Snowgo

This is perhaps the best movie I have seen that deals with the subject of racial equality. The direction is superb. Not a single moment, not a single word or scene is wasted or impertinent. The pacing is perfect. The acting is excellent all-around. Linda Hamilton's character is not formulaic or single-dimensional: She is torn between saving her relationship with her rigid and traditional husband and showing the love and friendship that is natural to her. This is a movie with a big heart with none of the gratuitous violence of The Secret Life of Bees, for example. Usually, I find that movies based on a true story to feel limited by the director's or sceen-writer's ability to negotiate and render the product in a meaningful, compelling and seamless way. This movie does not suffer from that. If you are losing faith in mankind and wish to infuse your spirit with some warmth and humanity, watch The Color of Courage.

Ok. I'll have to admit that I watched 60 seconds of this and threw it out. The reson for this is because they broke my cardinal rule: Do not begin a movie with violence (especially murder). This type of scene requires some context, so must be led-up-to. The manipulation involved, here, makes me angry: We are supposed to view the murder of this lighthouse keeper and then just ignore that it ever happend and sail blithely along into the next, unrelated scene. Is this an attempt at de-sensitization? Or is the screen-writer and producer simply without any decency or morals?

The fact that this is a children's move makes the sin doubly-egregious.

You're probably thinking that I am over-estimating the importance or the influence these types of messages sends to kids, that murder is nothing to reject or oppose, that violence is "just a part of life".

Tell the story. Don't force-feed us your apathy and amorality. If you are going to include violence or murder in the story, at least give us a context and a reason.

I'll have to admit at the out-set, here, that I know very little about Russian history. That being said, I was expecting a great deal more from this movie than was given. Catherine was purportedly a visionary that changed Russian society by instituting laws that helped the poor and was a patron of the arts. We saw none of that in this move, only a person driven by ruthless ambition.

I thought that toward the end of the move we would begin to see some philosophy or ethics form part of her character, but this was not to be. When she allowed her political opponent to be executed at the end of the film, a man both brave and righteous, the movie fell apart. A shame.

At the beginning of the movie, I felt emotionally manipulated by seeing the car-crash in the opening scene, and then immediately after, a happy scene in a park, with kids playing and people having a good time. For one thing, I deplore films that start off with violence, without leading up to it, to give us a reason why it is happening.

When it cut to another, opposite type of scene, I felt I was supposed to just "forget about" what I saw before, and a little bit angry at this psychological manipulation, or attempt at desensitization. I almost ejected and put the film in the trash because of those incongruous and insensitive opening scenes that were juxta-posed.

The acting in the film was good. Anthony Hopkins and Marsha Mason are as great as ever in Audrey Rose. John Beck is excellent, too. I wish John Hillerman had had a more substantial role.

The plot suffers from a lack of depth and a lack of understanding, of both past-lives and past-life regression. There are several holes, therefore, in the plot: Hopkins' character comes off as a possible sexual predator at the beginning of the movie, and we never do learn why he was not up-front right from the very beginning with Ivy's parents. Furthermore, his criteria for selecting Ivy as the re-incarnation of his deceased daughter is sparse and insubstantial, so therefore, unconvincing.

How did he find Ivy? How did he locate her school? How did he find out her name, and how did he know her when he first saw her? These questions are never answered, only a statement from Elliot Hoover that he had done "extensive research". How did he get access to state records of birth dates? Even though Ivy was born within two minutes of the death of his daughter, many people do not reincarnate for months or years (I have done much study of past-lives and past-life regression).

At the beginning of the movie, his reason for contacting Ivy and her.parents was to "just be a part of Ivy's life in some small way". Soon afterward, it became a matter of life and death, and a quasi-intervention. It was as though the screen-writer and director did not feel that the movie was sensational enough, so changed their minds about Hoover's role.

