Psalm52

Film critic Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post gets it right when he states "The movie's proudest accomplishment is that it revises our version of Moses toward something more immediate and believable, more humanly knowable." Film critic Duane Byrge of The Hollywood Reporter is right in proclaiming "It's sophisticated, both intellectually and morally!" When Jay Carr of The Boston Globe laments that "I wish DreamWorks had been more truly daring instead of merely competitive and worked a little longer at evolving a drawing style that departed more radically from the Disney house style than this film does." it is obvious Mr. Carr totally missed the glory of this feature-length animated production. I humbly pray Mr. Carr has turned to, or turns, to our Lord Jesus Christ for Salvation at some point in his life on earth. Mr. Carr will then be able to reevaluate 'The Prince of Egypt' and find merit, not fault. I commend Jeffrey Katzenberg (executive producer) for persisting in having this epic animated film made. As Susan Stark of the Detroit News exclaims "It is the first spiritual animated film ever, as deep and resonant as it is soaringly inventive!" Amen!!

Vincent Canby of the New York Times writes "This ''1984'' is not an easy film to watch, but it exerts a fascination that demands attention even as you want to turn away from it." I agree w/ his professional film critic assessment because the reason we want to turn away from this film is that it expertly brings to life our planet during the coming Tribulation. Yes, "1984" is a wake-up call to what Scripture warns this world will be like. Even though, George Orwell's novel kept faith and our Heavenly Father God out of the scenario, nonetheless, his drama serves an indictment against God-less governments and societies (of Orwell's time and to come). This brilliant adaptation strikes the perfect chord in its portrayal of individual existence as lived under the control of a God-less government (which will occur as the Bible warns before our Redeemer and Savior's Second Coming). There are over forty-nine Old Testament verses and at least fifteen New Testament prophecies that Orwell's nightmarish drama aligns with in describing the Tribulation. The most telling of these being that our planet has yet to see a time of endless "war and its miseries." I commend all around to the masterful acting, the bleached cinematography, the absolutely superb direction, the realistic location selections, the junkyard production design and the faithful screenplay writing. The DVD version I saw did not contain the Eurythmics soundtrack and while I enjoy their music it made for a better viewing experience to only hear the composed soundtrack in this version. Roger Ebert comments in his review that "Orwell's hero, Winston Smith, lives in a world of grim and crushing inhumanity, of bombed factories, bug-infested bedrooms and citizens desperate for the most simple pleasures." Yes, the world to come for those not saved from Tribulation.

I agree w/ The New York Times Bosley Crowther's review that this cinematic experience "doesn't tell us very much about marriage and life, other than the old romantic axiom that lovers are likelier to be happy when poor than when rich. It doesn't tell us a thing about this couple when they are not in France, or why he is such a stinker, or why she sticks with him." It's true, this film avoids any involvement of, or w/, faith in the matrimonial drama, much less mention of the Bible and marriage, and as a result the beautiful film falls just short of being excellent. The lead and supporting acting, directing, location selections, production design, soundtrack, and writing are commendable and make the film breeze by, but again, by removing faith from the absorbing drama of the downfall of the lead's marriage this results in a film that is as a Variety film critic describes an "attempt to visually analyze the bits and pieces that go into making a marriage, and then making it work, is successful" but not excellent.

Career film critic James Berardinelli writes about this film that it's "an exceedingly poorly made motion picture." Ann Limpert's review on Entertainment Weekly states the drama is "a little hard to believe." Stephen Holden of the New York Times thinks "the high-school-level acting doesn't help." These are all legitimate liberal opinions, but they overlook that 'Left Behind' accurately explores Biblical prophecy and presents tangible truths about the coming events of the Rapture of the Christian Church. I commend the filmmakers for that effort. In this world, God gifts us w/ 'free will' and film critics freely make use of that professionally to critique movies for the masses. No, it's not their job to preach the Gospel to mankind, but given the multitude of readers they reach what an amazing gift they could humbly give to others by, at least, communicating the truths of faith-based films like 'Left Behind.' Jesus will rescue His bride from the wrath to come during Tribulation and that is a fact no professional film critic has ever, can, or will ever be able to deny ~ God bless.

