Ysman

Great horror, at its core, has always been a mirror of the societal values during the time frame in which it was created. What scares us as a collective whole? Those films that tap into that phenomenon have always been the most successful and the most memorable. While not the only interpretations, Frankenstein can be seen as a warning of technology and science gone awry. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a clear allegory to fear of Communism. Godzilla teaches us to be wary of nuclear experimentation. Texas Chainsaw Massacre can be seen as a flower child awakening in a post-Vietnam US. Even the slasher flicks of the 80's are modern-day fairy tales exaggerating the dangers of sexual experimentation in a time of STDs and AIDS. What we have not seen as of yet is a reflection of our society in a post 9/11 world. One where the terror is in not knowing where the terror may be and one of ourselves being the monster, the aggressor, and the hated. Hostel may be the first to point in that direction.

Hostel begins almost as a light-hearted, albeit X-rated, sister film to 2004's Eurotrip. We begin as our "heroes" arrive in Amsterdam looking for ganja and sex not necessarily in that order. Paxton, the alpha male, and Josh, the sensitive one (think Favreau's character in Swingers) during their backpacking trip, have picked up Oli, a do-anything-anyone Icelander who comes along for the ride - so to speak. The trio jumps from dance club to hash bar to red light district leaving no pot unsmoked and no whore untapped. When they arrive at their Hostel after curfew, they are saved by a stranger who guides them to Eastern Europe with the promises of women who are as easy as they are beautiful. Then things, as they say, turn south.

For the first 45 minutes, Hostel revels in its Cinemax After Dark qualities. Tanned breasts, trimmed pubic regions, and voluptuous rear-ends are all on display in various states of coitus however as the groups travels to Bratislava, they begin to encounter the creepiness and perversion that only a piece of the defunct Soviet empire can provide. One by one our protagonists begin to disappear after being lured away from the group by a nubile, young, topless women. As they soon learn, they have been duped. They find themselves on the bad end of a scheme that offers up live subjects that, for a price, can be tortured and killed in any manner in which your sick heart can dream.

Utilizing my SAT skills - What the first 45 minutes are to breasts, the remaining 50 are to blood and gore. Hostel includes, but is not limited to, human drilling, Achilles slicing, unpleasant eyeball removal, chainsaw induced leg removal, and a savage beating resulting in a caved-in skull.

While Hostel may not ever be shown in MoMA, it does present an interesting portrayal of American attitudes of ourselves and those from the outside. Our backpackers are the ugliest of the ugly Americans. Young and wealthy and with no concern for the consequences of their actions, they drink and fornicate their way across Europe and are despised by everyone outside of the young women who are impressed with foreign accents. Americans bring the highest price of all of the people you can torture for a price. Lastly, when the film turns toward revenge, the infliction of pain and torture to those that had hurt the Americans is just as violent and is handed out with an ask no questions, kill 'em all mentality.

Is Hostel fine art? Probably not. Is Hostel great horror? It is close. The problem with Hostel is that is never really presents itself as scary. By the time the main characters get to the place of torture, the audience has been numbed by endless sex scenes and unlike those being tortured, we all know where they are going to end up. Basically outside of inventive ways to mutilate, Hostel offers nothing of a surprise and thus offers very little in the ways of scares (unless of course you are planning a trip to Europe anytime soon.) What we are left with are the elements of great horror; the reckless bravado, the moral depravity, buckets of blood, and the promise of an even gorier sequel.

Hostel is 95 minutes long and stars the linebacker from Friday Night Lights and the guy who played young Jeff Daniels in D&Derer. It is rated R for countless breasts, a single beaver, and many, many other body parts that were not connected to other body parts. Mandrake grade: B+

So I finally get around to seeing Hotel Rwanda. A friend and I had a long standing engagement to get out and see this film however the forces that control these things conspired against that happening and as all movies eventually do, even good ones starring Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda left the theater. My friend and I would have to view something else.

