mar3429

While it is not Citizen Kane, it is a feel-good treat for a time in America that needs one. This was fun two-hour break from the harsh realities of the world.

It's not Robin Hood but a revisionist tale, loosely based on the old myth. This tale is set it what appears to be an alternative universe and time; anachronisms abound. Give it another title and it is more palatable. Viewed that way, it is pure, dumb, fun. It is dumb fun. It is not Robin Hood.

I attended this film to experience the HFR and 3D viewing. That part of the film was very engaging and felt like you were part of a virtual reality world.. The Will Smith's performance was well done, but the story was strictly paint-by-numbers and offered very little other than the basics. I think that I would like to experience the High Frame Rate and 3D process again at a theater, but in a better film with a better story. Without the visuals, I would suggest that you save you money and wait to see it at home, on Netflix

A few weeks ago I read numerous harsh critiques of Alita Battle Angel. I went to the movie and loved it. In my opinion the critics were very wrong. Fast forward and I read numerous positive reviews for Captain Marvel. I went to see that film today and I found that it was merely so-so. In my opinion, the critics were wrong once again. It had good parts but did hold together as a whole. I didn't hate it, but i was not able to love it. Either the critics are seeing things much differently than I, or I am obviously an outlier. I have pre-ordered the Alita Battle Angel film and will receive it upon its release, but I will not be adding Captain Marvel to my movie collection. Go figure.

This reboot has little in common with the original show. It comes across as rushed, a bit shrill, and much too campy. This reboot needs to be rebooted.

The performances are much better than this lazy, derivative, script deserves.

Avatar is clearly the movie of this year, featuring visuals so vibrant that they are beautiful enough to make you weep. Combine that with a motion capture technology that actually works and you have something special. If you want a comparison go view Robert Zemeckis' "A Christmas Carol" done for Disney. That film featured CGI figures that were not emotive and eerily conjured visions of soul-dead zombies. In contrast, Cameron provides characters that seem to be living breathing individuals.

Since there is nothing to criticize in the visual area, people have concentrated on the story telling of this feature. They seem to forget that this is a genre piece that pretty much closely adheres to the conventions of heroic fantasy. These include: (1) An outsider or low-born individual who will rise to the top. (2)He will eventually wed the unobtainable beautiful queen or princess in contradiction of cultural norms and expectations. (3)He (it is almost always a he) will justify his rise in prominence by fulfilling a prophecy or legend that results in the salvation of either his people or his newly adopted people. Is this an original tale? No. Go to any book store and in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy aisle you can find tons of slight variations of this tale. These tales would include the Lord of the Rings, The Sword of Truth, The Wheel of Time, and The Song of Fire and Ice among their many volumes. While there are dozens of dozens of similar tales, these are the well-done titles of exemplars. This is what Avatar is--a genre film that has been realized to the nth degree. If you are looking for more creativity, you'll have to await the sequels.

Accept this film for what it is and you'll not be disappointed in any way. James Cameron did not attempt a genre busting film, he fully embraced the genre and then knocked it out of the park.

--Slight Spoilers-- "On Guard" is the fifth French cinematic adaptation of Paul Feval's novel "Le Bossu" (The Hunchback), which was first published in 1858. While seemingly unknown in the U.S., the book and its chief protagonist, Lagardere are well-known in France. In fact, Lagadere's challenge to the traitorous Count Gonzague--"If you won't come to Lagadere, Lagadere will come to you!"--is a French proverbial saying now and most of its citizens appear to have some working knowledge of the tale. I believe that the director's supposition of some foreknowledge of the story is what leads to some bewildering twists for viewers that lack that orientation. This film covers a lot of territory in its little more than two hour running time and moves at a very sprightly pace. Some things whoosh by in the narrative, while others are implied to have been discussed off-camera by the involved parties. The result, however, is that there appear to be plot holes in the story for the uninformed. Why didn't the Duke De Nevers send back assistance to aid Legardere? Why didn't the Duke inform his father-in-law that there had been attempts made on his life? Why didn't Lagadere and Aurore discuss the slaying of a swordsman in a duel and the implications that the act had for them both? And most pointedly, what is the explanation of Aurore's behavior upon discovering that she is Lagardere's ward, and not his daughter?