This miniseries is a must-see for everyone (that includes unbelievers). It is a faithful presentation of Peter and Paul's lives as Apostles of Jesus Christ, and captures the mood and tensions of Jerusalem and Rome. Anthony Hopkins merits praise for delivering a performance that is equal parts genuine, passionate, and representative of how faith in Salvation will turn anyone (including a murderer of the new Jewish sect) away from a lifetime of sin thanks to our Heavenly God. Robert Foxworth is equally up to the challenge of his role as Simon Peter. The entire supporting cast, including cameos by Jose Ferrer and Raymond Burr, is up to the challenge of giving life to these early Christians. All-around a worthy production, and again, I commend the actors who all display their thespian gifts here admirably. The simple and subtle ending detailing Simon Peter's imprisonment and then upside crucifixion on Emperor Nero's command will bring (even the most farthest person from Christ) anyone to tears at what piggish things man will do to another man.

Top entertainment critics think "the heartache families experience is painfully authentic" (David Germain, The Associated Press) and on whole this film is "a sensitive and intelligently considered movie" (Rex Reed, The New York Observer). I must have watched another film by the same title w/ Woody Harrelson in it. The first two notification scenes, instead of offering raw emotion, are totally under-written, over-acted phoney-baloney in which the writer/director uses the 'Messengers' of the film as whipping boys for all sorts of venomous, misdirected hatred. In these two early scenes, the deceased soldier's parents (one a black woman, the other a cameo by Steve Buscemi) are monsters written and performed as ugly caricatures of human beings whose children went off to serve their country. The drama just deteriorates from there when the 'Messengers' are stopped by a law officer for speeding and instead of a believable exchange between men of authority the writer/director is content w/ an unrealistic verbal exchange that questions the integrity behind the filmmakers.

Once Samantha Morton's character enters the picture, it seemed possible her contribution would elevate the subject matter, but instead one of her scenes in a shopping mall is a wrong-guided attack on the brave men who enlist to serve their country. As for Woody Harrelson's touted performance, it's an embarrassment! This subject matter of notifying the next of kin (NOK) when American solder's die in service of their country certainly deserves to be written and presented for national discussion, but in no way is it in any way given the reverence and respect it rightly deserves.

Christianity Today's film review succinctly noted, "Hereafter is a rather toothless movie that purports to ponder big issues but has no voice, no vision, and absolutely nothing substantive to say." In other words, this is not a subject Eastwood cared to address and the audience is left debating why he even bothered. The Bible records that, "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12. Eastwood here has multiple supporting characters who embody sin (since the major ones are written holier than Jesus): Jay Mohr's role is greed personified, but he's given no "voice" and used as nothing more than a plot point to move along Matt Damon's character's story line; Lyndsey Marshal's supporting turn as a junkie begs, yes begs, to be explored, alas in her sins of addiction Eastwood lacks a "vision" and her story goes undeveloped (she's missing in action for major chunks of the film); and then there's Bryce Dallas Howard's character a young, impressionable woman who, in a scene pregnant w/ dramatic possibilities, it's revealed is haunted by seriously shameful sins of the flesh that occurred in her youth; Eastwood really goes nowhere, yes nowhere, w/ this fertile opportunity and says nothing "substantive" about a subject tearing many families apart.

When Eastwood chose to consider the notion of the future of the individual human person after Death, he should have sat down and read Scripture: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 1 Corinthians 15:54-57; in light of the romantic, cop-out ending his "toothless" film delivers.

BTW: Marthe Keller has a cameo and the actress looks ageless.

It's a shame so many 'top critics' are writing scathing comments like 'an inferior sequel' (James Berardinelli ); 'overly didactic' (Randy Myers); or 'the movie's ultimate agenda of rehabilitating a classic bad guy is a big disappointment' (J.R. Jones). This film should be required viewing by every MBA and undergraduate business student in an accredited U.S. university. The screenplay structure and the characters inhabiting its world are believable, complex, not-didatic, and vibrant examples of the current moral hazard inflicting our country, our generation, and our capitalist system which is imploding all around us. Josh Brolin's character exemplifies Psalm 10:3 - "the greedy man curses and spurns God." His scene in which he destroys his priceless Goya painting of Satan devouring his son is both riveting and prophetic of where American-style capitalism is heading. Carey Mulligan's scene at Shen Fui restaurant, and outside afterwards brings to life the words of Luke 12:15 - "be on guard against every form of greed; life is not in possessions." Also, very good are Susan Sarandon, Austin Pendleton, and this new guy Michael Douglas. However, Frank Langella is superb as a man of integrity who is sacrificial lamb at the start of the film. In an early scene, he observes how different the Wall Street of this millennium is from the Wall Street of his youth. It expounds on the words of II Peter 2:3 concerning false prophets, "in their greed they will exploit you with false words."

This splendidly visual film is not the 2nd coming nor will it best The Dark Knight at the box office. On positive notes, what this movie is… is a splendidly-photographed, very well-scored, strongly production-designed/set decorated drama with straight-forward acting that improves... no, brings out… no, lifts up the overlong screenplay. Ellen Page deserves a supporting Oscar nom. On negative notes, some critics complain of too much exposition and several implausible scenarios. Since 'Inception' is all a dream within a dream within… the implausible scenarios become plausible because they're happening within dreams. My complaint is that there is way too much studio-mandated explosions, gunfire, and car chases. Nolan may never be able to make another 'Insomnia' or 'Memento' in his career. He's the official Warner Brothers, if not industry, stalwart director. The man with the Midas touch, and the cost/price of that money-making achievement is all the unnecessary studio-mandated explosions, gunfire, and car chases that bloat 'Inception.'

One last note, 'Inception' employs a cliffhanger (possibly to ensure material for Warner Brothers sequel films) that lacks resolution creating an anticlimax to a story in which the audience has invested 2 hours and twenty minutes.

For a pseudo-noir film where "God" is mentioned in passing half a dozen times, Shutter Island has the same feel as a vintage Twilight Zone episode. The ones introduced by creator Rod Serling. There's a twist ending coming, for sure, but where-as the black and white series delivered some well-written, unexpected surprise endings, on Shutter Island blatant hints deter from any plausible surprise twists coming. Michelle Williams does nice work in her haunting role, but the truth about her character's demise lands like a thud when it's revealed. Jackie Earle Haley delivers crackling tension in his cameo, but that's the problem. It's just a cameo, and his character is leagues more interesting than the rest of the ensemble. Scorsese handles the direction well, but this is not like 'Cape Fear' at all! There is no Max Cady running loose. The musical score evokes feeling, but the story itself lacks any component of Faith or discussion of "God." Such a shame for a film that searches for truths to the protagonist's dilemma, a la 'Identity' with John Cusack, and ends unsure of what "truth" is.

This re-boot of the visionary franchise is a worthy movie-going experience. Many elements are above-average: the production design, the sets, the special effects, the musical score, the direction, the new fleet uniforms, most of the writing, and the casting. Well, almost all of the casting choices. There is the one exception that ruins it for me. I'm certain the actor is very talented and disciplined at his craft. It's just that every time the actor playing Leonard 'Bones' McCoy comes on screen the film takes a left turn as if his scenes are skits from Saturday Night Live. His performance of McCoy is a parody at best and if it's meant to honor DeForest Kelley… well it misfired.

The so-called critic's chorus of middle-aged, testosterone-deficient, nattering nabobs of negativism (i.e.- Boston Globe's Wesley Morris, Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert, filmcritic.com's Bill Gibron, Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan, New York Times' A.O. Scott, et al) have collectively missed the exhilarating ride Quantum delivers!!! They whine about the good old days when Connery played 007. It's a new millennium guys!!! Come out of the trenches!!! If Quantum had been a carbon copy of Casino Royale then these nattering nabobs would complain it wasn't more like what director Forster delivers: a edge of your seat, action-packed, plausible espionage drama of betrayal, retribution, and justice!!! See Quantum for yourselves and enjoy the ride. I did and I just may go back :) !!!

P.S. The opening title sequence and song are NOT a disappointment. My one very minor quibble is the scene w/ Ms. Fields paying homage to Goldfinger could have been more of a revelation or surprise to the audience.

Richard Dreyfus recently appeared on female-gabfest The View and rated this film 6 out of 10. I give it 8 and seriously don't relate to the whining reviewers on IMDb who write things like "this garbage has no ending." It doesn't have to... the central story arc is on-going (as of this writing) and this film isn't required to close the story with a neat bow! Either Stone, or another gifted writer and director, might just produce a sequel, or a separate take, that covers W.'s term in office after his '04 re-election. I'll happily pay to sit in a theater and watch that film. Other IMDb cry-baby reviewers write that Stone "focuses on inoffensive dramaturgy and lookalike casting." In my humble opinion, the ensemble casting in W. is BULL'S EYE! I thought that WAS George Tenet playing "Brother George" himself. Newton as Condi Rice nails her beautifully. Burstyn scores as W. mother. Wright as Colin Powell, Cromwell as George I, and Jones as Karl Rove ALL deserve Oscar nominations! What some IMDb reviewers aren't happy with is that W. doesn't demonize the man... and that is simply NOT acceptable in their minds. That critique aside, the scenes dissecting how human mistakes compounded the internal workings of government prior to the pre-emptive war in Iraq are superb.

Recently watched this film twice over three days. It grew on me. Gleason gives a hilarious performance worthy of an Oscar nomination as Oliver Poe. Poe is a cutting-edge record industry producer who takes no bullshit and comically wrecks the establishment mindset of his almost in-laws (Hope & Wyman). Poe is finally brought back to Earth in the end by his loving and patient mistress (Louise) who delivers one of the best lines (para-phrasing) "I told Oliver if he doesn't give in this Queen isn't sleeping in his King." It's a funny movie w/ plenty of good performances (Arthur, Corey, & Matheson) and in a much undeveloped brief cameo Nielson (a decade before Airplane, Police Squad). Another undeveloped role is that of the Benson's young daughter (Cameron) and the script should have focused more on her relationship with the father of her child and how her pregnancy wasn't communicated to her parents (Hope & Wyman). Instead it uses them as plot devices so her parents adopt their grandchild… just watch it yourself. This movie is harmless fluff and it is fun to watch Gleason & Hope insult each other.

I'd read so many glowing, positive commentaries about this "masterpiece" I was very confident viewing it would be a rewarding and rich experience. Puhleaze! Bogarde is boooooring as a man-servant/major domo with a MAJOR chip on his fragile shoulders. His plan is to make subtle class-warfare on an upright Englishman. I guess that is a smart premise, but then the film doesn't support the dramatic thesis it puts out there. His employer has done absolutely nothing to trigger a power struggle and they have no previous history. Bogarde's character is socio-pathetic and revels in his ability to inflict misery on others: his own girl friend Vera and his employer's fiancée. That's the entire film in a nutshell. I viewed this three times to decipher the message in the confusing narrative and have come to the conclusion that... even the likes of Harold Pinter strikes out now and then. This is an example.

Richard Harris was an amazing actor. One of his most powerful, but short performances was in "Gladiator" as the dying Emperor. Here in his first role he channels the early Marlon Brando except when he shouts out his true love's name it isn't "Stella." Watch the ending of this well-written and performed middle-class drama for the answer to that riddle. The one woman Harris' character loves is his distant and unattainable landlady played by Rachel Roberts. His efforts to win her over and her willpower to resist is the crux of this drama. The dialog brims with truisms about opposite sex relations, material possessions, masculine camaraderie, and unfortunately death. Death attains the status of an antagonist very much determined to undermine the two lead's efforts to find their individual quantum of solace. As this film approaches the ending, it goes down a path concluding with a deathly macabre, and tragically unexpected twist.

Although, Dirk Bogarde just doesn't come across as believable in the role of a former SS officer now moonlighting seventeen years later as a seedy night porter (of all implausible employment options), the first half of this film overcomes that in large part to strong story structure. In my opinion, the writing deftly explores Charlotte Rampling's character's background as a surviving victim of the holocaust whose Cinderella-like transformation is shattered by a brief chance encounter with her evil former molester. There are sequences that illustrate perfectly the reach of long ago nightmares into the present-day. What is now termed as post traumatic stress disorder is visually communicated in a Hitchcockian-like sequence where a conductor leads his orchestra while Rampling's character is stalked from a polite distance by Bogarde's SS officer. Later, when a glance over her shoulder reveals her tormentor's now-empty seat the hair on my back stood up.

Unfortunately, as the film enters the 2nd half and Rampling's character initiates (to me an odd choice) an all-but-too-inevitable face-to-face encounter with the Bogarde character, there the film falls apart. It become's a romance played against some "The Odessa File/The Boys from Brazil", ex-Nazi conspiracy to kill them both. It isn't well-written or very believable and, more importantly, uninteresting!!! Although, the last scene on the bridge is sad, very, very, sad and even tragic... by then I didn't care.

SPOILER ALERT! - I first saw this movie decades ago on home video. I just finished watching it for the second time on TCM, the TCM ending is different than the one I remember! In the first version I saw, the crew gets away with the robbery, but as Elizabeth (Melina Mercouri) stands outside, holding her purse with the dagger in it, a common street thief comes along, rips off her purse, and gets away. The twist: the perfect heist is undone by a common thug.

In the TCM version, the crew is caught and sent to jail, where Elizabeth concocts plans to steal Russian jewels -- and that's it!!! I believe the different endings account for the extreme reviews to the movie seen in this comments section.

Please let me know if any of you remember the first ending I mentioned above! This rating is based on that ending.

Is a throw-away line spoken mid-way by Rachel Dawes to Alfred regarding the envelope containing her 'Dear John' letter to Master Wayne. More importantly, it forebodes the following sequence when the Joker is arrested and jailed in a fortress that's "not sealed." I digress, while Heath Ledger is everything everyone and their mother has written about him this is really Aaron Eckhart's movie. His Harvey Dent is the center of the gathering storm... the object of the Joker & Batman's duel is for Dent's soul... and in turn that of Gotham City. Director Nolan sets up the end nicely for the follow-up film, but better over-all editing would have gotten us (the audience) there sooner. This film is too long. For it's genre (action/adventure) it's brilliant, those action sequences blow us away, but Nolan should have trimmed some story fat. I have two quibbles: what was that cameo w/ Scarecrow all about? Couldn't the Nolan brothers have written a scene to remove him from the film that involved the Joker? Also, as a minority Nolan relegates the few minorities to baddies (Det. Ramirez, the Asian accountant) to token cameos (the Mayor).

A year and a half I wrote a scathing review of "The Devil Wears Parada" where I stated "Because H'wood sycophants will laud Meryl-Frankenstein for wiping her ass and blowing her nose! The more H'wood lauds (and awards) Meryl-Dracula the more she herself believes she is God-Almighty resurrected in the body of Meryl-Godzilla. Truly sad. Meryl-from the Black Lagoon once showed talent in her film choices (Ironweed, Manhattan, The Deer Hunter), as of the last two decades she continually surfs on her "name recognition" and not much in the "talent" department. H'wood is prone to give flak to Faye Dunaway and the like for becoming caricatures of past film roles, but study Meryl-Cruella de Ville's role choices and she wins hands down the first place award (her favorite "word") for the poster-child opening of rapidly fading, talent-less actresses who plays a variation of "monster" and nothing else."

I now humbly beg forgiveness to Ms. Streep and her fans. She is a delight and luminescent as Donna in " Mamma Mia!" The entire film excels in being a good modern musical. Thank you for the music and the memories...

Underneath this desperately wanna-be social comedy about the wrong choices of early 60's casual sexual relationships, is a could-have-been brilliant static family drama about abortion, societal expectations & norms, and personal independence vs. family obligations. Unfortunately, every time Robert Mulligan's film heads correctly (the abortion sequence, Angela's brother's interference, the Colombo family dinner, Barbie's apartment, etc) in the direction of possible groundbreaking, uncharted drama it afterward veers OFF-COURSE into endless Natalie Wood histrionics! Less Natalie, more McQueen would have been a smart move. Especially, regarding his musical occupation and the background of how their sexual tryst landed them where they are when the story begins. The disappointing ending is SAPPY beyond words! Although, the entire film benefits from the New York location filming, but it's not terrific... regardless of Sally Field's recent selection of this film for presentation on TCM.com.

Have been from the days when we each trained separately at Gold's gym in H'wood and he was well-known at the time ('96) as Markie Mark. He then kept a pretentious, steroid-taking posse around him CONSTANTLY that served to his every self-absorbed whim and would unnecessarily block other gym members from using certain weight-lifting equipment if his Lord Mark was using it. Total prima-donna behavior, but I commend Mark Whalberg (the actor) for choosing this role in "The Happening." Anything is an improvement over his generic, bad-boy shtick in violent films like Four Brothers, Shooter, and The Departed. I commend Whalberg for choosing a role that requires professional acting skills evident in his performance. He's well-supported by Leguizamo and the rest of the cast (in my humble opinion.) That aside, I enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's film. Great premise and definite nerve-wracking early sequences set the tone for what's to come. I hadn't seen one of Shyamalan's films since he directed "Signs" and I think he makes a worthy effort. I can quibble about the last five minutes. I prefer a downbeat ending like the scene in the field outside the desolate farm house which is eerie and the music is perfect. The last five minutes after that scene is an anti-climax.

At the screening I attended, this geek nerd exited the theater and loudly announced within everyone's ear-shot that he would personally punch Shyamalan on the nose for writing such a disjointed screenplay. I think that kind of opinion is too harsh. "The Happening" is NOT a brilliant horror film, but it certainly is atmospheric and nerve-wracking in several sequences.

Spielberg hasn't lost his touch in the action/adventure/fantasy genre, although this Indiana Jones film could use a lot less computer generated graphics to show its deep-in-the-Amazon climax. Some narrative sections feel inserted for the sole purpose of inspiring amusement parks thrill rides, or is it the other way around! However, two very memorable moments will stay w/ viewers after the end credits. One is the early 'fake suburb' scene, from near ground zero's perspective, of a nuclear mushroom cloud rising after its initial detonation. Yea, it's computer generated graphics, but it drives a point. The other memorable moment is the Amazon jungle jeep chase sequence, until they reach the red ant settlement. It's a solidly choreographed stunt sequence w/ humor, chaos, danger, jump-out-of-your-seats thrills, and outstanding, non- computer generated graphics stunt work. Too bad the ensuing red ant settlement sequence, and the over the falls sequence that follows the red ants throw ALL plausible narrative structure OUT THE WINDOW! Mr. Spielberg, you're a better director/writer/producer than that.

the character dating Sarah Marshall after she's dumped Peter (Jason Segel) when he describes her latest movie-within-the-movie about a murderous cell phone attacking pubescent women. The description also describes sitting through this film which is being hailed as the first male romantic comedy. It's a step in unchartered terrain, sure enough when it comes to the clichés that abound in this dreadful film: minorities are delegated to working behind the bar tending or being your waiter at the morning buffet service or to getting humped by the lead in an improbable scene early on. Improbable is the main ingredient in this dud. Peter gets dumped AND winds up in Hawaii at the same expensive resort as Sarah Marshall (the dumper), AND he stays in a $6000/a night suite FOR FREE! I-M-P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E!

There's more... the front desk girl falls in love w/ our Peter and is able to walk away from her job to go on IMPROBABLE hikes and what-not just because the script is written that way. This film is an example of how the industry has become less about "talent" and all about who you know... in this case Segel knows Aptow and hence... a dreadful film. It took an hour and a half for a genuine scene to come on the screen. When Sarah explains to Peter why she dumped him it really rang true, but then we're back to more of the same dreck from the first hour and a half. If you go see this go for the performance of the actor playing Aldous Snow who is brilliant in every scene... playing chess on the beach or having wine spilled on his dinner shirt... funny, but that's it.

From the elitist, we-make-each-other-look-fabulous Hank/Zemekis team that filmed the unappealing, lily-white, snoozer dreck 'Forest Gump' comes an equally unworthy lump of coal, two-hour advertisement for FEDEX and Wilson about.... nothing! Zemekis couldn't film a dramatic scene IF his served-on-a-gold-platter H'wood career depended on it. After four years of being cast away, Hanks finally is rescued, but WAIT the film cuts to 'Four Weeks Later.' The dramatic & potentially explosive pay-off possible in ending the four-year isolation of a man on a deserted island isn't even explored. Hanks went along with this?

Pacino or DeNiro or even lily-white Hurt would demand the writer write the scene and that the director explore the dramatic layers evident in being rescued and saved from the very verge of death. UN-BELIEVABLE! Then in the very last scene, set in the middle of no-where Hanks encounters a stunning cowgirl (who gives new meaning to the word 'flirt') just after he's delivered a four-year old package to the stunning country home of the recipient. I could go on, but you get it.... this film is all about lily-white people leading lily-white lives where nary the speck of dramatic realism ever enters the picture.