As luck and fate would have it, Hollywood studios like to make as much money as they can on any given film and so they released Hotel Rwanda to DVD which allows viewing movies outside of the theater in your own home or place of convenience (forgive me if I am going to fast.) As I have a Netflix account and in that account I have a queue of movies, Hotel Rwanda was sent to me without me having to do anymore than point and/or click. Since it was sent, I felt obligated to watch - a fact that my wife hates by the way - while she has no problem stopping watching films already in progress, I, by some freak genetic mutation, must watch them to their painful end regardless of how long or asinine - much like the South Park episode where Cartman had to finish singing Come Sail Away whenever he heard the beginning of the song . . . but I digress.

For those not familiar: Hotel Rwanda stars Don Cheadle as Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager who housed over a thousand Tutsis refugees during their struggle against the Hutu militia in Rwanda. The audience watches Paul's transformation from a man with style to a man with substance. (see the film - the quote makes more sense then.) So I watched IT - and here you are, dear reader, wondering how IT was. How do you think it was? Of course it was good, fine, Oscar nominated and all that. The story was heartfelt, Cheadle was stellar, impeccably shot. Heck, even the sound was good. And therein lies my problem - the film was all that I expected it to be and thus as I sit here thinking about it, I am terribly bored by it.

How horrible! I am an unfeeling boob! He should be gutted and hung in a public square to remind little children on how not to live their lives! And to all of these things I would say yes, yes, and yes again. But that doesn't make Hotel Rwanda any better at entertaining me (a funny side note, the aforementioned friend, myself, and my wife all went to see Amistad one evening and were so bored by the slave trade film that we fell asleep which incensed our more social conscious audience members.) The problem is that Hotel Rwanda is so paint-by-the-numbers Oscar caliber that I wanted terribly for some Sofia Coppola-esquire Godfather 3 performance or some random death to shake me from my stupor. I took to the Internet to see if I was alone in my thoughts. Here are some quotes from the IMDb:

larajane says: Watching with a friend, after ten minutes we had to pause the film because we decided we would be better served if we were more informed about what the basic facts of the conflict in Rwanda were. So to my shame, we had to read on the internet about what really happened, before we could continue. I say shame because we should have known, both of us were of an age when it happened to have taken more of an interest in world politics.

and this from Julie-Gefter: i am frustrated because nothing i can type can represent how powerful this movie is or how much it moved me. i can't comment on the amazing acting or cinematography or directing because the movie transported me.

and celiaricky loved the movie so much she "ovated" the director for 10 minutes - the lucky scoundrel: Just saw the San Francisco premier last night and it isn't a dramatization - it's much more of a documentary -- Hotel is extremely factual. CAN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT THIS FILM! INCREDIBLE EXPERIENCE! The Director and the story's protagonist were at the screening to answer questions. We ovated him for almost 10 minutes.

So there you have it - Hotel Rwanda was a good movie - a great movie by most accounts - that, I'd be willing to say if 'tweren't based on true facts would have been a nice little HBO original film. Cheadle is greatness - but watch Boogie Nights or Devil in a Blue Dress for a more impressive performance. And to all IMDb readers - I'm sorry I suck.

Movie notes: Hotel Rwanda is 121 minutes long and rated PG-13 for brief strong language, Oscar worthy depictions of human atrocities, and disturbing images. Directed by Terry George who has brought you other true life moving experiences such as A Bright Shinning Lie and the second episode of season one of the District. It stars Don Cheadle who is good in everything he does, on and off camera.

Since George Lucas stepped away from his throne in 1983, many have tried to come and replicate the success of the Holy Trinity of science fiction films. Most attempts were thwarted before they even began. The Wachowskis made a noble effort with The Matrix in 1999 yet they fell victim to CGI extravagance and to their own over inflated views on the landscape they created producing sequels that were nothing more than exercises in "hey look at what we can do with a PC and 100 million dollars at our disposal." Even Lucas tried to reclaim what was rightfully his and alas he too was more interested in the technology than the storytelling creating 3 criminally stilted, wooden prequels that only tarnished the films that almost everyone holds dear.