Marsha Mason, as I have noted, did a good acting job, but her role was too passive. Once she had started believing Hoover, she should have sought-out a Hindu or Buddhist priest to see if there are spiritual ways to understand and remedy Ivy's extreme and volatile yearly eruptions (they do). To take on the subject of reincarnation, the producer and director needed to infuse it with elements of karma and spirituality. In Audrey Rose, there is never a spiritual context given for any of Ivy's experiences; Prayer. Meditation. Deep understanding. Forgiveness. Acceptance. Gratitude. Hollywood rarely touches these subjects, and even less-so back in the 1970's.

I get the impression that if this movie were remade now, it could be much better, with past-lives being taken more seriously, and the knowledge there-of having expanded, in the general public.

The scene of the early-life regression, which merged into a past-life regression, was just sensationalist Hollywood. No one has ever died from hypnosis nor to a reaction while under hypnosis.

My final problem with this movie is the trial. It was a ridiculous spectacle, where Elliot Hoover was not on trial, but the idea of re-incarnation was. Courts of law don't work like that. Courts are not interested in why someone kidnapped someone else's daughter. Hoover was demonstrably guilty. There were witnesses. He should have been convicted.

So I have quite a few serious complaints about the film, mainly because I take past-lives and past-life therapy so seriously. The producer should have hired some experts in these areas.

The fact that I still gave it six stars says something about the acting, and I tip my hat to the producer for even attempting to address this weighty subject.

This is the best WWII movie that I never heard of. It is an excellent treatment of an under-appreciated (at least by Hollywood) facet of the war, that being the French resistance. This movie pulls no punches as to the brutality of the Germans or the complexity of the network of freedom fighters, made up of ordinary citizens who felt strongly enough to risk their lives.

I can't emphasize enough just how important this movie is to the cinematic history of WWII. These people were on their fifth year of occupation by the Nazis when the city of Paris was finally liberated. The feeling of emotion I experienced when watching citizens of a jubilant city, finally free of fear and death, was intense. This movie certainly deserves its place among other greats like The Longest Day, Midway and The Sands of Iwo Jima.

The music I found incongruous and sometimes a bit of a distraction, and its buoyant melodies sometimes threatened to diffuse the intensity of the scenes, but I will not detract a star for that.

If you have French ancestry, or just believe in justice and want to see a well-made film on the defense of Paris (and France-in-general) by its citizens, make sure to see this film.

Obviously, the writers, Dudley Nichols and Hagar Wilde, wrote this film to encorporate modern themes; psychotherapy, empowerment of women, themes of questioning the desirability of marriage, and, with the dance number The Yam, the introduction of afro-cuban ideas to the tap/ballroom/ballet fusion that Hollywood hoofers of the time used.

In Ginger Rogers' scenes, as she runs delightfully-amok while under trance, we see her comic ability. I don't think Rogers is generally given the credit she deserves for her comic ability. Mind you, she had to do all of that while portraying a dazed character. Those scenes were well-done.

Astaire, as always, shines with great style and fluidity in his acting, even though playing a psychiatrist is something that goes against the grain of his usual, gentle and free-form characters. At times in the movie, it threatened to limit the romantic potential between Rogers' character and his.

My main complaint, though, and the reason I felt unprepared to issue the movie seven stars, is what I saw as an overly-complicated and convoluted turn in the plot when Astaire's character needs to "change her mind back, through her subconscious, to make her love him, instead of loving Bellamy's character, who he had programmed her to love, prior".

When Bellamy's character said he understood and approved of this plan, I found that to be a script error. In the next scene, in civil court, he changed his mind about the doctor's plan, and this was a necessary course correction in the plot.

In all, I can appreciate the producer, Pandro S. Berman, wanting to give us something different, fresh and modern. On the other, I did not appreciate the themes of psychological manipulation, nor did I care to see Rodgers' character an unwitting pawn to these forces.

From the description, here at IMDB, I was skeptical about whether-or-not I would like Criss Cross. I am a fan of Goldie Hawn's work, but I felt that the choice of cocaine in the film was a bit sensational and unrealistic, since this took place in 1969. I think it is safe to say that in most drug circles, cocaine did not become popular until the 1980's. Only high-rollers used it in the 1970's, as far as I know (I was there).

I also had a problem, after having-read just the movie description, with the boy's morality and philosophy being challenged by the sight of a naked person. I thought it a bit arrogant, but in the pertinent scenes, the screenplay and script are intelligent and intuitive.

I was rewarded by giving this movie a chance. The script was very good (especially the inner dialogue of Chris). I really appreciated hearing his thoughts as he thought them. This should be done more in movies. It really aids the character development, and his thoughts and feelings were very well-written.

His and his mother's feelings, words and actions were very understandable and human. The scene at the hotel room, when Chris confronts his mom over her line-of-work, is very approachable and warm. She tells him that she isn't capable of doing anything else, that she does not enjoy her job and that she is trying her best. This is not sensationalism: It is realism.

Perhaps the most human part of the film was the character of Chris' father, who, having been traumatized by his own actions in wartime, afterward sought and continued to seek his soul, at great expense to him and his family.

While I don't fully understand why the police found it necessary to go undercover to find out about Chris, instead of focusing on those in the boat anchored off-shore, I will not detract stars for this question-mark.

In all, Criss Cross does not dis-appoint, and should be enjoyed by all, especially those who have had to make tough choices in keeping their family together.

It also serves as a warning to those who might be tempted by a "fast buck" in attempting to do so.

I enjoyed this movie and found it inspirational and with a minimum of cataclysmic violence. They did a pretty good job of trying to weave Christian mythology and tradition with that of the Maya. The inclusion of Chichen-Itza in the movie was a very interesting and ethereal theme. The acting was very good, all the way around , and I'll have to say that the screenplay must have been difficult, as they were covering a wide range of meterological events from all over the world.

This is not your average disaster movie, and I'm sure that is what disappointed some people. Looking again at the screenplay, they did a good job of personalizing the events and relating these events to a philosophy and world-view. On the scientific end, the tentative explanation of a black hole exerting unknown forces on the gravity of the Earth is plausible, and shows that we know far less than we intimate.

The theme of faith vs direct-action was a welcome question, and at the end of the day, we see that a combination of both is best.

I applaud this movie's writers for looking beyond death and seeing what life there may be afterward. This kind of faith is the opposite of fear, and is rare today. I would have watched this had it become a television series.

A good movie compels, or allows, the viewer to care about the characters. We learn to care about Mr. Chippings, and Cathy, his wife, very much. They are warm-hearted and their ambition is fueled by empathy.

Halfway through the film, as all is going well, we are hit with a bomb-shell of Cathy and their unborn child dying at childbirth. This, I consider a thoughtless, inexcusable and heartless display. One that gives the impression of cheap sensationalism and desperation.

Why did we have to see this? Why did the writer feel compelled to move the story in this dark direction? What possible fulfillment should we feel at the sight of good people being crushed? Are we supposed to be inured to this? Calloused?

Is this the best and finest in our souls?! I am disgusted to see this kind of indifference in people, and worse-yet, appreciation for and identification with, cruelty.

The scene of his small celebration upon his promotion to House Master should have been a tipping point in the movie, where his personality and hers are enriched and expanded by one-another. Their child could have added to this dynamic, bringing love and devotion to the parents who so richly deserve it .

Maybe, in the 1930's, someone should have filmed a documentary of the writer of the novel.., and cut his head off halfway through the interview.

A strong acting performance by Julia Stiles is negated by the failure of the screenwriter to create any other characters that we care about. The Crown Prince is seen as a cad for engaging in a relationship with Paige, and for having neither the courage nor the decency to admit who he truly is. He is a lie that continues past the first half of the film, and the longer he waits to tell her, the more despicable he becomes.

The fact that we do care so much about Paige is the reason we hate "Eddie" so much. When the Danish press tabloids catch the couple engaging in risque behavior in public, I shut the movie off and threw it in the trash. Is this what the screenwriter likes to write about? Destroying good people's lives? Lying? Abusing someone's love? Does she think this is entertaining? It already would have hurt the proud Paige enough if he had told her his real identity at this late date. Having to find out this way would have been devastating, and I found this entirely un-acceptable.

Writer Katherine Fugate has done very little screen work. What she has done is mainly television. Of the few movies she has been involved in in some manner, I recognized none. This would explain why this movie's rating is fewer than six stars.

Is there any reason that the Crown Prince could not have told Paige the truth before the camera incident in the library? If that had been the case, at least it would have been her decision to accept the risk inherent.

The press scene in the library was not only appallingly cold, it was also completely illogical and impossible. How did the press hide themselves and then know exactly when to pounce? They didn't. Anyways, one can be arrested for being in a college library without a pass and a valid reason to be there.

I do not want to find out how Paige handled this disaster, borne of a lying disgrace of a man who allowed her to make herself vulnerable to him and got her heart ripped out in the process.

I feel strongly enough about the malice involved in this one scene in the movie that it brought my score from a 7 to a 5. If not for the strong performance by Julia Stiles, I would have issued it a 3.

I am surprised that so few people understand and/or relate with this movie. It's one of the most intelligently-written and psychologically- potent movies I have seen. The cool and controlled style portrayed by Kevin Spacey was brilliant, and played perfect counterpoint to Sean Penn's drug-and-trauma-induced paranoia and denial. Penn's character, Eddie, superbly displayed all of the psychological defense mechanisms, and the constant, simmering tension bubbling under the surface of Eddie and Palminteri's character, Phil, provided an added dynamic of intensity. Some of the dialogue between Penn and Spacey are among the best examples of rationality vs mental and emotional chaos ever filmed. Although I think Palminteri's character should have left the movie about 30 minutes sooner than it did, It did consistently underline the threat of violence always present when amoral lives spin out of control, especially when drugs are involved. This is not your average film of "hollywood insiders". This is a very well-written, -acted and -directed psychological tour-de-force, with possibly Kevin Spacey's best lines of his career, as well as Sean Penn's best acting job.

The Dream Chasers is a very good movie with a novel "road trip" idea: Put an old man facing his mortality and unsatisfying life with a boy with a terminal illness and an unrewarding life. The combination of the two is very much worth watching as one gains insight from both participants. Harold Gould does a great job. His character goes from powerless to vital by the end of the movie. Young Justin Dana plays the part of an assertive, confident young man and he is really the motivating force behind the big road trip. The movie is low-budget, but unpretentious. If you like movies with a kind heart. The Dream Chasers is definitely worth watching.

I don't know whether this is the fault of the screenplay writer or the novelist (I didn't read the book), but it makes me very disappointed to see stories such as this, with so much potential for inspiration and redemption, to succumb to gratuitous violence. Who feels a sense of fulfillment to see good people beaten and end up suicide victims because of the brutality of the world? Where does this come from? How is this entertainment? I understand that some will say, "This is reality. Don't run away from it". To that, I would reply, "If I wanted reality, I would watch the evening news." Why would I want to magnify and focus on those sordid aspects of human nature to enhance my life? Is this a type of psychosis I am witnessing? Did the movie producer select this script in the hope of selling a great number of tickets to those who need something to feel angry about and to whom violence on innocent people is entirely acceptable? I hope I never become so jaded that this kind of movie does not bother me. What a waste of a film that really could have been something.

It's hard for me to not like a music-related movie, but this guy's songwriting and singing/playing ability was so lacking that it was hard to watch. I cringed every time he opened his mouth or took the guitar out of his git-bag. There is no way that a woman who plays as well as she did would ever become interested in such talentless music. After the scene at the music instrument shop, when he stood there wide-eyed while she played, I was hoping that when she finished, he would beg her to make him a better musician. Then, they walk into a record company with a cassette in a portable desktop unit and actually have the nerve to play it for the guy. Absolute rubbish. There is no real chemistry between the two, no real romance or showings of affection. He did want to boink her, and I'll give him a half point for that, but he shot and missed. The potential for so many good scenes were missed in this movie. As it is, the dialogue and screenplay are abysmal. I don't know who is a more talentless hack, the singer/guitarist or the producer of this movie.

I found the dialogue, acting, direction and screenplay creative and even ingenious. This is the best movie I've seen in a long time. The first half of the movie was the most creative and fresh, since Dennis Hopper's character was the main support role. The second half of the movie, when Christopher Walken's character is in full force, defines and even limits the movie into a more formulaic display. Griffin Dunne does a great job in characterizing someone who has been fully deluded by a materialistic, simplistic self-help guru (Hopper). The opening scene in the I.R.S. office is precious, and had me laughing, as did Hopper's admonitions. Walken's character brought a heavy dose of sobriety to Dunne's efforts and schemes, and it is to Walken's credit how seamlessly he fused Dunne's fantasy world with the brutal reality of his role as drug kingpin. Illeanna Douglas was excellent, as always, evoking many tones and moods with her facial expressiveness. The script was well-thought-out, maximizing the impact and credibility of all the characters. The philosophical message of this movie is inherent, and although the ending is morose and disappointing, I suppose it needed to end in a similar fashion to get the point across. During the second half of the movie, some momentum was lost as we see that Dunne's character experiences no change and we continue to see him as a very cardboard character. Douglas' character needed to inspire and evoke in him a desire to produce results on his own, and not rely so much on others. The main scene the movie missed was a high-energy verbal spar between Hopper and Walken's characters: fantasy vs reality. This movie is well worth watching, especially if and when you think your life or work is tedious and you think that "reaching for the stars" can be quick and/or easy. You will end up appreciating your stable, honest mindset and lifestyle.

I will still give it an 8, but the ending (in the mine-shaft) is one of the worst I've ever seen to a good movie. The writer obviously couldn't figure out a good, logical ending, so they thought they would try to be clever. The result is almost embarrassing. The worst ending to a good movie that I have ever seen. It makes no sense at all and defies the logic of the rest of the movie. I'm going to ignore the non-sensical ending and give the rest of City Slickers 2 the eight stars that it deserves. That being said, I think John Lovitz is the star of this movie, because of the strong performance of Bruno Kirby in the original. Lovitz came into this one with some big shoes to fill, and did it in his own way, actually showing strong depth-of-emotion in his character. His was a character we really cared about. I laughed out loud several times at scenes in this movie. It was an enjoyable adventure with strong casting, script, direction and screenplay. Certainly as strong as City Slickers. What an opportunity was missed at the end, when an alternate ending could have solidified the relationship between Billy Crystal's and John Lotitz' characters. On the walk out of the desert, this movie could have had an emotionally-strong and meaningful ending, while still being funny in parts. Such a shame.

A smug bohemian poet, a decidedly-philosophical scientist and a soul-searching politician. These characters seem fabricated and unlikely, and none of their statements actually lead to any conclusions or revelations of any kind. Liv Ullman's character has wild enthusiasm for great social concepts but no discussion of a plan of implementation ever takes place. Sam Waterson constantly reiterates the political process and seems far too nice to be a politician. John Heard plays a retired poet living in France who is not very friendly and a bit of a snob. Nothing ever gets decided and no really good dialogue is ever present in the movie. Listening to Liv Ullman's character is torture, for her ideas are wonderful and need some serious treatment. I think any one of these actors could have written much better dialogue for themselves. As it is, it is anti-climactic.

I found almost nothing that worked well in this film. For one thing, someone who comes to this country illegally is not an "immigrant".., they are an illegal alien. The way the movie trivializes this crime is just the first indication that there is an elitist subtext to Spanglish.

When Flora comes to the Clasky's house, she needs an interpreter. This is ridiculous that no one in the household was able to communicate with her. When the wife starts yelling at her about the dog's ball, I felt an insanity regarding this movie. Why would someone yell at someone else who does not understand them?

Then, when the cook, himself, starts going off on Flora in the car (so generously driving her to the "bus station"), I felt so sorry for this nice person that I took the DVD out of my machine and threw it in the trash. Other problems I had with this movie was the fact that a cook does not earn enough to be considered "high-class". The daughter took me aback by her unusual approach to glamor. Yikes. What kind of statement was Spanglish trying to make? All I could make out of it was a dis-functional, middle-class family, disguising itself as rich and therefore feeling entitled to toy with and abuse the help, both at home and in the restaurant. A very poor movie.

This film is just more formulaic propaganda of the type that seeks to demonize cultures other than industrialized (especially Arab or Persian), and which tries to pound into our heads, over-and-over, that the rich (in this case, Stark) are our friends. I can not ignore nor accept this attempt at political/psychological manipulation, and contend that it is the rich (like Stark) who we need to protect ourselves from. The insinuation that money, and what money can afford, will protect the rich from those who do not value riches leaves me with a great deal of suspicion, and it is not hard to determine the cultural genesis of those who inspire and support movies like this. Inexcusable and transparent.

Never before has a movie that I issued a score of 8 stars to, left me with such a queasy feeling in my stomach. I do understand that this is a drama/comedy and that it was written for entertainment value, but I can't help but feel somewhat offended and manipulated by the inference that everyone in Kazakh is like Borat: Foul-mouthed, without morals and both ignorant and disrespectful of other cultures. Borat, himself, is a horrible, bloated stereo-type, but a funny one at times. There are times in the movie when he actually offers to help us think outside of the box, when we realize that we are almost as enculturated and dogmatic as he is. I was disgusted by the scene in the hotel room, and afterward, when they were running through the lobby naked. The sight of that fat man without clothing horrified me for days afterward, and I am trying hard not to think about it. Forever. Somehow, there is some value in this movie, in accepting others, but I feel this character was written as someone unrealistically vile. Please, whatever you do, do not equate nor associate the character Borat with the multitude of normal and good people in Kazakh. Watching this movie was like reading a copy of Hustler and listening to a Frank Zappa album at the same time. I still don't fully understand what I liked about it.

The Red Violin is a random series of events that are not connected in any way, shape or form. I understand the fact that European films often have no point and are usually just "slice of life", but this film is even worse. It tells us nothing of the construction of the violin and very little about what it was intended for. A hole in the plot is that the violin was intended for the creator's "son", but we never learn whether his newborn is male of female. What happened to his dream of giving it to his "son"? How did it end up in a monastery? Why was the violin "red"? The whole movie just doesn't add up, but I was willing to bear with it because of the marvelous solo violin playing supplied by Joshua Bell. Then, came an impasse. The Chinese lady who tried to hide and save the instrument from the cultural revolution had her door kicked in by storm-troopers? I can not forgive the screen-writer this travesty. This kind of cruelty was unnecessary in this film and I ejected the movie and threw it in the trash because of this. Why do they think that seeing a pure heart betrayed is entertaining? I will not accept such darkness in my art. Is there any reason why we couldn't have been shown a happy segment involving Chinese people in China? With no plot, no point and no kindness, this film is a joke.

I was expecting a movie about the relationship between the two lead actors. If that had been true, then I would have been able to give this movie 7 stars. The inclusion of the tiger, as a cheap, sensational distraction, to "keep us interested", brought it down to 6 stars.

The cavalier and cold way that Rose approached the prospect of abortion intensified the coldness of her character to the point that I stopped liking her and began wondering why Bubber was dedicated to her. The reference to abortion in such a trivializing way, akin to taking out the garbage, brought my rating of this film to 4 stars.

The scene where the small dog was killed by the tiger, in front of the children, was totally un-necessary, impertinent and vicious on the part of the screen-writer and director. This event compelled me to give the movie its present rating of two stars.

Only the good acting and decent dialogue from C. Thomas Howell prevented me from issuing A Tiger's Tale a score of 1 star.

I enjoyed Quicksilver. Most movies with the theme of renegades I will like. I'm glad Jack turned his back on the stock exchange and found something that made him feel alive. The worlds of messenger and stock broker were vastly different, but ironically similar in some aspects. The reality of the seedy, urban element that abuses parcel deliverers gave Quicksilver a gutty feel. In other words, the movie was not just doing stunts on a fixed-gear bike or barreling down one way streets the wrong way. The character of Hector gave some good context to the movie, and Jack showed his good side by helping him in whatever way he could. What I don't understand about Quicksilver are a couple of scenes where Jack seemed downright mean. One was when the female messenger Terri, played by Jami Gertz, showed up at his door, asking to stay the night because of necessity. Why did Jack have to act like such a @#$%? What was his point? The other scene was when Jack was eating dinner with his mother and father and he brought up the subject of seeing his father cry. He didn't have to say that. He was the one who lost all his father's money, and then insults him for crying about it? The messenger's hat that Jack picked up off the street at the beginning of the movie I expected him to return to its owner. Isn't that just poetic justice? Nothing ever comes of it. While Quicksilver is a little uneven at times and I was a little annoyed by the raucus and dangerous style of cycle riding displayed, this movie gives us a rare glimpse into the individualistic, rebellious, fleeting, demanding and carnival nature of urban bicycle messengers (and their dispatchers). I was convinced that a vital change had taken place in Jack's world view.., a change that would assist him no matter what he did for work in the future.

This movie had a lot going for it. The theme of beating the bad guy is always welcome to me. The writing was decent, the characters memorable and the location (state prison) in which Stan prevails is unusual. This movie could have been great had it stayed focused and had something to say (better dialogue, more development of Stan's character). I think there were three major scenes that caused diffusion in the movie, though; One is the scene where Stan re-appears outside the dojo to do combat with the head instructor. This is childish and ridiculous. The instructor had every right to determine what happened or didn't inside his dojo, and Stan's earlier rudeness deserved to be met with some resistance. He ended up being a big cry baby because he was an arrogant punk. The second scene was brief, but showed one of his aggressors in prison wearing a diaper, unable to control his bodily functions and on an I.V. drip. obviously, the movie screenwriter and director wanted to impart the opinion that raping someone is okay as long as they, too, are an aggressor. I found that scene one of the most vulgar and unnecessary I have ever seen. The third scene that I found to be ill-conceived was the ending, when the warden was firing a rifle into the courtyard of prisoners. Stan suggested that he "give it up", and he did. A really lack-luster and disappointing ending to what could have been a decent movie.

This is a very dubious movie with many holes in the plot, and it is necessary, throughout, to "suspend your disbelief". No one looks, sounds and acts enough like another person to bamboozle an entire town, filled with friends and relatives. It's just ridiculous. I think this movie is a real waste of two hours.

The way the main character is directed, it is obvious from the start that she is not Caroline. The private investigator was not able to find anything on her? Preposterous.

What, exactly, does the handicapped girl have to do with this identity crisis and deception that the movie is about? It is like watching two movies at once, squashed together. It is so unbelievable, you almost expect Heidi at some point to say, "I am not Heidi! I have been pretending all these years!" and for the woman impersonating Caroline to declare, "I am handicapped! I am not normal!"

What a stupid, ill-conceived movie this is. Nothing like it could ever happen in real life. It is just a 2 hour soap opera. The imposter gets her hands on the inheritance and then has a change of heart (twice) to help Heidi, echoing the lie she told about moving to India? All the while, lying straight-faced to everyone involved, while crying about having hurt them?! Give me a break. Oh, and the party thrown for "Caroline" should have been proof to everyone that something was wrong. Instead, everybody was snookered. She even stated that she "loves" Winston. Yes. of course. That's why she lied to everyone, Heidi included. (Rolls eyes).