Despite these criticisms, this is a good old fashioned revenge, reward, romance and restoration yarn. It received numerous nominations for film awards and deserved them. The acting is quite good, despite the aforementioned script problems, and Daniel Auteuil, Fabrice Luchini, Marie Gillian and Vincent Perez give lively performances. Auteuil, despite being too old to play either the younger or older versions of Lagardere almost makes you forget it. Vincent Perez as the slightly comedic, and foppish De Nevers, strikes the right tone for the tale. Luchini as the slightly mad and gleefully evil, Gonzague is a satisfying villain. Gillian as the tomboyish, guileless innocent that events revolve around, hits all of the right notes, even if we cannot fully discern the melody that she is playing. The sets, art direction and the costuming are all first rate.

In the end, if you just relax and go with this story and resist trying to apply contemporary values to a story set in the 17th century, you are in for a pleasant ride. Sit back and enjoy. This is the best swashbuckler that I have seen in recent years. I only wish that the novel was available in an English translation to fill in the blanks. Incidentally, Feval's son found fame and notoriety by writing prequels and sequels to this yarn, crafted around the Lagardere character. Other swashbuckling tales that featured D'Artagnan and Cyrano De Bergereac as the protagonists were also written by the son. Alas, none of these tales are currently available in English translations.

I've been anticipating Craig Brewer's sophomore effort ever since viewing "Hustle and Flow" and learning that he could make me care about a pimp and rap music. "Black Snake Moan's" promotional posters filled me with some dread, but I was prepared to trust Brewer to make this film about something other than what was implied. Indeed, the posters were an obvious appeal to the individual bias of their viewers, set up for Brewer to undercut these preset assumptions. He does that, and he does it beautifully.

Both Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci have stated that they felt that this film represented their best work. I agree with them both. Ms. Ricci is said to have campaigned hard for this role and her level of commitment is there on the screen. She is both sacred and profane, feral and innocent, a victim and a victimizer--this is a bravura performance. Jackson's damn-the-consequences (I save you,you save me)retired blues man, eclipses anything I have ever seen him do. The chemistry between the two of them is wonderful. Justin Timberlake, in a role that cries out for either Jake Gyllenhaal or Ryan Gosling, does an adequate job.

Jackson's Lazarus is a local semi-legendary blues man who has given up smoky juke joints, fast living and the devil's music to live a life as a God-fearing, truck farmer. He seems to have done this for love and family, only to discover that he will wind up with neither. He loses his wife of twelve years, who obviously preferred the blues man to the religiously rigid farmer that he has become. Early in the film she complains that the two of them have "lost their spark." Laz's attempt at reconciliation is doomed to failure. He is left in a pain that is further intensified by the fact that his wife has betrayed him with his younger brother.

Ricci's Rea, and Timberlake's Ronnie, are in love and are part of a codependent relationship that seems to be held together by chewing gum and bailing wire. Rea is prone to fits of nymphomania and Ronnie suffers from an anxiety disorder that is debilitating. They are good together, but only together. Even short absences from one another is a prescription for disaster. Ominously, in his desire to improve their lot, Ronnie has decided to join the military. He hopes to take advantage of veteran's benefits upon completing his enlistment. This puts into motion the events of the film.

Rea quickly deteriorates with Ronnie away from her. She settles into a drug, alcohol and sexual haze that nearly results in her death. Badly beaten, she is left half-nude by the side of the road by a supposed friend. This is where Laz finds her. Despite knowing that being "black and nearby" is enough to buy him trouble in his community, he takes her into his home. It is here that that the two of them (with the aid of a sturdy chain, cough syrup, cooking lessons, a bible, and two guitars), learn to love, trust, share and heal. Laz serves as her protector until she is able to protect herself. Rea becomes his muse and encourages Laz to give the devil his due. He picks up one of his hidden guitars and plays the blues again.