Enter Joss Whedon. What Whedon has done is eerily similar to what Lucas did in '77 taking a cast of relative unknowns, the most famous being Animal Mother from Full Metal Jacket and Pirate Steve from Dodgeball, and creating a compelling, exciting space western. Serenity is what Star Wars would have been if the focus was on Han rather than that pansy-a$$, Luke. What is more exciting is that what Lucas lacks, Whedon has in spades. Having cut his teeth on television series and script doctoring, most notably Toy Story, the dialog is crisp, witty, never forced, and almost Mamet-esquire in its pacing and originality. The language used recalls a nod to the old west without veering towards the ridiculous and without falling trap to invented "space dialog." Whedon, too, finds a rhythm with his actors and since they are relative unknowns, the audience has no trouble letting them become the characters they portray. While it is not completely fair to continually draw comparisons to Star Wars and Lucas, it is evident Whedon is a fan.

From the Serenity website {ed note: no need to rework what has already been written}: Serenity centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family - squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal. When Mal takes on two new passengers - a young doctor and his unstable, telepathic sister - he gets much more than he bargained for. The pair are fugitives from the coalition dominating the universe, who will stop at nothing to reclaim the girl.

The crew that was once used to skimming the outskirts of the galaxy unnoticed find themselves caught between the unstoppable military force of the Universal Alliance and the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers, savages who roam the very edge of space. Hunted by vastly different enemies, they begin to discover that the greatest danger to them may be on board Serenity herself.

Having never seen a minute of the television show from which the movie originated, I am unsure of how much of a back story or character history I am missing however watching the film, I never felt left out of an inside joke or nods to the hard-core fandom. The story isn't weighted down with trying to establish an environment or character origins. The characters are richly drawn without being obvious clichés and the story begins and ends without the false promise of useless, unnecessary sequels.

In the world where box office numbers are king, it cannot yet be told what the future holds for the Serenity universe. Whedon takes on Wonder Woman next and that will be, most likely, what will cause people to start referring to his name as a precursor to the titles of his films. That said, it would be a shame if this were the only film we have that scrapes the surface of the Alliance and shows us only a single voyage of the Captain Malcolm Reynolds and crew of the Serenity. The landscape is far too rich and the possible stories are seemingly endless. And if future stories are told, lets just hope that Joss is not so much a fan of Lucas that he becomes like him and destroys everything that made him great.

Serenity gets an A- (A minus.)

Judy Berlin focuses its attention on a small New York suburb on a day where an eclipse lasts a little too long, enveloping the town in a darkness somehow enabling its citizens to open and express themselves.

Judy Berlin meanders and strolls through characters and situations that have no real connections other than an Alzheimer patient that ties everyone loosely together. Characters spout off supposedly meaningful dialogue while staring off in the distance. They do quirky things that seem like they have a greater significance than they really do. The problem is that none of this particularly engaging or even interesting. Even the title of the film seems misplaced, focusing attention on the actress that is currently attracting the most attention outside of the film (Eddie Falco from The Sopranos). The film's moniker could have easily been the name of any one of the random characters. With a cast filled with great character actors, most of them are wasted on bit parts or cameo roles. Those that do have larger roles appear confused to as exactly why they are there. The premise of the extended eclipse symbolizing the mediocrity of the characters lives while also providing the inspiration for their actions should have been enough fodder to carry an independent film. Unfortunately, it is not and ultimately the film is a disappointing mess.

Ocean's Eleven is a boring, smug, lifeless film. The real shame is that it could have been oh so much better. All the elements of a great film are there: intriguing premise, incredible cast, and an Oscar winning, stylistic director. So what went wrong? The premise really is never interesting as it seems. The heist goes off so smoothly that the film never builds any tension whatsoever. The bad guys are never as bad as they are made out to be and stealing from Vegas seems to be as easy as taking candy from a baby. The cast is all star, however they have all been better elsewhere or they aren't given much to do. Clooney has played this role before in Out of Sight (a much better Soderberg film). Brad Pitt is cool but he never adds much to the film other than a handsome set piece. Andy Garcia is the much feared baddie who does nothing but turn the other cheek when his fortune is being robbed. Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Carl Reiner, and Elliot Gould are woefully misused as set dressing rather than full fledged characters. The film would have been much better had it focused on these characters rather than Clooney and Pitt. Julia Roberts' skeleton has a mere cameo role and really adds nothing to the picture. That said, Ocean's Eleven is not a bad film. It has a few moments of genuine cleverness and a couple of chuckles. But it could have been so much better. Mamet's Heist, Richie's Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Soderberg's own Out of Sight are much better at the robbery game. I really hope this is a minor stumble in the career of Soderberg and it isn't the Oscar curse that is overtaking him. We shall see.

John Moore needs to decide on a directing style. Behind Enemy Lines could have been an enjoyable popcorn fluff film full of patriotism for a country that can't seem to get enough of that sentiment. Instead it is a shoddy mess of directing styles matched with a story line from the guys who gave us the moronic Wild Wild West and laughable Mission to Mars. Moore can't decide if he wants to be Speilberg with his Saving Private Ryan-esque dropped frame battle scenes, the Wachowski brothers with a Matrix style slow motion close-ups, Ridley Scott with the Enemy of the State views from a satellite, or Darren Aronofsky with his very brief use of the up close head shots. All of this coupled with a cliche-ridden script with poor dialog makes for a terrible viewing experience. Hackman and Wilson are in top form but are really just killing time here before filming The Royal Tenenbaums. Hackman and Wilson aside, most of the acting is terrible. The extras seem to be pulled off the street over acting every step of the way. All in all, a very poor film with subject matter that deserves better treatment. If you want patriotism, stay home and rent Red Dawn instead.

LOTR performs the one task that very few films can ever do . . . live up to the hype. There is no need for me to say that LOTR is great, astounding, incredible, miraculous, awesome, etc., etc., etc. These things have already been said by all who have seen it. All I will say is that by Christmas 2003, the world will have a new holy movie trinity. All films that follow will do so in Lord of the Rings shadow.

M. Night has proved that the success of The Sixth Sense was no fluke with is by far the best film of a sub-par Y2K. Unbreakable is an unbelievably well told first chapter to a super-hero story, with Willis as the torn hero and Jackson as the mentor. Willis, Jackson, and Robin Wright Penn have never been better. Hauntingly poetic, Unbreakable builds slowly to its climax so when it finally arrives it hits you like a ton of bricks. Beautifully shot and acted, Unbreakable becomes what all movies should strive to be . . . a film that once the credits roll, you want to watch it again, immediately. Words do this film no justice.

The script for Me, Myself, and Irene was written well before There's Something About Mary and like Kevin Smith's Dogma, the fact that this is old material is painfully obvious. In Mary, the jokes and sight gags made you laugh in spite of yourself. In Irene, the jokes just made me stare in disbelief. All of the jokes were placed for shock value only and did nothing to enhance or compliment the main storyline. Even the bits that could have worked, such as Carrey's three sons and the albino kid, were funny at the first of the film but grew tedious by the end. The Farrely brothers have fallen so far as to insert outrageously obscene curse words into the dialogue to generate laughs. Instead all they do is generate boredom and waste an inspired performance from Jim Carrey.

Sam Jackson is perfectly cast as the cat who delivers 10 times out of 10, Shaft. The film is definitely a throwback to the glory days of cops and robbers films like the original Shaft, Dirty Harry, and those that would follow. The protagonist is deliciously un-politically correct, play-by-his-own-rules, bad mamma jamma. The bad guy is an unapologetic criminal who thinks a little too highly of himself. The plot is simple just like it needs to be and Singleton shows love for the 70's film and TV culture with the classic screen fades from scene to scene. The cast is brilliant. Jeffery Wright's mumbling Hispanic drug lord rivals Benicio Del Toro's Fenster from The Usual Suspects as the most difficult to understand character in the history of film. Christian Bale expands on his American Psycho role as the rich, racist, yuppie murderer and Toni Collette shows her continuing versatility in a somewhat under utilized part as a scared witness. What's the coolest, baddest summer movie in the year 2000? Shaft, damn right!

Watching The Story of Us is like being forced to sit through all of your most vicious fights with loved ones placed back to back for two hours. The Story of Us is mind numbing and about as enjoyable as a root canal while your appendix bursts. The Story of Us works in flashbacks of happier times to try to show the audience how good the relationship could be and why it should be held together, however the flashbacks only emphasize why these people should be apart. Blow by blow, the movie draws to a predictable Hollywood conclusion with a flurry of flashbacks so ridiculously done and one particular flashback frighteningly and pornographically out of place, that it is all way too little and way too late for any sort of redemption. My only advice is that if you take a date to this movie, make sure your relationship is on extremely solid ground because you will be arguing when this film is finished.

In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.

Gladiator seemingly brings back the "Epic" film (although the true epics included thousands of extras and larger than life productions and with CGI none of that extravagance is necessary). Gladiator is by no means a great film. The plot is paper thin, the story lines moves from point A to B with unfaltering linearity, and the end battle is somewhat of a disappointment. With that said, however, Gladiator was incredible to watch, making the audience watch in amazement as bodies are sliced and diced in the gory arena battles. Russell Crowe is great (per usual) as Maximus, lending credibility to some of the more ridiculous dialogue and Joaquin Phoenix is superb (again per usual) as the tortured Commodus (unfortunate name). Y2K has not produced the great films of 1999 (American Beauty, Three Kings, Being John Malkovich) yet, but Gladiator is a nice try.

The Mission Impossible series has picked up where the James Bond films have faltered (Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World Is Not Enough) by bringing back the basic good versus evil spy thriller. MI2 doesn't muddle the plot with ridiculous one-liners or twenty year old love interests for the hero. Granted MI2 is no Citizen Kane, however John Woo injects enough eye popping stunts and his usual brand of awe inspiring cinematography to make this film great eye candy. The key is to just sit back and enjoy.

Where The Heart Is is a heart warming, sentimental, sappy, predictable film that turns out to be a really good film due to the performances of Ashley Judd and Natalie Portman. The film plot probably read a lot better in the book than it appeared on celluloid. The tragedies that occur in and to the rural Oklahoma town seem to happen one right after another giving the audience of a "what could go wrong next" feeling. Ultimately though what is lasting is the performance of Portman in her first starring role showing what full use of her acting ability can accomplish. Although for me, Beautiful Girls is her best role to date.

The only partially amusing portion of this film was the last 15 minutes when the new Carrie started killing her classmates. This sequel had none of the inventiveness or spookiness of the the first film. Nothing was scary about this film except how painfully boring and out of touch the movie was. Like Sam Jackson in Deep Blue Sea, I am sure Mena Suvari was more than glad to exit the film early. In the period of particularly bad teen horror films, Carrie 2 out does them all.

Edward Norton has created a romantic comedy that has both elements, romance and comedy. This is a rare feat nowadays. In the era of Runaway Bride, My Best Friend's Wedding, The Bachelor, Three to Tango, The Other Sister (ugh), etc. etc. etc. finally a film comes along to breathe some life into this dead genre.

U-571's was a predictable action yarn with nothing much to note. The story line did a great job of setting up its all too deliberate punches. Bill Paxton basically outlined each one of Matthew McConaughey's future actions in the first 20 minutes of the film. The action sequences did well to build some suspense but the computer graphics looked terrible. The fact that the background was fake was painfully obvious. The ending made it seem as if the screenwriters had run out of material or the director had run out of film. All in all the film just left me wanting something better.

The problem with Ellis's book was one with the public. People couldn't get past all of the violence and sex to see the underlying messages and themes of the book. American Psycho, the novel, was a satire on the decadent lifestyle of the 80's and its trappings. Of course the consequences were taken to extremes but its point was well made. American Psycho, the movie, is a well done adaptation of the novel with only a few shortcomings. Unlike the terrible movie, Less Than Zero, American Psycho stays true to the general fell and ideas of the novels. The sex and violence, while not completely removed, was not as explicit in the book. Bale is superb as Patrick Bateman, although the Bateman that I envisioned from reading the novel was quite different and I suppose that was the main flaw of the film for me. While reading the novel, Bateman was much more sinister to me, much more evil. In the movie, Bateman seems to understand that what he really wants is to be accepted and to be seen as the best. In the book, he was much more sure of himself. All in all, I thought the movie was really well done, however it will face the same problems as the novel. People won't be able to get past all of the violence and sex to see the underlying messages and themes of the film. American Psycho is not for everyone, but it is a fine film.

