-mastery in this film. I find myself wanting to believe this

is the work of a great film-maker and not just the outpouring of

frustration by an aged and dying man. Based on my experience of

his many previous works, I have to believe that Stanley Kubrick

did, indeed, create precisely what he wanted to create, which is

in itself disturbing. I can still hear the haunting piano music

in the background, which I sometimes found annoying and

sometimes found the perfect punctuation for the one-dimensional

character in the foreground. At times I felt absorbed; at other

times, bored. Some aspects I considered complex; others overly

simplistic and shallow. I found Sydney Pollock's performance to

be the most powerful, though his time onscreen was limited;

Nicole Kidman's, usually outstanding and sometimes weird; Tom

Cruise's, an indication that he was in over his head, both as a

character and as an actor.

Dear Hollywood: I am oh-so-bored with loveless sex. And I am

perplexed that we see women fully naked but not men. And,

please, show me some characters I'd like to get to know, perhaps

even some I'd like to see again. Love, Jeanie.

The promotional material claims this film to be "provocative" and "honest." It also says that our heroine is "determined to buck the materialism and spiritual sterility of modern society." As I sit to write these comments a day after seeing the film, I try to re-view this film through the window of each claim. I agree it is provocative, but I experienced the provocation as contrived because the writer/director (Zach Winestine) appears to be attempting to shock the audience rather than letting Lisa's exploration unfold in a natural way. Some of her actions (which I will not disclose) I found unreconciled, uncharacteristic, and baffling. I do not cheer her on, nor did I sense anyone in the sparse audience was in her corner. Instead. I want to invite her to tea (at least I care that much about her) so that we might chat about the variety of options life has to offer... perhaps you could try....? At the beginning, I experienced some of the "honesty" the promotional material claims for itself. I found Lisa's initial expression of self-doubts to be wonderfully human. I also found Jennifer Van Dyck's portrayal of Lisa to be honest and mostly endearing. But I spent 84 minutes of my time trying to find the deeper meaning it purported to evoke. If this is truly a film about "bucking materialism and spiritual sterility of modern society" (I admit, I did not feel that at any time through the film), I would conclude that she is using the same tactics that create materialism and spiritual sterility wherever it is found in modern society. The threads of the story do not hold together for me. Rather, I see the film as a series of events that try to fool us into believing that this depicts the lives of real people. Surely, people do act in unpredictable, unexplainable ways -- a film is an incredible opportunity to display such actions visually to people who sit in the dark, focused solely on the screen. As I sat in the dark, I kept wanting more depth. I wanted to know more about Lisa's true thoughts and feelings, which were not (for me, anyway) depicted by her chosen actions.

I originally saw this film 30-something years ago, before even

my PARENTS were sixty-four! Yesterday, I re-experienced this

restored brilliant animation, filled with quirky British humor

and punctuated by songs I know by heart. It was pure delight to

follow Lucy and others down to a bridge by the fountain where

rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies. Everyone in the

packed Saturday afternoon audience smiled as we drifted -- all

together, now -- past flowers that grow so incredibly high. We

encountered no-where men and blue meanies, sailed up to the sun

till we found the sea of green, saw holes turn from nothingness

to sound and color, and cheered the rescue of Sgt Pepper´s

Lonely Hearts Club Band. The story (yes, there is a hero story)

wove itself around Beatles lyrics which we heard clearly in this

digitally re-mastered version, reminding us (among other things)

that we are such a lovely audience. Ah, yes, John, Paul,

George, and Ringo, we'd like to take you home with us, we'd love

to take you home!!!! If no other lyrics stand out from the

Beatles' repertoire, let me put quotation marks around those I

find to be their most profound, "All you need is love. All you

need is love. All you need is love, love. Love is all you

need."

I went to this movie primarily to see Johnny Depp, whom I have found to be a superb character actor (Gilbert Grape, Donnie Brasco, Don Juan DeMarco, Sam in "Benny and Joon" and others are uniquely crafted and memorable). While I could recognize his craftsmanship as Spencer Armacost, I did not always "get" him, rarely liked him, experienced him as tentative, and felt he was overshadowed by the actress in the title role. I found Charlize Theron stunning, a rare beauty, and a solid actress, though I did not always "get" her, either. Since the plot was faulty, I found that giving my attention to the characters was a far better strategy than being frustrated with the inadequacies of the script. Some of the camera work was a bit strange and strained -- while it didn't quite make me dizzy, I was overly distracted by it. Come to think of it, perhaps that is simply a technique to distract the audience so that we will not notice that it is not a very good flick. The only two people in the audience who were scared by this would-be thriller sat behind my companion and me. It made me laugh (quietly, of course, as I feel each of us is entitled to have our own unique experience) that they could shriek at such inane actions. I haven't decided if the movie was fast or slow for me, but of one thing I am certain, it is NOT a "thriller" and it could have been. Ah yes, that's it, this movie "could have been" very good

I find aspects of this story well-conceived, but the film has many loose ends which could have been tied together by enhancing the screenplay and the direction. I have a theory about the popularity of this and similar movies: Many people want to know what happens (or what might happen) when life in the human form ends. As a clairvoyant able to see into different dimensions of reality, I have appreciated various screen presentations of non- ordinary reality. The essence of this story aligns with what I can see in other dimensions. But, oh, for more masterful story telling.

I love this movie -- not because it is great, but because it is fun. I call it a spoof. A delightful spoof. Albert Brooks presents the human condition in a humorous way. I've seen comments saying this movie isn't very funny; however, I had trouble hearing all the lines because of the audience laughter. Perhaps many people in the Santa Monica audience relate to the challenges of the movie biz. I went expecting to enjoy some silliness and poignant humor and favorite actors. I was more than satisfied.