jillbeckinheim7

Powerful film about dysfunction in families. Indeed, throughout the late 1970s and 80s we saw a number of reactionary films which portrayed women and mothers as ice-cold, callous workaholics who turned their backs on their families and abandoned their children ("Kramer vs Kramer", "Terms of Endearment"?). The woman was now "too busy for family", leaving a gap which the man/husband promptly fills, thereby revealing himself to be super-capable in even traditionally domestic roles; the man is thus simultaneously more effeminate and more masculine than woman can ever be, whilst "she" remains exclusively "the enemy". As all these films ignore naked economics - the very engine which pushes women into the workplace and neuters both men and women (in a very real sense, it was debt that got women into the workforce and war which put them in trousers and turn-of-the-century factories) - and the various social factors which shape gender and behaviour, their politics are more pointless than illuminating. Cold women? Sensitive men? Who cares. Today both are perhaps representative of nothing more than the triumphs of niche marketing. What's wrong is reducing sex and gender to socially sanctioned codes to be obeyed and then ignoring how external factors relate to, parasite off of and shapes these codes in the first place.

Regardless, "Ordinary People" explicitly deals with men "talking", "emoting" and "working things out with communication" - traditionally feminine realms - whilst women take the traditionally masculine way out by bottling emotions up and running away. No surprise, then, that "Ordinary People" famously beat Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" to the Best Picture Oscar finishing line. This is ironic, as "Ordinary People's" explicitly about a family opening up, talking about and confronting their problems, whilst "Raging Bull's" lead character is an inarticulate goof-ball who is a seething, violent cauldron precisely because he cannot face or articulate his anxieties. Indeed, "Ordinary People" has a raging bull of its own: young Timothy Hutton who flagellates and punishes himself very much like Scorsese's Jake Lamotta.

Greatest Western ever made. The film takes a fairly sympathetic view of Butch and Sundance, treating them as amiable folk heroes rather than as dangerous criminals, and fosters the legend that they never actually killed anyone during the American part of their career, relying upon threats and bluff rather than the actual use of force. (They do shoot people in Bolivia, although only in self-defence). In "The Wild Bunch" too Peckinpah is generally rooting for the Bunch rather than for their enemies, and it has been suggested that this attitude owes something to the spirit of anti- authoritarianism and rebellion which were in the air during the late sixties. I am not so sure. Glamorisation and sentimentalisation of real- life Western outlaws was nothing new; Hollywood had been doing it at least since the days of Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda as Jesse and Frank James, and probably long before that. If the Production Code forbade glamorising criminals, the scriptwriters simply denied that these men were criminals in the first place. The end of the Code in the sixties merely meant that film-makers could be more barefaced about something which had long been common practice.

The film was a huge success at the box office and the top grossing film of 1969. Its reception from the critics was generally favourable and it won four Academy Awards. It helped to make a major star of Robert Redford and to cement the reputation of his older co-star Paul Newman; the two actors and the director George Roy Hill were later to team up again to make "The Sting". (Oddly enough, Redford was not the first choice for Sundance; that was Jack Lemmon, who turned it down). It has been selected for preservation in the United States National Registry of the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Despite these achievements, however, I have never quite been able to see it as a great milestone in the history of the cinema, which is how some have described it.

8/10.

Not as good as the Ford films. This isn't quite a disaster of a film. It has some neat movie-making moments, like the way they recreate the high secrecy of the Defense Department, or the brief atomic bomb sequences. Morgan Freeman seems to be convincing as anything he wants to be in film, and he is a central high point again and again. In fact, the movie takes off when he first appears, and it disintegrates when his role is done. Liev Schrieber can be wonderful and he's strong here, but isn't given enough rope to make his character have distinction.

Taking all this further, I think it is at times an insulting movie, making schlock out of the most fearsome and serious of 20th Century issues. You also invariably remember the great Cold War films straight out of the cold war, like "Fail-Safe" and "The Bedford Incident" among several others, all of which have the horror and terrifying lack of control intact. And of course to bring out the Nazis again (as so many films do, I guess because we have a cultural hatred of them that's still draws water at the well) is just too much. Not that they don't exist, but that they don't contribute here.

The Kevin Costner character Garrett has just resolved to put his obsession with his dead wife in the proper context and pursue a relationship with new love Theresa. He then virtually commits suicide in an attempt to save the life of a drowning woman. A man so experienced with the sea would not act so recklessly when he now has so much to live for.

The Theresa character seems to have little regard for the effect of bringing a strange man into the life of her son. Her son already has to deal with the breakup of his parents and part-time life with a stepmother and half sibling. Garrett is not a parent and may not interact at all well with children. If the two males do bond, there is another huge impact if the new romance fails to last or in this case the new man dies.

Still, the film has great cinematography and the score is outstanding. The film has a haunting beauty for the most part, the scenes of the sailboats are especially appealing. The romantic characters are both wounded and scarred and longing for love while afraid to try again. The Garrett character is especially dense about how to relate to a woman. Without wise old Dodge pointing out some major blunders, Garrett would have never made any progress in winning Theresa's heart.

Good Coast Guard film "The Guardian" is a film I enjoyed watching a few years ago and couldn't wait to watch it again today.

Kevin Costner has always been one of my favorite actors, I loved him as charming outlaw Robin Hood. His character in "The Guardian" reminds me of the one he played in "Message in a Bottle" (not a fan of Nicholas Sparks). While Ben Randall is not much of an original character, co-staring with Ashton Kutcher in "An Officer and a Gentleman"/"Top Gun" kinda movie was quite cool. I never thought Kutcher could pull off such a role, he's not that bad of an actor, I think he should challenge himself with more roles like this or the womanizer Nikki in "Spread".

The movie itself sends a powerful message about the Coast Guard. It makes me feel like joining them, but I live on a different continent unfortunately. Here people don't want to be saved. I loved the script and what Andrew Davis had done with the film.

Good action film. This takes place in 12th century medieval times focusing on Robin of Locksley (Costner) who returns home to England with new friend, Azeem (Freeman) after escaping from a Jerusalem prison. Robin discovers that his father has been murdered by a corrupt Sheriff, George of Nottingham (Rickman). Robin decides to take on the sheriff by stealing from him and give to the poor becoming an outlaw. Soon, Robin leads a group of exiled people in Sherwood Forest trying to bring freedom to the land. Slater (Heathers) plays Will Scarlett, a young man who is revealed to be Robin's brother and Mastrantonio (Scarface) plays Robin's beloved, Maid Marian. I saw this when it came out at the movies and liked it since. The cast is good, especially Rickman who plays a great villain as usual and Michael Kamen's score is also great.

Excellent family flick. The story begins with real life football coach Jim White (played by Kevin Costner). The film's opening scene which is its weakest asset, shows him getting into a confrontation with his snobbish quarterback/captain. He argues with him, throws a cleat at his locker, said jock gets a cut on the face, and Jimbo gets fired from his job. Along with his wife Cheryl (Maria Bello in a side role that she could play in her sleep) and his two daughters, White moves from Boise, Idaho to one of the poorest towns in America being McFarland, California. He's there to take a second rate job (the only job he could get) as an assistant football coach. After yet again being asked to step down, he's handcuffed to just the role of a physical education teacher. It's within this realm that he learns about how fast his students can run. This gives Jim an idea: he's gonna convince the principal to back the first cross country team in the history of McFarland High. White will be the coach and all he has to do is find seven male runners. This sparks a plethora of comradery, friendship, father figure interludes, and determination between Costner's White and his underprivileged speed demons. As a team, they start to make waves at various running meets and eventually hightail it to the California state championships. "McFarland's" main conflict therefore, is the question of whether or not Jim is trying to boost his resume. He could get offered another job in a nicer town that's less poverty-stricken. He also could stay in McFarland seeing that him and his family become so attached to a community of hard working pickers with not so bright futures.

Now McFarland, USA is a conventional yet well filmed sports drama. With a little heart, a little tug, and a little shine courtesy of Australian cinematographer Adam Arkapaw, it gets the job done. The running scenes are profusely shot with the Southwest California landscape glistening in the background. Its authenticity is paramount showcasing unknown, young cast members (from what I read, actual students from McFarland High School as well) and the mighty Kevin Costner whose old world weariness, scruffy demeanor, and acting as veritable comfort food deem him perfect for the role of Jim White.

This film caught me by surprise. It's a tightly-woven film that punches you in the gut in the end.

My rating: 10/10

Ignore the haters. Many of these people have a personal vendetta against either the actors or the creators or JESUS himself. They pretend to be Christians, but the Bible calls them 'Angels of Light' who are in fact demons. Very sobering.

The acting is phenomenal. It's the strongest part of this film. So is the camera work. Trying to compare this to a $100 million film is disingenuous as the filmmakers have said they shot the entire movie on a very low budget.

Great film that honors GOD in the end. Don't miss it!

10/10 - great epic film. You won't see any computer-generated comic-book characters in this movie, but you will see real people having real conversations, and you'll see Costner and costar Mary McDonnell engaging in such intimate and convincing love scenes that you'll forget they're acting!

If I could rate the musical score for this movie by itself I'd give it a perfect 10, because it's one of the best I've ever heard, able to stand on its own but fitting the movie like a glove. It is sentimental without being schmaltzy, noble without being pretentious. Best of all, it captures the hesitant emotions of the story, the sense of curiosity overcoming fear and becoming trust.

Only this movie's extreme length works against its total success, particularly in the special edition that runs nearly four hours. The three-hour theatrical version is still long, but it's difficult to say what should have been left out of it.

Some people still resent the fact that Costner won the Best Director Oscar over Scorcese's Goodfellas. There's no question that Scorcese is the better director, but I believe the direction of Dances With Wolves is better than that of Goodfellas. If you disagree with me try this test: imagine that Scorcese did this movie, and Costner directed Goodfellas. It's a question of which directing job is better, not which director is better.

Special props to Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe Jackson and Burt Lancaster as Moonlight Graham. Both were amazing. Still, their characters were very loosely based on true story. Moonlight Graham was in fact a ballplayer who appeared in only one MLB game. Following that one game, he continued playing professionally through the 1908 season, mostly in the New York State League, until retiring at the age of 30 before becoming a doctor in Chisholm, Minnesota. The film takes some liberties with his story. Graham really died in 1965, but producer Francis Ford Coppola wanted to see his film "The Godfather" on a marquee, so Ray goes back to 1972 to find him. The degree of Shoeless Joe Jackson's culpability in the Black Sox Scandal is also changed or little mention to put his character in a better light. Glad, they change the movie from "Shoeless Joe" to Field of Dreams, because the movie has little to do with Shoeless Joe Jackson. It would make the movie seem more like a bio-pic. The movie isn't all about baseball. It does have a weird odd sub-plot about book banning that raises some legitimate debate about censorship. While, it's great that they indeed tackle this issue in film and give more depth to Amy Madigan's character, Annie Kinsella; but it's just seem out of the blue, and comes out of nowhere. Did the screen writer, Phil Alden Robinson, have a political agenda he wanted to address? Who knows! This scene could had been avoided. It's really does slow the movie down. It's like talking about football, and somehow brings up the issue of banning art like David Cerny.

It's a good thriller, but not great. Denzel Washington as ace newspaper reporter Gray Grantham and Julia Roberts as Darcy Shaw, a beautiful law student, are very good together and I longed for racist sensibilities to be outraged by their characters having a good old bonk. They get it together at the end of the book, but alas, in the film they do not. In the book though, unless I've missed something, Gray is not specifically African-American, though he cultivates his own Afro-American Deep Throat (a White House janitor).

I quite enjoyed Sam Shepards' randy drunk law professor who has fallen in love with his beautiful student Darcy. He's very improbable yet quite convincing. What she sees in him is harder to figure, but he is disposed of early on. Most of the other characterisations are stock standard - the dimwit President (an amalgam of Ford, Reagan and Bush senior), the conniving presidential aid (most of the Nixon White House), the straight arrow FBI director (maybe not so stock standard) the laconic, not to say taciturn evil hitmen, the tough but supportive editor (John Lithgow rather good as a Ben Bradlee type).

Very powerful documentary on the impact of this film around the world. It's one of the most remarkable films I've seen of how Christ changes lives in stunning and miraculous ways.

I love how the bomber turned to Christ in Norway after watching the film.

Also, how the murderer confessed to the murder after having found Christ through the film.

The filmmakers even went as far as India to show the effects of the movie.

Films can turn many to Christ and is a great instrument.

10/10.