The depicted journey is heartrending and intense as inner demons are faced by Rea, Laz, and eventually Ronnie. Of course, this being a Craig Brewer film, music plays an important role in the transformation of the characters. There is the fiery growl and shout of Laz's "Black Snake Moan" which is performed with a thunderstorm as the background, (S. Epatha Merkerson) Angela's soothing spiritual "There is a Balm in Gilead" performed in the town marketplace, and Rea's plaintive and hopeful "This Little Light of Mine" performed with her eyes closed and prayerful of Ronnie's return. Each song is significant and plays an important part at an important moment in the film.

"There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole;" "There is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul" By the time that Rea and Laz are again interacting with the general public they are two changed individuals. The two of them drive into town and are oblivious to the stir that swirls around them. Watching the reactions of the townspeople to this unlikely pair is humorous. The two old men on the marketplace bench are incredulous, puzzled and confused by the pair. When a problem arises, Laz's "Yes, she's with me" defiance seems to disarm everyone. While this causes him to face some very real risks, it does not matter to him. He protects the person that needs him. Rea has finally found a father and Lazarus has found his missing child. It is a family born out of pain.

In the end, everyone gets to lay some demons to rest but there are no miracles. Not all of the monsters have been purged. The lovers are reunited but there is no Hollywood ending. Ronnie and Rea remain flawed, fractured and damaged individuals. The will have to fight themselves and will have to work hard to support each other, every day of their lives. It is their commitment, their effort, and their willingness to forgive that makes their relationship special. There will be no easy path for this couple.

Embracing your humanity, seeing beyond the obvious, accepting both the sacred and the profane that resides within you, continually finding the courage to try--when everything/everyone tells you that you will fail--that is the road to redemption. Beautiful flowers may grow and bloom not just in carefully prepared beds (Rose's Roses), but in dung heaps as well. In the end, this is what this film is about.

"I think that we'll be okay."

(All) About Adam has the makings of good dark comedy, but for some reason that is not the tone that the movie maker chose to use. Instead, an attempt was made to make a light comedy about a man who does some really ugly things. This supposed romantic comedy veers wildly into Jerry Springer territory, while seeming to assert that bad things that result in good outcomes for you are okay. Indeed, this film is wholly dependent on good outcomes for its characters. Even one bad outcome in this film would result in totally exposing how big a cad and creep Adam really is. It would also show how unsound the film's premise is.

Wild child Lucy cuts a swath through the available men that she encounters, through a series of one night stands and short-term relationships. She's a heart-breaker who engages and drops men at will, uncaring of the damage and pain that she causes. This continues until she encounters the too-good-to-be-true Adam. She is immediately smitten. Is this a movie about Lucy receiving her comeuppance for her past behaviors? No, Lucy spends the movie blissfully unaware of all of the perfidy swirling about her. And, oddly enough, in a comedy based on amorality Lucy is the only individual who seems to have a conscience. In truth, Lucy ends up being the victim.

Adam you see, is a manipulative seducer who works his way through her family,working his will on her sisters, her brother, and the brother's virginal girlfriend. Only the mother is spared, and he will probably get to her later. Why does Adam do this? We are never given an opportunity to really know Adam's motives and motivations. Instead, he serves as a cipher for others. We only get to see how others react to Adam in a Roshomon style retelling of his tale from the viewpoints of the various characters. Adam himself only offers that he has a "gift for helping others." And help them, he does. Sister Laura learns to be less repressed and to live her life experientially rather than intellectually, David is able to connect sexually with the girl of his dreams and to move their relationship on to another level and elder sister Alice re-learns sensuality and affection after a tryst with Adam a few hours before his scheduled wedding. The problem for the movie is that all of Adam's help is of a sexual nature. There are no kind words, no hand holding, and no words of wisdom--just sex. His stated desire to help is more self-serving alibi and justification than anything else.

In the film Adam is extremely charming. He spins tale after tale (lies) that put him in the best light. Improbably, people (except for Alice) eat it up. Perhaps this is his true gift. Ulltimately, this film only works as a light comedy if you can like and identify with Adam and I couldn't. He presents to me as a smooth-talker who cares little about the consequences of his actions. In the real world families are destroyed,people get divorced and are killed for activities such as these. These thoughts might not have been so prominent in my mind if the filmmaker had not made the unfortunate choice of tacking a sentimental, traditional,romantic comedy staple to the end of the film-the interrupted wedding. It does not fit into the rest of the film. The words spoken ring hollow and lack sincerity given the things that came before it. Adam is uninterested in Lucy's secrets only because his are far more egregious. It is not a discussion about the boundaries and limits of love.The final scene only makes it worse. The sense is that there will only be more of the same and no larger lessons were learned. Somewhere over the horizon the till now avoided disaster awaits them and when it strikes the last seen smile and smirk on Adams face is sure to be wiped away.

Finally, if I were a woman, I would find this film offensive. The assertion that all of a female's emotional problems, personal insecurities and dissatisfactions can be solved with a few well-placed lies and a few nights of good sex has an undertone of misogyny. Have doubts about those undertones? Make the Adam character a female instead and have her tearing through a group of brothers and see what images it conjures up for you. Neither a sex comedy nor a romantic comedy, this hybrid floats like a leaden balloon if you look at it too carefully. A charming creep is still a creep. When I look at Adam, that is what I see.

The Oh in Ohio is a cute film but feels more like a TV sitcom than a movie. The film opens strong and remains that way until about the halfway point. From the half-way point on the screenwriters seem to be running out of ideas. In the end it kind of limps its way to the conclusion.

There are some funny moments in the film. At least there were moments that gave me a giggle. Mainly it is a "make me smile" kind of film that will never result in uproarious laughter. With the cast on hand, I felt that they should have been able to accomplish more. We never get any insight into these characters. We never understand why Parker Posey's character can't "let go." We never understand why in a ten year marriage she and her husband were never able to sit down and discuss their problems and their frustrations about it. I don't get how they could break up so easily or why Posey is so giggly about it. Were they ever in love? If it was this bad, what had they been holding on to for ten years? I like unconventional couplings, it is what I see in real life, but not usually in Hollywood films. However, why can Posey "let go" with the pool guy and no one else. What makes him special? Is it solely because she doesn't take him seriously? Is that the source of her comfort? If that's true, it doesn't bode well for their future.

Despite the criticism, I liked the performances of Parker Posey and a toned down Danny DeVito. Paul Rudd and Mischa Barton have a cute story line that could have been mined for more. Their relationship is left unresolved in the film. You have to go to the deleted scenes on the DVD to find out what happened to them. Keith David as Rudd's friend is funny, as is Liza Minneli as the the masturbation guru. Heather Graham as the sex shop girl brings a chuckle in a small role.

There is a really good movie to be made on this subject matter, but this isn't it. If a character can solve in few weeks what they could not in a decade, and you fail to provide some of the reasons behind it, you leave a mighty big hole in your movie. This is what happened here. Still, it is worth a rental.

The Story of Marie & Julien opens in a dream of a dream. It is an appropriate beginning, as most of the film unfolds in a dreamlike or trance like state. Like most French films The Story of Marie & Julien moves slowly, however, for a change the slow pace intensifies both character development and the plot.

Initially, both Marie and Julien are individuals who are stuck. Marie explains to Julien that she is "waiting," while Julien appears to be frozen in time and place. Both characters have lost significant others at the film's opening. We are never able to determine whether Julien is frozen because he lost his lover or lost his lover because he is frozen. Marie in contrast, we learn during the course of the film has returned from a far place to repent for a wrong that she committed against her former lover. Unfortunately, her lover is now deceased. This leaves Marie unable to accomplish her task--hence the waiting.

From the moment that Julien sees Marie again, he is certain of what he has been waiting for. He bumps into Marie shortly after awaking from his dream. He finds, to his surprise, that she has also been thinking of him. The two of them arrange a meeting before Julien sprints off to an appointment that he is late for. Here the movie takes a strange turn and Julien is revealed to be the most unlikely and least believable criminal in movie history. His victim, Madam X, seems better suited to the task. Indeed, she seems to find Julien more mildly amusing, than threatening.

As constructed, Julien's actions seem to be more of a lark than a criminal activity. It is something to do, a diversion from a boring life. He gives the impression that that his true joy comes from disarming Madam X with his crazy demands and his apparent indifference to the outcome of his criminal enterprise. As a character Julien is crotchety and cantankerous, at least mildly depressed, a loner, and outwardly perceived as "mean." In Marie, Julien has met his match. She is indefinable. She fails to keep their planned meeting only to arrive at his home unannounced. She invites him to dinner, spends the night with him, and then disappears early in the morning while he is asleep. She does and says things that she claims to not remember. She, like Julien, is slightly out of phase with the world around her. Julien is desperate to connect with her. Explaining to Marie that he needs her, he soon has her moving into his sprawling house, which is more workshop than home.

Julien is a clock smith who works on antique clocks by sound, not sight or touch. According to Julien they are all reparable;it is just a matter of patience. He demonstrates this patience by disassembling and reassembling them time after time until he gets it right. He uses the same method with Marie. Soon, to her surprise, they are passionately in love. Unfortunately, love is not enough. Marie is bound by time constraints and a mandate to rectify a wrong. Lacking her former lover, Marie begins to use Julien as his proxy, hoping to win Julien's forgiveness and release. Working both consciously and unconsciously, directed by her dreams--Marie's behaviors become increasingly bizarre. Madam X, who meets Marie during a blackmail payoff immediately knows what the problem is and shares her knowledge with Julien. Doing further research, Julien is able to piece Marie's story together but decides that it makes little difference to him. The facts, while astounding, make no difference in his love for her.

Marie and Julien are left at an impasse. Julien is willing to do anything for Marie, up to freeing her. His love for her will not let him go any further than this. Either she will stay with him or he will follow her. Life without her has become unthinkable. Finally, Marie bows to the futility of her situation. Achieving her mission would put Julien at risk. Rather than risk her lover, she chooses to accept her punishment for failure. The punishment proves to be heart rending for Marie as it forces her to observe Julien's life without her in it. It is a life that is sad, lonely, and hopeless. Julien's only accompaniment is the constant ticking of his clocks marking the passage of time and the ringing of the bell around the neck of his cat Nevermore. He is frozen once again.

This is the typical ending for a French film. I was pleasantly surprised when Rivette found a way to surmount an insurmountable problem and take the film in another direction. It is an ending that works. When two people love, it says, nothing is impossible.

This is a really good film.

This has become one of my favorite films, one that I re-view often. The story is a tale of a man and a woman who have been made emotional cripples by painful events that occurred in their childhoods. Mara and Joaquin survive these events as children by clinging fiercely to one another. One day this arrangement comes to end when Mara and Joaquin consummate their relationship and Mara departs the next day without telling either Joaquin or her mother.

Returning eight years later, Mara learns to her chagrin, that there have been consequences due to her actions. After initially moving on with his life, Joaquin has become deeply depressive and has not left his family home in over two years. Her mother has learned to deal with her loss and has become somewhat distant. Slowly, it is revealed that while functional, Mara sports some damage as well. She drinks too much, and smokes too much. She has problems with making decisions and keeping commitments. Apparently a talented actress, Mara's career goes nowhere because she cannot relate to, or connect with, her peers on stage. She is both in pain and in denial. Watching the two leads unravel this bundle of conflicting emotions is what makes the film touching and poignant. The performances are subtle and seemingly heartfelt. Both characters are believable and are utterly human in their construction. They are likable, despite their flaws and you find yourself rooting for them to find both their lives and each other again.

This is a fine romance. I recommend it highly.

May Contain minor spoilers

What is the best solution for a failed romantic relationship? Should we take our hard-won lessons forward and apply them to our next experience, hopeful that we can get it right this time? Or,as in the case of this film, if we were given a chance, is it best that we journey to the past and attempt to rectify the errors of our failed romance? Twice Upon a Yesterday seems to be saying "Yes" to both cases. This serves to keep the ultimate resolution to this film from being totally satisfying. Of course, it also keeps it real.

"What if?" is probably the ultimate human question. It reflects our yearning for a "do over button" that we can press when we find that we don't like the outcomes of our decisions. The fact that one exists in this film, is part of its allure.

While examining some of the previous reviews of this film on the internet I ran across an article that mentions the screenwriter. He stated that he wrote the screenplay in response to a failed romance of his own. He presumably had moved on but continued to yearn for redemption and reconciliation. With this information in hand, I can now see why the Sylvia/Victor relationship is given yet another try (by Sylvia this time) at the end of the film. The fact that Victor seems to have found happiness with Louisa is just as irrelevant to Sylvia as Sylvia's pending nuptials to Dave were to Victor in another time line. The heart wants what the heart wants--and the heart is selfish.

While there were no good guys or bad guys in the film--everyone was just your basic flawed human being--it now seems clear to me that the scriptwriter wants us to continue to cheer for Victor and Sylvia as a couple. I can almost picture the two of them in a seemingly endless loop, trying one way after another to resolve their problems until they finally get it right.

Of course, the story also says....There is another way...

The performances in the Lower City were quite good. All three of the leads are given an opportunity to make an impression. The script however, leaves a bit to be desired. The motives and motivations seem about as clear as mud. Why does this triangle exist? What does she see in each of the men that makes them indispensable to her? When one walks away, why does she pursue him to keep him in the fold and in the game? And finally, and most importantly, why .do men that seem to have no problem with her plying her trade of prostitution with other men, suddenly want to beat hell out of each other when one or the other of them sleeps with her? "Because the script says so" is the only answer I can come up with. That is the weakness of this film. If these questions had been answered we would have had better film and I would have been able to rate it higher. Even some hinted at answers would have been appreciated. Maybe next time....

Intimate Strangers is one of the most unique love stories that I have viewed in my life. It features two lonely individuals--one who has no one to talk and another who is an accomplished listener who will not say and cannot say what is on his mind.

Mr. Faber, the tax attorney pressed into service as a therapist due to a case of mistaken identity ,reveals himself as being terribly repressed. He is a good man. He is honest, honorable, well-ordered and caring. He is also utterly incapable of either making the first move or of forcing a choice, as his off-and-on girlfriend Jeanne reminds him. This appears to be the reason that the two of them cannot make their romance a permanent one. She is aware of his attributes but cannot forgive his flaws. Indeed, some her actions with her new boyfriend and Mr. Faber seem calculated to force a response. She would prefer William Faber, but wishes him to claim her. He cannot.

Throughout the film, William Faber makes an inviting target. He is a closed individual, but only marginally more so than the other characters in the film. The other characters just hide it better. They are just as lonely and just as stuck as Faber. At one point he reminds Jeanne that when he first met her she was going to be a novelist, instead she contented herself with filing and stacking books away at a library. Jeanne appears thunderstruck when he slaps her across the face with that intimate secret. Nonetheless, you do find yourself wondering how Faber got to be Faber. The fact that one of the main characters remains shrouded in mystery is the one weakness of this otherwise excellent film.

Anna, Faber's patient/doctor is the focus of the film and she gives an excellent performance. I call her patient/doctor because her relationship with Faber is symbiotic. During the course of the film the two of them heal one another. Unlike Faber, Anna is aware of the dynamics between them and its nature. At one point a patient of Dr. Monnier asks Anna about her therapist. "I'm his only patient. He needs me," Anna responds. In fact, for much of the film, the true question is just how aware if Anna? A missing memento and a going away gift to Mr. Faber call into question whether Anna has launched him upon a quest, one where he can ultimately prove that there was something more to their meetings than two lonely people talking. Or is it just happenstance?

Reading some of the comments of other viewers of this film I find that many are disappointed that Mr. Faber did not have more of an arc to his character. I would submit that it seems so small because he had so very far to go. The changes evidenced at the end of the film, while modest, were monumental for him. Like others, I was disappointed when given a chance to explain why he had sought her out he fudged the answer. However, as the credits rolled I watched him traverse the greatest distance in his life. He moved from his chair, to a table to pick up an ashtray, to sit on the couch beside Anna and share a cigarette together. A first move. Surely Anna will know what to do with that!

See me...Feel me...Touch me...Heal me...

All in all this is a great film.

I've just completed viewing The Apartment (L'Appartement) and Wicker Park back-to-back on the same day and conclude that the original film is almost two times better. I rated The Apartment a nine, while Wicker Park earned a 5 in my ratings.

I watch a lot of films, but don't consider myself a film snob. I don't believe that all film must be high art or CINEMA--plain old movies suit me just fine. I will watch foreign films but don't think that they are the be-all and end-all of movies. Some I find to be very boring and pretentious but will watch them nonetheless, hopeful of finding something special and unique. This is how I blundered into The Apartment, based upon the recommendation of another.

I like many different genres of film, including what some men disparagingly refer to as chick flicks. I am a sucker for a good love story and have been since boyhood. Like most Americans raised on our Hollywood traditions, I like a happy ending (especially in a love story!). The Apartment does not fully embrace this tradition (Of course real life does. Right?) and there were things about the ending that I would have changed if I could. Soooo...when I learned that Wicker Park was a remake of L'Apppartement I rushed out to get a copy in order that I could compare and contrast the two.

What I decided, script concerns aside, this film was miscast. In particular this film's Alex and Matthew are not up to the standards set in the original film. In L'Appartement the two characters (Alice and Max) had great chemistry together (horrors!), almost an equal to the chemistry that existed between the Max character and Lisa. This made for a much more complicated and intense relationship between all of the main characters. I don't get the same sense of obsession and desperation that is a palpable characteristic of the earlier film. I miss it because this provides the level of truth that anyone who has ever been in love is well aware of; Love is hard, crazy and complicated. I find it interesting that in both films the relationship that makes the most sense and is the most logical fares the poorest in the viewer's analysis. Max/Matthew's fiancée should be the clear winner among our choices but garners the least rooting interest. Perhaps we prefer our love wild, crazy and dangerous. Just an observation.

This is not a bad film. I enjoyed watching it. However, if you get a chance, rent the L'Appartement and do your own comparison test. I purchased copies of both today, but I know which one I will be viewing most often.

I have recently embarked upon a period where I have invested a great deal of time viewing foreign and independent films. I have reached a time wherein Hollywood's view of life is a bit too sunny and a bit too pat. However.....my survey of many of these films are about to send me scurrying back to the pat and plastic Hollywood answers to love and sex. The Anatomy of Hell is the most extreme example of what I have confronted.

Are there bad men? Yes, without a doubt, there are pitiful examples of manhood, world wide. However, they are bad men because they are bad men. They are not bad men only to women. Men who need to control and dominate are equal opportunity offenders, the presence of a vagina or menstrual blood has nothing to do with their idiocy. I have worked twenty-five years, with the victims of misogyny as a social worker/counselor. I have confronted the users and abusers of women and have concluded first and foremost that they are usually men who don't love themselves and incapable of loving anyone, male or female. They are very damaged individuals.

The vast majority of men love, like and respect women. We're different. We see things differently. We experience things differently. One is no better than the other. Indeed, I would submit that this is why we work best in pairs. Male/female couples allows us to view the world more completely. Your off-sex partner can interpret, explain, and clarify things to you that we don't quite "get." And how do you form the bond that makes this mutual sharing possible? It's called love.

Hollywood tends to peddle romantic idealism, while foreign and independent films tend to sell love and sex as an unending gender war. I have no problem with feminist perspectives. This film, however, is too, too extreme--its indictments too broad. Can we all benefit by becoming better people? No doubt, but I am certain that the real answers that we are seeking lay between Hollywood and The Anatomy of Hell. I'm just not seeing it yet. I guess that I still have other films to watch.

The film 5 X 2 is a series of troubling scenes from a marriage, told in reverse order. It moves from a rather passionless, but painful divorce proceeding, through some violent goodbye sex, a plea for reconciliation by the former husband, all the way to the moment that they fell in love. Between those extremes they were never very good to each other for any length of time. The husband, