DQGladstone

Like a lot of people, when I heard about this film, I assumed it had something to do with cigarettes.

Then when I heard it was a gay-themed film starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, I promised myself I'd go see it. Which I often do and then don't go.

So I was very happy to get myself into a theater and not be disappointed.

There are a lot of laugh-out-loud moments in this film, thanks to the direction and Jim Carrey. And Ewan McGregor does do a fantastic, soft, sensitive portrayal.

I went to see it myself. Is it a straight date movie? It's pretty hard to quantify, a con-artist/prison film/dramedy/gay romance. Since guys are more often Jim Carrey fans, would a guy suggest to his girlfriend that they go see Jim in a gay romance? Probably not. So where is the market for this film? DVD rentals most likely.

And it may well be the sleeper of the year.

It has a lot of honesty about it, nice comic touches, sensitive portrayals (especially by McGregor), a twist, but it doesn't hold back on the big absurd laugh moments, like when the guys are dancing to "Chances Are" with the extended fight going on.

I also liked the moments in flashback when the camera is moving through the summer grasses at a kid's level. Nice touch.

I like this film, was glad I contributed my 13 bucks and thought the portrayals were sensitively done by Carrey and McGregor. I recommend it.

It's likely that if you want alternative love to be accepted, you have to be willing to laugh at it.

Before seeing this new Jeunet film, I happened upon a brief interview that asked him why he declined to direct a "Harry Potter" film.

Possibly responding from his "Aliens" experience, he said (paraphrased) that "the elements were all already in place, people had their habits and knew what to do" so there was little for him to do but say "action". He admitted the money was tempting.

You have to admire him for his dedication to his craft over money.

Although, I could see his sense of visual humor in the ALIEN film he directed.

I haven't been out to see a film in over a year for various reasons but I got out to see "Micmacs" (at the Angelica in NYC) which was a return to form for Jeunet after "A Very Long Engagement".

As someone else said, he's almost TOO brilliant. He doesn't miss a trick but it works. Like Ridley Scott in "Bladerunner", the acting, the visuals, the writing, it's all there and I mean ALL of it.

The mechanical designs of the super-strong inventor were charming; there's rarely a lack of charm in Jeunet's films.

And the contortionist. Was she for real?

He's brilliant. I wonder if he sleeps.

This film, in my humble opinion, is just about perfect. It's influenced by "Bringing Up Baby" but it's BETTER than BUB and I love it.

Barbra Streisand was at her brilliant comedic best in this film, without flaw in every word and action. Ryan O'Neal was excellent. If he was "doing" Cary Grant, he made it his own. His delivery and timing were fantastico. Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars, Austin Pendleton were all brilliantly charming and perfect.

The scene in the ballroom with Austin Pendleton and Kenneth Mars, before the table and AT the table is comic perfection with Austin smiling charmingly when he isn't speaking and Kenneth flipping his hair with disdain while polishing his cutlery.

Exteriors shot in San Francisco's Nob Hill, Chinatown, Sunset District, I wish I had been in this movie.

Buck Henry is one of the best comedy writers ever. The dialogue and plot in WUD? are unbelievable:

"He's in discussions with Leonard Bernstein about conducting an avalanche in E flat."

"You're The Top" by Cole Porter energetically arranged and performed.

This film is still fresh and refreshing 37 years later.

"Must you stand...quite so close?"

I've never seen the original "Razor's Edge" with Tyrone but I guess I'll have to look it up.

I feel badly for Bill Murray because he must have a hard time living up to his expectations of himself. It must be difficult to be so excellent.

I'm a fan, apparently. I think if you don't like Bill Murray, there's got to be something wrong with you.

I saw this film at a time when I had no expectations of anything (my twenties) and was impressed by all the elements of the film: the acting, humor, message, cinematography, casting, etc., even though I knew nothing about anything.

I loved that Larry made a promise to Isabel then had to regretfully go back on it rather than try to be faithful to a stupid promise. It's a mark of maturity to believe it's a man's prerogative to change his mind, I believe. Of course, he delayed commitment in the first place, a smart move.

I loved when Larry said to Isabel at the end, so perfectly, "you just don't get it" when he really wanted to kill her, I would imagine.

It was excellent when he responds to Denholm Elliot's, "an itinerant..." with "fishmonger?" and then he goes on to make his final moments happy ones. Denholm was excellent as the 2nd class snob with a heart.

I love at the end of the film when Bill is vaulting up the steps at Montmartre. He makes vaulting look easy.

This is a spiritual film that succeeds by not taking itself too seriously. RAZOR's EDGE has been described as BM's dramatic turning point but, even then, he was smart enough not to forget the comedy and to not get overly dramatic, i.e., when he was mourning the death of his real-life brother. Brian was also excellent as the cynical superior officer. Both Murrays are excellent at manifesting darkness when it's required. Apparently.

I loved the scene where Isabel tempts Sophie with the fantastic wine, she was so cold and pitiless. Catherine Hicks was excellent as the cutie with a darkside agenda and Theresa Russell was never better than as the "betrayed by life" sexpot.

This, to me, isn't just a good movie, it should be mandatory viewing in high school. It teaches with charm and brings great literature to life.

Luke Wilson is hard not to like. I've tried to dislike him but he slipped by me.

I wish this film had maintained a more consistent comic tone. I think if JD Salinger had been on the set, he would have said, "hey, can we throw some jokes here near the end?"

At the beginning of the film, I like when Luke chastises the ladies for their trespasses, then he singles out the old woman and they cut to her. It seems to break the damn "tone" of the film but I liked it anyway.

Not much later, he and the little girl are in the yard and he makes a joke WHICH SHE DOESN'T LAUGH AT, that "he has to go/he's busy" then he hops on the stationary bike. This is a sophisticated joke, very dry and subtle to deal to a little girl and it suggests that he's respecting her intelligence. She doesn't laugh and neither does he. Of course, she's "mute" but she also doesn't FAKE laugh, to indicate that she gets it. Neither does he. That's a nice moment. Also nice because he's depressed out of his skull but the girl brings intentional humor out of him.

It's hard for a kid to dislike an adult who doesn't insult their intelligence as it's hard not to like a kid who shuts up once in a while.

Then there's the bit about the clumsy blood-taker. Unnecessary but still appreciated, trying to keep it light.

This is an ambitious film that tries to say a lot with music, light, some video-style editing, sun and memory. All the indy music was a bit much but who am I to criticize indy music? Nobody, that's who.

Esperanza Martinez, who plays the irritating neighbor, is so good I sometimes wanted to kill her and wished Luke would, she was so damn irritating.

When Luke woke up in the hospital and found Esperanza, if he had just called for security, I'd have been more happy.

I just wish the film hadn't lost it's sense of humor somewhere along the line.

I laughed at this film but I'm not a particularly political guy so I'm just going to mention two people: Josh Brolin and Thandie Newton.

And I'm not going to be articulate because that's a strain.

Who ever would have thought that Thandie Newton could be so funny? Yes, she was over-the-top but who cares? She was having fun and doing weird things with her mouth and I was amazed by her comedy skills. Very excellent.

And Josh Brolin with his little ...heh, hehs... There were moments of comedy brilliance with his multiple sandwich bitings and "Hey, word-guys".

This film was sad because it was funny and certainly unjustified war and big-brotherism aren't funny but Josh and Thandy were amazingly great.

This is a surprisingly good film about the effects of war on young minds, brainwashing and the illusion of freedom.

Brandon doesn't return to the front because he believes it's the right thing to do but because he doesn't want to be on the run for the rest of his life. He's caught in a well-laid trap.

Why they opted for Mexico had to be to help make the final "decision" easier; any idiot would have opted to head back to Toronto since that was the best and original plan. Mexico?

Abbie Cornish is sexy (I've never seen her before) but she really was sexier than sexy in this no sex, no nudity film. Beautiful, caring and cool. I admired her subtext. I realized later that it was because she acted HUMAN rather than like a female. She didn't act like a GIRL stereotype or a GUY, she acted like a PERSON. Very charming and unusual.

The one scene that bothered me was when Brandon was on the ground getting kicked by 3 guys then gets up and kicks their asses. That's unrealistic and might convince some young nut to JOIN the army (to learn to fight) rather than run in the other direction. I had an experience with "An Officer And A Gentleman" when I was young and stupid where I wound up at the recruiters the next day and, fortunately, didn't sign when common sense prevailed. Some of these films (like "Top Gun") may be subtle recruitment films that draw enlisters for the wrong reasons.

The scene I DID love was when Phillipe and Cornish left Rodriguez and the smile on his face dropped away and we realized he was giving us a positive spin on a worse than lousy situation.

Interesting that they cast Timothy Oliphant as the charming Sarge who brings in enlisters, employing friendship and charm rather than the realities of war.

Then the excellent fight in the cemetery with independent thinker Brandon versus "bought the brainwashing" Steve who just doesn't get it. That's the problem with every army, they want the soldiers to be smart enough to fight but not smart enough to break ranks and walk away.

"Gran Torino" is a funny movie. There are comments that it is a "racist" film but it's a film about racism which you can't make without racists.

Monsieur Eastwood found all sorts of opportunities to be funny but I liked when he found himself in the neighbor's basement with a bunch of kids, leaned against an unlevel dryer, got down and adjusted it. That was a beautiful, almost embarrassing, funny "old man" moment that was unexpected and so real. The machine is unlevel, get down and fix it. Totally unimportant to the scene but perfect.

"Watch out for Mr. Kowalski. He'll beat up your cousin, fix your dryer and make you like it."

There were some improbable scenes in this film like Walt being able to get close enough to the gangster to throw him down the stairs and the gangsters not spotting his white Ford pickup tailing them or across the street. Whatever. It was worth it to watch him mow the lawn.

Though it was a set-up for a joke, I could have lived without the barber-shop scene where Thau is being trained to trash-talk. But this is a film where Eastwood is playing an imperfect character who smokes, drinks, hates people and can't express his emotions except with negativity. He's playing the nasty, old racist next door and he does it well. Perfect characters make for boring films. And the punchline really was pretty good.

It was a great moment when he spat with disdain at the old Hmong woman and she out-spit him. God knows what she was spitting and it's unlikely that Walt would chew AND smoke but it was funny anyway.

When the Hispanics brought out their gun and the Hmong brought out their machine gun, that was funny. CE didn't shy away from finding humor in subtle places. Both the Hmong and Hispanic car drivers where wearing the same headbands in the same style.

Since the gangs may have been a metaphor for street soldiers, it's interesting that they started out defending Thau and tried to indoctrinate him but were ultimately a badguy gang of cowards.

Someone has said that Clint is playing a character here who supports war but that's not the message I got. Walt seemed to regret his memories of the war and participation in it.

C.Eastwood really is perfect in this film and the supporting players were understated and natural.

Walt didn't miss a philosophical beat dealing with Thau's immature idea that they were going to find the gangsters, do some damage and come home unscathed. That only happens "in the movies". Walt uses some tricky maneuvering to utilize the "never around when you need them" police and legal system to get the gangsters off the scene, save Thau and gracefully put himself out of his own "dying in an oncology ward" misery.

Walt sticks to his guns and, though he softens, he never gives in to the priestly pap but winds up teaching the priest instead. Maybe Walt learns something about forgiveness but the priest also learns how little HE knows about reality. Walt compromised without giving in. Wow.

Since the movie moves along as movies do without giving you much time to think, I didn't realize that Walt was getting a suit fitted for his own funeral. It's the kind of detail that they throw in, don't comment on and leave you to realize at your leisure. They could have thrown in some line from the tailor to make us question why Walt is getting a DARK suit fitted but they didn't and I completely missed the point until later. It was perfectly done since it didn't give away Walt's plan unless you're smarter than I am which isn't unlikely. I missed it.

This is a well-written script shot simply and acted amazingly well.

OF COURSE, I slept through it. It was long and boring and one needed the drug of sleep to endure the stagey direction and acting.

Audrey Hepburn was at her beautiful, charming, irritating, over-acting best in this film. It was only her personal charm and loveliness that kept her from making me sick with fakeness.

The scene where Pierre tells her he's getting married, her head turns so fast I'm surprised it didn't break her lovely neck. People in real life don't act that way because they'd risk physical injury if they did.

Henry: I'm getting married. What's wrong?

Audrey: I hope you're happy with your new wife but I just broke my neck.

Obviously she was trying to convey the enthusiasm and energy of youth so that we could see the change to her character resulting from war, experience and time but her enthusiasm was stagey and irritating. She was so damn happy to see everyone in this film I'm surprised they didn't smack her.

Henry Fonda was less fake but he had his moments, too. At his father's death scene when he falls to one knee, I'm surprised he didn't injure himself. They must have put padding on the floor.

Henry: My father..is dead...and my knee...is broken...

Many other examples from Ferrer and minor characters.

King Vidor apparently never heard of film minimalism.

Henry was supposed to be clumsy, I guess, and he bumped into a few walls and tripped over a log but he certainly could have been funnier. He had some charm early on but he missed a lot of opportunities for humor.

I found it funny when he stepped forward to be shot without waiting for orders. They could have had a guard put a hand on his elbow to guide him forward then have the commander stop the guard. Instead, Henry moves forward to the firing post of his own volition to be stopped by destiny. Funny.

You hear a lot about conflict between actors and directors on the set but Audrey and Henry are good actors and I'm surprised they let this stuff go without saying "Isn't this going to look a little stupid?" I guess Henry really DID need the money.

I've never had the energy or time to read the book and I hoped that this film might enlighten me a bit but...

I slept through it.

If you're tired and want to see a really GOOD movie that encourages sleep, I recommend "2001: A Space Odyssey". It's a beautiful movie but the scenes and visuals are so slow you'd better bring a large cappuccino.

This is a movie that is trying too hard to appeal to everyone but it does one thing very well: It explains why the divorce rate is so high.

The plot device of this film is that the couple breaks up but the girl will never explain why. Stupid yet believable. If a male did that, we'd think he was insane but the writers expect us to accept it as normal behavior from a female.

Which is it's own statement.

In the breakup conversation that we never see but later hear about , the girl apparently communicates as if someone asks her to recite the alphabet and she starts with the letter "Z". In other words, instead of saying "You seem a bit uncertain lately, is everything alright?" she says "I think we should cancel the wedding. What do you think?" Typically, 90 minutes later film-time, she makes it sound like his fault that she started at "Z" and blames him for not making up for her communication shortcomings. He agrees that it's all his fault and begs for her forgiveness.

Wow, what a recipe for success! "Why didn't you STOP me" she cries, self-righteously. Patent pending.

She even emphasizes that HE cancelled the wedding during her explanation when she clearly bought the tickets, he only agreed to go for the ride.

The writer must have done some serious juggling to make this female-friendly but we are now accustomed as viewers to having the man agree to any stupid thing the woman says. (Marketing Film To Female Audience: 101) Help us, dear Jesus.

If they do get married, they're doomed to divorce as they are both cute but immature idiots.

This movie is worth watching only as an education on 1) why people shouldn't get married until they're at least ! 30 and 2) for a reasonable facsimile of what passes for communication in the female mind because that is, unfortunately, captured here.

Moral: Immature women play a lot of stupid games then the man gets blamed when everyone loses. Cupid, release thy bow unto my yearning heart.

Yes, he was stupid but she was MORE stupid for expecting the stupid guy to make up for her more stupid behavior. They should sign a contract promising not to breed.

My apologies to the 214 women out there who AREn't gameplaying idiots.

The dialogue and acting in this film seemed forced. The actors all seem talented but they were frequently overplaying it.

HEY, another stupid scene where a stupid girl knees a guy in the balls. In this stupid film, he literally takes it lying down. What message is that sending?

"Women, attack a man and they won't smack you back, they'll make JOKES about it."

The recipe for domestic violence, yours for the price of admission.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing Eduardo Murphy play a nasty skinny black woman; he'd probably do it really well. He's a brilliant actor.

And maybe he was picked on by some terrible, controlling, domineering, bossy-ass black woman when he was a kid. Who knows? Fat black women aren't all crazy and violent like Rasputia but I doubt that there's a shortage of them. Eddy is taking a jab at them. Maybe it's revenge. Maybe it's social commentary.

Eddy Griffin was perfect in this film as Pope Sweet Jesus. He moved well and he was funny.

I first saw Terry Crews in "Balls Of Fury" and I thought he was brilliant. He's all over the place now but he plays a great comic bully.

Is it a racist film if you're criticizing your own race? Doesn't that come under "social commentary"? What I liked about this film is that it was "good" v. "evil" not black v. white. I like to see Mr. Wong, a Chinese guy, liking these black people and not liking those black people. It takes race out of the picture and makes it about what kind of a person you are. We don't hate Rasputia because she's fat, we hate her because she's detestable and violent.

I don't know where EM gets all his energy but his characterization of Norbit was great, the voice was excellent. Mr. Wong as the Chinese guy who doesn't like black people and is defending black people from black people is nicely done down to his excess nosehair. Rasputia was nasty and horribly true to life.

The funniest line in the film for me was when Rasputia ripped one out and said "Twins!" with an almost straight face.

This is a funny, cute film and it rises above racism and showcases Eddy Murphy's huge talent and energy.

What is it about Saturday Night Live that it produced so many stars who basically make comic morality plays? Bill Murray, Adam Sandler, David Spade, Chris Farley, Belushi and Akroyd and Eddy Murphy all make comic parables with an edge.

Good for them.

It's interesting that "The Candidate" starts with a look at the attitudes of the political handlers because they're apparently the motive force in this film. They are (in the film) unscrupulous salesmen who are selling political services. Poor Bill McKay is the cynical son of an ex-politician who thinks he's seen it all but gets suckered and seduced anyway.

That's the disappointing thing about cynicism- a lot of people knock it and try to eradicate it but, as this film suggests, frequently we're not cynical enough. Cynicism kills you while it protects you.

I'm not a politician but what little I know about it, unless McKay's handlers were hired by Crocker Jarmon, they get paid to WIN, not lose. If they WIN, they get hired by someone else, if they LOSE, they don't. So it's in Marvin Lucas' best interests to WIN. When he tells McKay it's alright to lose, he's lying.

Since Marcus came to McKay and not the other way around, (is THAT realistic?) then we have to view him as a sort of political guru-for-hire who spots potential, latent ambition/vanity/hubris (and ability to pay, presumably) and sells the idea of candidacy to the potential candidate.

Unless I missed something, that's not the way it works, but OK.

This is a film that works on the idea that even the most idealistic will be corrupted by the machine, remembering that "...the Abyss also looks into you".

It's been said that no one who WANTS power should be CONSIDERED for power. Too bad it doesn't work that way.

So here we have McKay, the standard "Thanks but no thanks" idealist who is corrupted and suckered despite himself, despite his cynicism. From being his own man, if that's ever possible, we see him start being handled by his new buddies and by his suddenly ambitious wife.

I loved the scene when she says "Ooh, they cut your hair" like it was their idea (which it was) and they were the decision-making parents (which they were). It obviously pisses McKay off because she's so comfortable acknowledging that the handlers are making his decisions for him. She asks him to turn his head so she can see it but he doesn't do it, like an angry child. He's looking at her as if she's trying to decide which roses will look best in the White House garden. As he's struggling with his own latent ambition, he's also observing hers. He's lost control and, struggling to get away from his father's influence, he and his wife are now under the influences of both his advisers and their own life ambitions.

Because really, how long CAN McKay remain an idealistic storefront lawyer? "Growth" is inevitable. The alternatives are stagnation and decay.

Interestingly, besides creating a health clinic or planting some trees, his "before candidacy" character doesn't have solutions for the BIG problems any more than anyone else does. Idealism, yes, solutions no.

And that's the message that Melvyn Douglas gives us. "It doesn't matter". Politics aren't here to save the world, they're an element of it's destruction. We can slow the process down, (MAYBE) but we can't stop it. Like the aging process, you can stay in shape and eat well but you can't make yourself younger. The processes of the world (technology, power, suburban sprawl, etc.) have agendas of their own and we can push them forward but we can't hold them back.

While you're saving the trees, they're killing the whales and when you turn to the whales, they're cutting the trees. When you're saving THIS forest, they're chopping down that one and raising the taxes, starting wars, creating pollution, writing new laws, limiting your rights and hitting you over the head with guns, red tape, inoculations and misinformation. All in "your best interests". Progress will eventually kill us.

So, "The Candidate" isn't about political solutions, it's about the seduction of Power. As McKay looks into Power, Power looks into him. Will he turn into his father, despite himself?

Redford is great in this film, bringing a lot of comedy to a role that greatly needed it. I've always loved that scene where he can't keep from laughing (due to exhaustion) while trying to express his "Point Of View". In his best films, he doesn't forget the comedy.

This is the first time I've seen the film when I'm old enough (97) to realize that he does take a private timeout with that beguiling girl with the glasses.

"The Candidate" is a great film but it isn't prescient. It's a statement of the eternal political process, more or less the way it's always been. "Spin" existed before the term was coined, they just called it something else, like "lying".

In case you care, my favorite parts of "SpyGame" were the parts in the present where Muir was outfoxing the foxes. When RR wants to be, he's one of the best actors around. Funny and smart.

OK and while I'm at it, one of his best-delivered lines ever was in "3 Days Of The Condor":

"It's a great face...but it's never been to China."

I liked this film a lot but whenever I get on IMDb, I like to look at the comments where people HATE the film I like just so I can think, "yeah, that's true", "right, I didn't notice that" and "CRAP, why didn't I think of that?"

Call me Holden Caulfield but I liked that this film was sort of all over the place, with the Boys, with Dave, with the girl and Dave and the races and everything. That makes it seem more life-like to me when you're not quite sure where it's going and if/when the CLImax is coming.

This is a pretty charming film with Dave being romantically and innocently in love with his life while everyone else is unsure and depressed.

The script, the dialogue, the parents, the cat, the old woman on the porch, the one-liners by Stern, Haley's charm and passion, Quaid's facade and insecurity, the breeziness of Dennis Christopher and his loss of innocence to those free-wheeling italianos- everything comes together to make this a fun, inspiring film.

When the pimply short guy jumps on the bike because the tall, well-built ex-quarterback doesn't have the guts then rides for his life, barely able to reach the pedals- it makes you want to cry.

This is an excellently charming, inspiring film.

This is a charm film, seeming to be the place where Warren Beatty hit his charm peak, learned how it was done and did it perfectly.

Perfectly cast down to the servants, this film has some of the best scenes, with Buck Henry and James Mason in the closet ("Tell them I'm sorry, thank them"), the falling bed sequence, the servants on the staircase, Warren running around the house, the cigarlighting "I'm Joe Pendleton" scene, the hats, "have we met?" and,of course, the classic "let's be the goodguy company, the popular players." I could go on.

At the end, where Julie Christie is realizing that Tom is Joe, her SKIN changes color. She FLUSHES.

When Joe tells Buck Henry, "you're bad news", when Joe tells Mr. Jordan, "I love her, Mr. Jordan".

"Can't something be legal and still be wrong?" A maid comes out on the croquet lawn with the badly hit ball!

I'm sorry, but this film with it's brilliant comedy and beyond brilliant cast is so much better than "Here Comes Mr. Jordan", there's no comparison.

This is one of my favorite films of all time. I love it. It's funny, it's charming, it's inspirational. This is why God invented Hollywood.

Without conflict, there is no drama. You have to give this film credit, there's no lack of conflict.

The first dialogue we hear is when the less competent detective tells the extra-competent detective (Freeman) that his question is stupid and he's glad he's leaving the force. That's "envy" speaking, by the way, between members of the same caste, "The Detectives".

Somerset and Mills don't get along; Tracy and David, the Lovers, greet each other at the door with "Hi, loser" and "Hi, idiot". Love, exciting and new...

"sWAT comes before dicks". Every individual branch of "The Force" has a problem of caste with every other branch- the uniforms and dicks have little respect for each other, the dicks and sWAT are battling for precedence, like nerds and jocks, with the jocks calling for the nerds when they find themselves in over their "brawn, no brain" heads. Conflict.

I've seen this film before and I've always been a fan of the comedy moments. I like when Mills takes his tie off the hanger already knotted, when he brings Somerset a full glass of wine (with Somerset's reaction) and when Mills wakes up and finds himself leaning on Somerset. These are the moments when you wonder, was that in the script or did they add it while shooting? Mills gets CLIFFNOTES of the classics with a shout of "Good work, officer!" juxtaposed with "Poetry writing faggot", the multitude of air-fresheners in the "Sloth" crime scene. Can you write that stuff?

The rain and darkness of the cinematography were perfect.

Weaknesses (only 2): Yes, the scene between Paltrow and Freeman was there only to set up the ending. It isn't realistic to tell your husband's partner that you're pregnant before you tell your husband. As real as that may be in a shitworld, it's artificial and plot-serving.

Mills is being set up as some sort of out-of-town wunderkind without any explanation, justification or background. Though Pitt is brilliant, Mills is not and I wonder, how did he ever solve a case back home?

End of weaknesses. Enough with the weaknessess. But did Jonathan Doe kill the dogs, too? Those rambunctious Dobermans?

Kevin Spacey is excellent as the strings-pulling dark messiah; his "Dark Genius" is superior to the "Light Genius" of Freeman which is it's own statement with Jonathan Doe sacrificing his life in the name of Dark Truth. "Light" delays "Darkness" but can't stop it.

The sWAT team was presented as a bunch of faux-macho idiots with all their "stupid authority" posturing and intimidation yelling/swearing which is fine but why weren't they wearing helmets? Was this some vanity on the part of the sWAT actors? "Listen, Mr. Fincher, me and the guys were talking and my girlfriend may not be able to see my face when I yell "Get up, you sack of crap!" if I have a sWAT helmet on. And it's raining, too, and it might be uncomfortable and I gave myself a CREWcut and you won't be able to even TELL, if I have the helmet on, see."

Let me begin by saying that Cynthia Nixon has an astounding neck. It's regal and first rate.

I saw this movie and the IMDb comments motivated me to rent some DVDs and watch the show for the first time, really.

I have to say that the show is interesting social commentary in that group X gets together to discuss group Y and reveals more about group X than Y. Like watching an episode of "The View", a show that makes you wonder, not "why are some men gay" but "why aren't ALL men gay?" It showcases women revealing themselves as freaks as they inform us that "men are freaks." Newsflash: all humans are freaks, no gender is excluded.

SATC stars character Carrie Bradshaw but the HEROINE is Samantha Jones, who is irreverent, enlightened and has most of the best lines.

Carrie Bradshaw, in the film and movie, is a gold-digger who SEEMS to be looking for truth via her column but in her life is looking for an upscale lifestyle provided by a rich husband.

She is a spoiled, overly-emotional brat and the saddest part of the film (in retrospect) is when BIG marries her. Why would he? BIG is a big idiot. There's a scene in Season 2 where he unintentionally knocks CB out of bed and she turns around and punches him in the eye, which is a lovely TV example of a woman hitting a man without real provocation. Is it supposed to be cute? Why doesn't he dump her then? What an idiot.

In the film, Carrie KNOWS there's a problem with BIG regarding the wedding but she lets it go and lets it go then gets out of her limo to hit him with flowers because he destroyed her day. No, she destroyed it by not dealing with the emotional realities, something it takes her months to realize after much male-bashing.

Regarding the "Hubble" reference, Carrie is not the political idealist Katie was and Big is no Hubble. It's easy to say Hubble wanted someone more attractive but more accurate to say he wanted someone less complicated/idealistic. Both women are pushing their men but one is pushing him to be "better" while the other is pushing him into a commitment he doesn't want, not a valid comparison. The only thing complicated about CB is her public analysis of why a 21st century female seeking a 19th century relationship isn't working out.

Samantha, on the other hand, is feeling sexually stifled by the studguy who cared for her during cancer (?) but leaves him, not without regret, to be true to herself. The seemingly uncaring, frivolous character who is actually better and smarter than the STAR. She even gets FAT in an effort to be faithful. Wow!

Carrie is a user and Samantha is a thoroughly modern "with the times" heroine.

Since a sequel for SATC is in the works, one can only pray that it's about the divorce or a whodunit murder mystery-

"Who Killed Carrie Bradshaw?"

Is it:

Big, when he realizes what an idiot he was for marrying CB?

or is it:

her 3 friends, because she was a "modern woman with an out-of-date agenda" whiner? I'd go see that.

In conclusion, Big is a commitment-phobe for all the right reasons. Both genders SHOULD be afraid of marriage. It's government-sanctioned, legalized love. Don't walk, RUN.

I was hesitant to watch this film because it was described as a "feel good" movie and I suspected that was crap. And I was right, thank you, this film doesn't make you feel good at all.

When Dr. Kearns starts his college lecture with a mention of "ethics" you know he's doomed. Doomed to waste his time, doomed to lose his wife, his good name and reputation as it turns out.

Dermot Mulroney is excellent as the industry insider who has all the answers until he doesn't have all the answers. He and Alan Alda both play salesmen who are interested in selling Kearns on their own expertise and wind up failing him. Reliable characters who prove to be unreliable make the world go around.

That is what is at the heart of the film for me, the psyche game that the individual is involved with until s/he discovers that everyone is full of shite and can't be trusted.

Kearns isn't just fighting for his beliefs, he's fighting against his own family who are naive enough to believe that HIS struggles as an individual are less important than his responsibilities as a father and husband. They believe that he can deny his own beliefs and still be an effective husband and father. The kids come around eventually but not without a loss of precious time.

It's an important part of the story that Kearns loses his sanity for a time in his struggle between his own beliefs and the beliefs that are pushed at him by Mulroney, Alda and his family (society). We understand that the struggle to live ethically is destroying his sanity.

Greg Kinnear is great in this role with his subtle comedic moments and ability to keep a sense of humor and humanity with his kids as well as his righteous anger against the industry players.

There is the unfortunate obligatory Hollywood moment where he is looking for reconciliation with the wife who deserted him when he really needed her but...

Also interesting is the look at the legal system and how it benefits the big guys who break the rules and frequently make the rules, too.

Kearns wins, ultimately, but a "feel good" movie? The only thing I feel good about after this film is that I'm a city pedestrian and don't own a car.

I'm a pain in the arse. I liked the scene in this film where Dad Delpy is "keying" the cars that are parked on the sidewalk. Adam Goldberg tells him to run for politics but I like the directness of keying the cars. It puts the power into the peoples hands and out of politician's hands and it saves time. Even though I would never do it. Better to throw eggs. Sure, that means you have to walk around with eggs in your pocket but there's always a price, right?

The baffling thing about this film is that Julie Delpy is writing about two neurotics where the girl is a self-centered liar. How odd.

In the scene where they are kicked out of the restaurant, her character IS being unreasonable and SHOULD be kicked out.

Goldberg says more than once that he knows she's had sex with other men, but why does she have to lie about it? She has a personal voice-over where she acknowledges that it's OK to lie about things if you probably won't be discovered.

In the end, the couple seems to stay together because they are too tired to move on to the next drama. In fact, if she'd stop lying, they'd have a pretty good relationship.

This is a cute movie for it's nice grasp of family life, past sexual history (where Mom once did Jim Morrison) and idiot cabdrivers. All of the actors were funny and- there was a shot of the mini (?) "Statue Of Liberty" in Paris and I thought they were back in New York and I was disappointed.

This is a good movie but one where Delpy casts a woman (herself) as the "bad guy" in the relationship. Is she a saint or something? It's so rare to see a woman intentionally casting herself as flawed. Kind of refreshing.

I did read "Watchmen" when it first came out but I wasn't amazingly impressed by it. Best "graphic novel" of all time? Really? I may have been too young to appreciate it, 22 or so.

(I'm re-reading it now and it really is ground-breaking. I WAS too young or stupid.)

In the comic, there was more of an emphasis on "The End Is Near" doom-sayers in the streets with only one example in the film, the billboard that the unmasked Rorschach carries. OK, 2 examples.

To me, the movie came off as a superhero soap opera with some dark moments and bone-crunching. Rorshach and The Comedian were dark and driven and gave good performances.

There seemed a huge contradiction at the end where Doc Manhattan acknowledged that he couldn't change human nature but that if no one told the truth about the nuclear event, peace would reign. Depending on your point of view, war is in the hands of mankind, God or the gods and presumably, if human nature doesn't change then we can expect war to pick up again after everyone catches their collective breath. World peace is a pipe dream and if Doc Manhattan buys it, he's not too bright.

Since the ax I like to grind is male/female relationships and the lies we tell ourselves re: that subject, I have to say I was astounded by the fight/rape scene between the Comedian and Miss Jupiter. He says "yes", she says "no" and gives him a powerful sock to the jaw with all the usual Hollywood sound-effects. He falls to the ground. In any other film, he'd get up, say "...but, BAbydoll..", rub his jaw and walk out angrily. Not here.

The Comedian punches her in the stomach, gets up and hits her twice (?) in the face, HARD, kicks her while she's down then picks up her up, slams her into a pool table and smashes her face on the table.

Huh? Life is complex and I'm not an advocate of easy solutions. I don't believe in male violence against women or female violence against men. Both genders are violent, stupid and emotional and men are usually stronger.

HOWEVER, I was astounded to see a scene in a Hollywood film where a woman strikes the first blow, as is often the case, and the man gets up and beats the crap out of her. Do I advocate it? No. But, here in this fantasy film, we are seeing more realism than all the other idiotic films where a woman hits a man, knocks him down and he gets up and apologizes to her.

A woman hits a man and a man hits her back, beating her up! A Hollywood revelation! THEN, we find out that she has sex with him years later, consensual presumably, that they conceive a child and that the Comedian has warm feelings for the grown-up daughter, which the aging, possibly jealous, wife attacks as sexual when they probably aren't. (There are also about 214 visual cues that the Comedian is in love with Miss Jupiter but doesn't express it very well.)

A rape scene where a woman gets beat up followed years later by consensual sex.

THEN, Miss Jupiter graces us with the well-observed revelation that "...the future keeps getting darker while the past, even the grimy parts, get lighter." She then feeds us the pap that she's thankful for the Comedian for giving her a daughter but there's no acknowledgment of why she went to a man who tried to rape her to conceive that daughter.

The message here is undesirable but clear. Miss Jupiter is sexually intrigued by the Comedian because of, or despite, his violence. When she hit him in the rape scene she probably got more in return than she bargained for but, if it's reasonable for her to hit him, it's reasonable that he'll hit her back and defeat her.

Is the Comedian a good guy? Well, he may be an anti-hero, a sign of the times but he's no hero. The pregnant Vietnamese woman rips his face with a beer bottle and he kills her. Was it a reasonable reaction on his part? No. Was it a reasonable ACTION on her part? No, it was a stupid action and she paid the ultimate price.

Hollywood owes me an apology for making me thankful for a scene where a woman hits a man (Miss Jupiter) and he actually HITS HER BACK. It's DARK, it's SCARY but it's realism.

You can't cry out for the end of domestic violence while female characters in Hollywood are knocking out men with a right hook. What kind of message does THAT send?

The TRAILer of this film made me laugh. That face JC makes, when he's telling the lovely Korean girl (Vivian Bang) that his friend's fiancée hates him, is fantastic and you can tell Vivian is really laughing.

A lot of actors/directors believe in letting the comedy of the moment speak for itself via natural acting and that's fine. But it's Carrey's style and gift to make a funny moment funnier by being silly that makes you laugh instead of THINKing about laughing.

I like to laugh. I also like to think but I do enough of that on my own. I prefer Jim's comic efforts more than the "Truman Show" and "Eternal Sunshine" and other more serious efforts. I loved the "Series Of Unfortunate Events" which allowed his acting genius to shine, where he could be diverse, dark and comic.

Yes, some of Carrey's films are formulaic but whose aren't? It's his ability to break the formula from within the formula that makes him Jim Carrey.

Yes, Jim Carrey is getting older. Who isn't? He's still ten thousand times funnier than the geniuses who are saying "Hey, he's getting older" as if everyone else is getting younger.

The people who made comments about the age difference between JC and Deschanel weren't 20 years old, they were 40 year old female actresses and their beauticians.

On the other hand, people are complaining about the octogenarian sex. Was it vital to the plot? No. Did Carl/Jim instigate it? No. Was he a bit repulsed by it? Yes. Was it uncomfortable? Yes. Was it human? Yes. It's unfortunate that old people are still horny, that bankers and governments are corrupt, that humans aren't monogamous- but that's life and life isn't always about the comfortable and politically correct. It's boringly typical that people are upset that an old woman is horny; if it had been an old man, it would have been cliché or ignored. Alan Arkin is horny in "Little Miss Sunshine" and that's OK but old Tillie is a little bored and randy and it's inappropriate. Old women get horny, too.

Zooey Deschanel's anger at Carl's "yes-ism" seemed contrived. In a real situation, he should have let her walk and waited till she called him- which she would have in time. Guys- wake up!

This is a cute, funny, positive film with a message of life and moderation AND it takes the time to ridicule the terror situation in America. For that reason, if for no other, it should be praised.

When did the "age of feminist political correctness in cinema" begin? I don't know but before "Tootsie", apparently. One of the most honest exchanges happens between Ron and Dorothy which might have ended differently if Dorothy/Michael hadn't been dressed as a woman and hadn't been in love with Julie:

Ron: Look at it from my side. See, if a woman wants me to seduce her, well, I usually do. But then she starts pretending like I promised her something- then I start pretending like I promised her something but, in the end, I'm the one that's exploited.

Is truth a question of character-likability? If an ass speaks the truth does that make the truth untrue? Answer: No. Ron is speaking TRUTH here.

Dorothy: Bullshit, Ron.

Except that it isn't. In the deleted "Chicken Soup" scene, we see the same dynamic repeated with Teri Garr as the exploited victim and Michael as the exploiter. The idea is that they had sex and now Michael owes her a relationship. Why didn't Michael say "it was just sex"? Because if he did, he might have lost a friend over it. Should he have been honest RIGHT AFTER SEX and said "it was just sex"? Yes, but Sandy places the burden of that statement on him when Sandy could have made it just as easily herself. Typically, she's putting the burden on him to be honest because honesty is difficult. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Because why DOES Julie date Ron? He's a dick, he's insensitive, he's not sexy. Why is she seeing him? Why date a dick? If she's not exploiting him because she thinks he has power/$$, why IS she with him? Because she's lonely? Fear of commitment? Job security? Opportunism? Stupidity? Someone to help support her kid? Yes, she's exploiting him and he knows it.

At the cornball end of this pleasant film, Michael begs Julie to forgive him and she relents after making him beg a little. Boring. He's kissing her ass but more on that later.

The other aspect of this film that I didn't love was Dustin's revelations about women. The only revelations he was entitled to were those pertaining to what it was like to be an ugly woman. Gina Davis and Jessica Lange are sexy women who have the power that go with that. Dorothy wasn't sexy so she had to find her power in a more honest place. Also, if it's a lot of work for women to be sexy, it's 72 times harder for a man pretending to be a woman to pull it off, so Dustin's appraisals weren't relevant there, either.

Julie's problem in the film is that Dorothy is teaching her to be honest and not take the easy path of dating a bastard. What do you call a woman who dates a bastard because he has power? I don't know but the answer isn't "a victim" unless she's the victim of her own exploitation as Ron suggests. That, while she's exploiting Ron, she's also exploiting herself.

Bill Murray is at his casual, comic best in this film with everything coming out of his mouth beautifully and easily. Not as easy as it looks, I bet.

Teri Garr is sexy, cute and conflicted and my favorite exchange is when she's going in to audition and says to Michael, who is there to enrage her, "wish me luck" and he responds "fuck you" like the excellent actor/enrager friend he is. He's not there to kiss her ass and wipe her tears, he's there to get her to a place where she can be an adult and not a whining baby/wannabe.

That's the kind of scene I like to see, the kind without a lot of counter-productive ass-kissing.

Charles Durning had a great and important line re: feminism that I'm too lazy to verify, to the end that "all men aren't equal either" which is in direct contradiction to the preamble to the Constitution. Too bad it happens to be true.

Paul Schneider as Gus was REAL as the brother who didn't want to deal with his brother's delusion and provided the only real-world response to the delusion situation.

The rest of the main characters in this film fall into the trap of excessive cuteness.

Patricia Clarkson, who I always like, unfortunately also falls into the "good and sensitive and pure" trap except when she's gently laying down the law to Gus, who's basically a wimp despite the perpetual facial hair. At least, as a therapist, she stands to make some moolah from her purist stance.

I can certainly understand why Kelli Garner is the real girl since she is charming, sexy, sensitive and aggressive with nice barrettes. She is justification enough to go through the whole silicone process, just to walk in the woods with her afterward. She cries, sniffles and bowls pleasantly.

I appreciated Lars' child-like undershirt choices (as the child beneath the man) and Ryan Gosling, who I'm not familiar with, reminded me of John Cleese, due to the mustache no doubt. I like John Cleese.

But Gosling's cute tendency to smile at odd moments gave me the feeling that he knew he was jerking people around and at any moment was going to apologize to the townspeople for asking them to be stupid enough to submit to his delusion.

The problem with this film is, as the writer puts it, what if everyone was compassionate and caring of other people's problems? What if Dorothy had wings and could fly away from the Wicked Witch? What if Wile E. Coyote was vegetarian? We'd have no story.

In a nutshell, there was never even a HINT that Gus or some other major character wanted to have sex with Bianca. Gus' wife is pregnant and also a bit of an interfering know-it-all yet we never have even one moment where he might want to slip it to Bianca, a SEX doll. Even during the scene where Gus is telling us that he usually puts Bianca to bed, I never got the idea that he either does it with a bang or even thinks about it. If the suggestion of lust was there, it was way too subtle.

It's a fable, it's a fantasy, it's a parable and that's all fine but in order for the film to work someone, somewhere has to be interesting enough to want to have sex with the doll. Someone has to give some passing thought to looking under her skirts with intent, otherwise the whole town is delusional in it's lack of dark side/reptilian brain(ism).

Some passing reference by some minor character at a party won't do. Some major character, Gus or the priest being the obvious choices, has to want to screw Bianca. No wife in the world is going to let her husband put the sex doll to bed without supervision. Possibilities for real-world humor were totally lost in deference to the "reverent cuteness" tone of this film.

This is a cute film but it's too cute. It tries to make up for it with the dark skies, between the woods and frozen lake, the heavy boots and bare trees, the dark winter and the arrival of spring/rebirth.

But, as others have pointed out, who's paying for the ambulance and casket and wheelchair and hospital room and psychiatrist visits? Is Lars paying for all this? Would the good towns people be so good if Lars was a low-functioning "delusional" who couldn't pick up the tab with his day job?

The worst line in the film is when the wife says "come here" and Gus goes over and is cradled by pregnant mommy. When Emily Mortimer cries out "why do I have to have all the answers?", it's because this is a woman's film and in a woman's film the women (the wife, the psychiatrist, the knitting neighbors with casseroles) have all the answers. It's very dear and nurturing in that special, important and artificially stupid way. This is a "let mommy fix it" film because, with the exception of the priest, men over-react and are insensitive (Gus), men have to be reminded of their own failings (old guy at church conference), men have to be nurtured into maturity by women (Lars). This may be why this seemingly well-intentioned film is getting such mixed reviews- because it has an agenda.

The best line in the film is "we brought casseroles." It was delivered perfectly in an otherwise "smug, nurturing females" scene.

The idea for this film was a good one but if it had taken a few comedic chances, it would have been more human and less fable by creating greater contrast between Lars and the rest of the community.

If this film had any chutzpah, which it doesn't, some WOMAN in the community would have taken a sexual interest in the sex doll. Instead, they vote Bianca to the city council. Why not do both?

It's funny to see that almost every film you read about, someone SOMEwhere thinks it's the worst film ever made. "The Wrestler" may be the truest film ever made, which is why it's so damn depressing and so good.

Todd Barry, as Wayne, the supermarket manager, was the best, slightly over-the-top PRICK I've seen lately in a film. His performance seemed like something you'd find in "The Young Ones", something on the line between believable and unbelievable. That "The Ram" had to take crap from this nasty little squid was humiliating. The only consolation was that Wayne was probably as depressed, or more, as Randy.

After the Ram agrees to work behind the deli counter, we see him take the long walk through the employee room, down the stairs, through the warehouse and the plastic curtain where we see him wash his hands. That's what's at the heart of this film, the goodness of Ram's character- he's walking through hell and he washes his hands, like the good person/employee he is. Wearing his "Robin" badge. Wow.

At the "autograph-signing event", the crowd has died down and the Ram is looking around at the other has-been wrestling stars. The shot ends on the urine bag (or whatever you call it) attached to his fellow's leg. Suicide, anyone? Which really is the point of this film.

The Ram knows his glory days are past and when the doctor tells him that continuing in the ring may kill him, you can see him thinking. What does he have to live for? He's living a life without love, he's past his prime and he's broke. What's the point? When he decides to do the rematch for no $$ is it because he wants to wrestle or because he sees it as the best possible "out"?

"A little more, a little less, a little more...". This is a comedic scene but it isn't played for comedy, they play it for real. So, it's funny while you're trying not to kill yourself in recognition of The Ram's crappy reality. It's the message at the heart of the search for security, "Yay, Im working more hours, I can pay my bills, someone please shoot me, put me out of my misery." This is why the Ram went into wrestling, to avoid the despair of the "secure" life.

Mickey Rourke underplays his whole performance which is why it's so powerful, probably, but the beauty of the film is indicated when Cassidy is giving him a lapdance and he's reminiscing about the old times and dreaming of future possibilities. He's there for her company, not for the minor thrill of having her undulate before him.

Of course, Marisa looks fantastic but God bless her for playing a part where she takes off her clothes and no one is whistling, no one cares. Mickey compliments her on her sexiness as an afterthought; she's bored, he's bored, everybody's just struggling to maintain some self-respect or a positive thought, pay the rent, stay in working shape.

Cassidy's lucky, she has a 9 year old to worry about but The Ram's daughter is old enough to take care of herself; he's just looking for a reason to keep on living.

The visual style of this film, or lack of it, only serves to emphasize the gritty, bleakness of the Ram's meaningless world.

Good film, powerful; not one likely to replace "It's A Wonderful Life" as easy inspiration, but inspirational anyway, in it's horrible, "what do I have to live for?" fashion.

The first time we see Kate Beckinsale in this film, the camera is on her fanny as she's turning. That illustrates the tone for this film, I'd guess.

This is a fun movie, mostly because of the fantastic castings of Richard Roxburgh and David Wenham, but the whole thing is shot with humor.

My favorite exchange in this film is between Van Helsing and Dracula near the end:

Drac: You are too late, my friend. My children live.

VH: Then the only way to kill them is to kill you.

Drac: Correct.

H. Jackman laughs and I wonder if he was laughing at Roxburgh's Thomas Lennon/Marty Feldman-ish delivery of "correct". Roxburgh switches from evil to humor with abandon and he may be the best part of the film.

"Van Helsing" is beautifully shot, sexy, funny, has great effects and it does give a nice nod to the James Bond/"Q" relationship.

I'd heard bad things about this film but always wanted to see it; now I wish I'd seen it sooner.

I have to give this film credit for trying since, in my opinion, the following exchange at the climax of the film IS the climax of the film. At the speed-dating night, Eva Mendes says to Hitch:

Eva: You're a scam artist. You trick women into...

Hitch: ...into getting OUT OF THEIR OWN WAY so that great guys like Albert Brennaman have a fighting chance.

The message of this film is that lonely women who are looking for love can't find it because they make it so difficult for men to do all the work that guys need help to get past the intimidation/rejection/game-playing factor. Enter Hitch, the "dating scam-artist with a heart", the "how to pick up any woman" guy who only works with those looking for love, not sex. It's a cute movie but not the one it could have been.

How many times do we have to see a girl kneeing a guy in the crotch? Did the bad guy deserve it? Not really. But the real problem is, he never sees it coming. If Mendes had tried to kick Kevin James in the crotch, he might have fallen for it. The guy she DOES knee in the crotch was a dick, had experience, and would have seen it coming and kneed HER in the crotch. He winds up with his head up the bull's ass which is a funny shot but not funny enough to endure another "knee in the crotch" scene.

Hitch says "...if you've been to high school (clue!) you know that girls hitting guys is a good thing". That would have been great if he'd added "...until two years into marriage when the guy gets tired of it and hits her back and winds up in jail then divorce court" or "...until 3 weeks later when the guy dumps you and you can't figure out why." No real man is going to let a girl hit him, publicly or privately, and if you let her get away with it, she'll think you're a passive idiot. This is one of the 119 things this film DOESn't know about relationships. Fortunately, the film suggests that women don't know anything about men, either, or they wouldn't be so lonely/dissatisfied. When Adam Arkin's wife tells him to shut up at the food event, I'd love to have seen him say "...why don't YOU shut up, darling?" then continue on.

Because that's another aspect of this film. It's not just about the difficulty of making contact with the opposite gender, it's also about why men don't WANT to make contact, why men in particular don't WANT commitment (besides the financial factor). This film says it's OK to knee men in the crotch if you don't like them, hit them when you DO like them and tell them to "shut up" at public gatherings. What they don't show you is the "hiring a divorce lawyer" scene.

Hitch seduces Mendez by creepily getting too much information about her, hiring waterskis and messengers with walky-talkies and gifts. Overkill. If his character knew anything about women, he wouldn't bother trying so hard.

Hitch recognizes his own fear of being hurt and rushes to Mendez' apartment where he forgets everything he ever knew and makes an idiot out of himself which is supposed to be endearing. If all of Hitch's knowledge of women doesn't allow him to get her to acknowledge her own mistakes then he and Eva are probably doomed, too. Yes, Eva tried to apologize in a previous scene but the writers manage to make her do it without making a total idiot out of herself.

It was just another example of the problem to have Mendes continue to play games with Hitch by letting him assume that her brother-in-law was her lover. For Hitch to continue chasing her at that point was stupid.

In the end, Hitch is a good guy who changes a little and Eva is an "I've been hurt by men and it's all their fault" girl and she changes a little. Does she ever suspect that her major problem with men is herself/her tactics/her games? Almost, maybe, kinda, sorta...probably not really.

This film tries to say that a major obstacle in the relationship sphere is that women play too many games. I give it credit for that. I wish it had gone a little further. It might have been more relevant.

The interesting, almost unspoken message of this film is that both Mendes and Hitch are angry at the other gender and both are trying to help their own gender either by "winning" (Hitch) or by "warning" (Mendes). Meanwhile, both have opted to back out of the commitment scene. Both sides are angry but can't figure out why. It's because they're playing a game where the rules keep changing and both teams are cheating and so no one can win. It's a crooked game played on a field where the grass is always greener on the other side of commitment.

In one of the "extra features", a female dating expert says "when you're talking to a girl and her friend at a bar you have to buy them both drinks". HA! I'm suspecting that she's "the friend" a lot because no one would buy anyone a drink to talk to her. She's the type of "men pay, women take" dating expert who keep men out of relationships.