James Tobak's recent efforts have been mildly amusing at best. Two Girls and a Guy was a somewhat interesting look at a infidelity in a MTV Real World type atmosphere that eventually led nowhere. Black and White is a severe step down from Two Girls and a Guy. Staying in the same vein of taking an interesting topic and going nowhere with it, Black and White tries to do too much with too little. The idea of white kids emulating black culture is indeed a film worthy topic however Tobak feels the need to couple this with illegal sports gambling, police corruption, breaking into the rap business, homosexuality, and topped off with some gangsters thrown in for flavoring. The audience is thrown back and forth between intermingling sub plots while the film never develops a single character or plot line fully. The result is not a confusing film but a boring one. Like Kevin Smith's Dogma, Toback tries to pass off tired, obvious ideas as new and inventive thoughts on his subject matter. Even this would not have been to big a flaw if he had just followed through, however nothing is resolved. It is truly unfortunate that another interesting topic has been wasted in yet another mediocre film. Even when Toback tries to shock the audience with explicit sex scenes and with ridiculous, meaningless characters like Mike Tyson, Brooke Shields, and Robert Downey Jr, they just magnify the eventual tiresome result.

Cusack delivers a flawless adaptation of Nick Horby's great novel High Fidelity. Every once in a while a movie comes along where you can totally identify with the characters. These are my friends, music and movie snob-geeks with contempt for anything labeled "popular". We are the guys who grew up watching too much television, listening to too much music, and watching too many movies. We were tricked to think that life without misery was no life at all. We were fooled into thinking all romances were story book and that all of life's problems can be wrapped up in thirty minutes or less. Unfortunately, we set out to find relationships that resembled those we thought were normal and when these relationships went south, we spent way too much time obsessing and reliving them. Thank God, we grew up and thank God for Nick Hornby reminding us of how great it was.

Paradise Lost 2 is a brilliant suspenseful documentary with an unbelievable conclusion. The audience is invited to play in the guess work of who is actually telling the truth. The film makers let the evidence unfold in front of the viewer allowing them to draw what seems to be the inevitable conclusion and then throw a complete curve ball when the results of the polygraph test come back. An engrossing and astounding look at the American justice system.

Chalk this up to another really good premise ruined with an atrocious script and an unoriginal follow through. What would have been interesting to find out is why Devon Sawa's character was let in on Death's design but this is not the flaw of this film. With some hilarious death scenes and general overall creepy tone, Final Destination could have been the next Scream (which every horror film released since 1996 has been so desperately trying to be). However, Final Destination does not have the same tongue-in-cheek sense of humor that Scream had. The film takes itself way too seriously when it just should have had more fun with its good ideas. Instead the audience is forced to listen to a ludicrous dialogue. With that said, the film is actually a blast if expectations are held low. The death scenes are extremely graphic and were usually unexpected. If it weren't for the bus killing and the beheading, Final Destination would just be another House on Haunted Hill, The Haunting, Disturbing Behavior, Urban Legend, etc., etc., etc.

Twenty Dates was an interesting concept and the dates that seemed genuine were really funny. Unfortunately the movie loses all of its credibility with the last three dates. The only real conflict, trying to finish the film and still keep his new girlfriend, succumbs to a anti-climatic conclusion with Myles going on three "fake" dates just to finish the film. Obviously much of this film is scripted and not a true documentary at all, however what could have been an enjoyable film just falls flat. Couple that with knowing almost all of the film is staged and all we have is an annoying guy trying to rid his audience from seven bucks.

It took the talent of Steven Soderbergh to pull off a successful legal drama in Hollywood. Coppola failed with The Rainmaker and Steven Zaillian failed miserably with A Civil Action. Erin Brockovich takes a similar plot outline and wins because it doesn't bore the audience with anti-climatic court room scenes. Erin Brockovich pulls on all the right strings, manipulating the audience at will. The audience is more than willing to go along for the ride as the cliches are hidden under great direction and inspired acting and the somewhat made for TV plot is given expert treatment from Soderbergh. Erin Brockovich will give Soderbergh the box office respect he deserved from Out of Sight and may land Julia her second Oscar nod.