Ford plays beloved, too good to be true, strong willed (and therefore clearly democratic) President James Marshall (small joke.) Ford is just mind blowingly pure as the President although he makes some very controversial decisions in the course of the film (the cusp of them being letting a woman die to save and protect everyone else.) Still he is the kind of man you'd want in office but never get. On top of that he is strong and determined and a kick ass fighter. No one else could have played this role as well or as brilliantly. Equally as impressive is his nemesis in the film played by Gary Oldman. Oldman plays a brilliant madman determined to have his countries former leader released from Russian captivity. The two of them against each other is just mind blowingly perfect. Ford's character is one of the best action heroes in Hollywood history and Oldman's villain is right up there with him. Glenn Close gives a terrific performance as the Vice President who stands firmly beside the President at every turn. The rest of the cast don't get a lot of screen time but they are so important because the supporting cast is beyond impressive including Wendy Crewson and Liesel Matthews as the first lady and their daughter. William H. Macy (amazing as always), Dean Stockwell (also very impressive role for a small one), and Xander Berkeley as the Secret Service agent secretly turned rogue.

From the moment the film begins to the moment the plane leaves the ground the action is non stop. The characters are all ones you come to care about and become involved in completely making the action all the more riveting and edge of your seat. Ford and Oldman give such passion to their performances as they almost always do and it draws you right in. If you love action films, if you love nail biters and thrillers and you haven't seen Air Force One.

I remember watching this film on USA Networks in 2000 and then read it was the #1 movie on cable TV that year and it didn't surprise me. It was viewed by over 33 million people around the world.

Extremely emotional, funny, tear-jerking movie.

Ignore the strange hater below who gave this film a '1'. He's just acting woke. This film was beloved by all races and was the winner of the audience award at Quincy Jones Urban World Film Festival in NYC I read.

This is a MUST-SEE movie and I remember it played on USA Networks over and over again!

This film was the precursor to 'Rush Hour' and even Chris Tucker said this I remember in the media.

This is an INCREDIBLE classic movie and it's sad it never got out more.

My Rating: 10/10.

Thrilling - better than the TV series. Kimble is living the wonderful social life with a beautiful wife in tow until his wife is bludgeoned to death and the good doc is accused, sentenced, jailed and transported until a chance - and explosive - escape leaves him free to search for the, gasp!, the one-armed man who really killed his wife (Ward.) It's up to U. S. Marshalls, led wonderfully by Gerard (Jones) to catch the fugitive(s) in an unbiased and unforgiving way.

Against impossible, and I do mean IMPOSSIBLE, ways, Kimble thwarts the authorities and puts the pieces together to regain his innocence and freedom. Will Gerard catch up with the lone doctor? Will he care? He clearly says he doesn't.

This movie is flat exciting and simple. Barely a CGI moment, if any and it relies heavily on the acting of both Ford and Jones in classic cat 'n' mouse fashion. And it works, it really does. You will have to get pass the endless "OH! He's gonna get caught here! No, he's definitely done for there!" moments - which worked better in the superior The Silence of the Lambs and most of all, the 93-story-drop Kimble survives off a dam. (Yeah, that's an exaggeration, but not too far off.)

This is the first viewing I've had of this movie in a long time, and with what I've been seeing this past decade, this was thoroughly refreshing. I love pre-CGI movies and especially movies that rely on heart, plot and acting vs. Special effects. This is a must seeEven if you have to lie your way into the theatre.

Did I mention, that young reporter got his pick of any seat as, he and his friend were the first ones in the auditorium before anyone else was let in? Oh, yeah. Those were the days.

As with any film over 2 hours long, there are a few slow moments in the movie. However, for the most part, the film stays on course with alternating action, drama, and suspense scenes. Anne Archer and Thora Birch return in more forgettable roles as Ford's wife and daughter. Several other colorful characters are present, especially Joaquim de Almeida as a sinister cartel figure. Willem Dafoe plays a great role as a CIA contact, who supplies the illegal firepower to attack the cartels. His role should have been developed more; he's on screen all too briefly. James Earl Jones also returns for a farewell performance as Greer, Ryan's mentor. Henry Czerny, Harris Yulin, and Donald Moffat make up the oily triumvirate that Faces Ford. The film has terrific action and suspense sequences, especially the cartel's open attack on Ford's government convoy in the SUV's and the computer battle where Ford tries to run off illegal government doings. Ford's actions are consistent with his character, in that, he never saves the day via extraordinary means by himself, as can be customary in these type of films.

Love Clancy Films like this....the villain here is also nothing less than the President of the United States, a gutsy move, though by now this "paternal villain" cliché is getting old ("The Fugitive", "LA Confidential", "Monster's Inc", "Minority Report" etc). Unusual for such films, "Danger" points out the immorality of affairs such as Irangate, doesn't salivate over the film's depiction of a secret war in South America (which Noyce links to Vietnam), considers (somewhat) the moral implications of violence, criticises snap emotive responses and deals with political betrayals and private agendas among both the President and his advisers. Where the film differs significantly from its 1970s predecessors, is it's total lack of impotency: the 90s spy-hero doesn't shy away from responsibility, and will go so far as to topple the Presidency to maintain the good of his country

What's funny, though, is that the film treats its central idea (the President mounting an illegal covert war in Panama) as a shockingly evil thing. In the real world, despite the fact that the American President is not allowed to deploy or instigate any military actions without Congress first declaring war, he routinely does so. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea etc, not to mention countless CIA instigated coups in places like Haiti, Iran, Chile and Ecuador, were all illegal by the Constitution of the United States. The fact is, Congress is always sidestepped, most recently in the "bank bailout package" fiasco.

This being Tom Clancy, the main attraction is once again the gear on display: laser guided bombs, F18 hornets, sniper's hidden in the grass, an RPG attack on a convoy etc. From here, many computer game franchises would spawn, and from there, a banalization of military technology. People used to go to these thrillers and marvel at the hardware, gasping at the inside looks offered of the Oval Office and Pentagon, but now such things are routine, countless TV shows (West Wing, 24, The Unit, JAG) and video games (why be wowed by the sniper on screen, when you can BE him online) diluting the spectacle that made these films popular in the 90s.

Everyone knows 'Gone' is one of the greatest end-times movies ever made. Shot in the Philippines about 3 lawyers who get left behind - made in 2002.

LOVE THIS FILM. The score of 7.6 is low. Tons of Christian haters have voted it a '1'. Don't listen to them. They will stand before a real God someday and give account.

I remember when I first saw this film, my jaw was open the entire time. It feels so eerie and it makes you really 'feel' like you're on this incredible end of the world journey in a third world country.

The BIBLE is very clear about idle words: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36

My ratings:

Acting: B Writing: A Directing: B+ Story: A.

"Witness", his first film made outside Australia, is another example of Weir simultaneously working within an established genre and transcending it. On one level it is a traditional police thriller. While travelling with his mother a young boy named Samuel Lapp witnesses a murder in the washrooms at Philadelphia railway station. It turns out that the murdered man was an undercover police officer, and a homicide detective, John Book, is assigned to the case. Book's investigations lead him to the discovery that the murder was carried out by a narcotics officer named McFee, one of a group of corrupt officers in league with a gang of drug smugglers. Book is forced to go underground for safety, taking Samuel and his mother Rachel with him.

On another level the film is a love story, as a romance develops between Book and Rachel, a beautiful young widow. Neither the crime story nor the romance element, however, would by themselves make this film anything out of the ordinary. What makes the film different is the third level, a study of cultural differences. Samuel and Rachel are members of the Amish religious sect, and it is among the Amish that they and Book take refuge while hiding from the villains.

It would be easy to see the Amish, as portrayed in this film, as being quaint, even comically reactionary. They speak an archaic German dialect inaccurately known as "Pennsylvania Dutch" (although some of the lines in the film are in standard modern German). They follow a strict set of rules known as the "Ordnung" which govern every aspect of their daily lives. They may not own a television or a telephone and may not use electricity in the home. They drive horse-drawn buggies as it is forbidden to own or drive a motor vehicle. They have a strict dress code and are even forbidden to use buttons, regarded as a sign of "Hochmut", or pride. Those who violate these rules can be punished by shunning. The Amish habitually refer to all non-Amish Americans, regardless of ethnic background, as "the English". (News of the Declaration of Independence clearly has not yet filtered through to them).

What with him being the happily married man whose wife is kidnapped, there could be some displacement of emotions, but what Polanski does is show how those around them assume that a middle aged American and a young French girl are only together because of a "business arrangement", and at one point this is embarrassing for him while at others it is convenient or even lifesaving. So there's a lot of that type of irony in the film which reminds one of Hitchcock in his 50s mode.

Really the story and the material isn't hugely important, although it is fun to see Polanski in a world not completely unlike "Chinatown", though largely unburdened by its amorality (in this film, for example, the American Federal agents are basically patriotic heroes, where "Chinatown" constantly questions the corruption of authority itself). Some of the ways the film tried to look hip or modern seem pretty ridiculous to me, such as Seigner doing a freaky dance in the club with Ford, but I suppose maybe for some people that kind of thing is nostalgic or romantic. For me it just reminds me of bad 80s club scenes, although Seigner does have an interesting way about her in general. Because the central story is about terrorists from the Middle East trying to obtain nuclear information, the central intrigue is certainly not one of the aspects of the film that's becoming "dated" in that way.

The suspense scenes work, the romantic chemistry works, it's a beautiful movie in a lot of ways, but I just can't take it to heart. I can't make myself believe that the characters really matter all that much, the ending seems obvious to me instead of tragic.

The mission goes badly, and the two leads are the only survivors of the shot down aircraft. They complete the mission together, becoming friends. Naturally, when Plummer talks about his wife, Ford realizes she's the same girl he's been seeing.

They don't make these beautiful films anymore.....After some action, they escape, and Ford sends Downe back to her husband. Bittersweet ending, fade to black.

Like I said, the bones of the story make for a classic love triangle with plenty of WW2 action thrown in for good measure. There's a fair amount of innovation in the script, as all 3 parties in the triangle are likable, and either way it went, there would be no happy ending. The mission is exciting too.

The problem is the script itself. The dialogue tends to be bad, and that hurts the film badly. A few cliches don't help either (look for the Catch 22 inspired characters in Ford's plane.)

Personally, I feel that this film could have been one of the all time greats if only a little more work had gone into a script polish. I can definitely see why all the talented people involved said yes to it.

Ignore the haters. They've never lifted a camera in their lives or made a movie. They're like restaurant critics who never cooked a meal or a sports critic who never threw a football.

Kudos to this film team for making such a POWERFUL, AMAZING sports film that has INCREDIBLE faith and honor to LORD GOD.

I thought Chris Staples - the lead star and slam dunk champion - did a SUPERB ACTING job considering he never acted before.

My Grades:

Acting: A Writing: A+ Directing: A Sports: A+

Overall Rating: 10/10.

The finale was one of the best i have ever seen!. It's actually quite disturbing at times, and was rather creepy, plus it was constantly unpredictable throughout. This bombed at the box office and i can't see why, as it's brilliantly done, and The effects were great, plus Harrison Ford is simply amazing in this!. There is not 1 boring moment in this, and i really found the setting very creepy, plus, it got very emotional at times!. The conflicts between the 2 captains(Ford and Neeson) got really tense, and this was brilliantly acted, plus the ending was awesome!. This is a tense and thrilling masterpiece, with 2 amazing performances from Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson!, and i say it's a must see at all costs!. The Direction is excellent!. Kathryn Bigelow does an excellent job here, with fantastic camera work, great angles, great zoom in's and zoom out's,and keeping the film at an extremely engrossing pace!. The Acting is fantastic!. Harrison Ford is AMAZING as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, intense, was extremely convincing, had excellent chemistry.

At its core it remains a mystery and it's all the better for it. I think the most impressive thing about it was its commitment to building on the mythology set forth by the original. It managed to expand on the original and give us answers to what happened to characters after it in ways that felt clever, fresh, and still faithful to it. It manages to be about the continuation of certain events in the first film while creating a new fascinating character at its core and manages to tell the new character's arc brilliantly. To reiterate, it's very well written, managing to avoid the clichés that usually transpire in films like this. Villeneuve has quickly become one of the best filmmakers currently working and this is only another example of his talent. However, the original was much better.

Just kind of a run-of-the-mill horror film.

Harrison Ford is also amazing as always, and is incredible here, he is extremely likable, got to play a completely different character, and he did with it absolute perfection, he is also incredibly awesome in the finale, and was as always his usual intense self, plus he had wonderful chemistry with Pfeiffer!, i adored his performance. Diana Scarwid is boring here, and had nothing to do but console Pfeiffer, she looked bored too. Joe Morton(Dr. Drayton,James Remar(Warren Feur),Miranda Otto(Mary Feur),Amber Valletta(especially) all do what they have to do very well.

5/10.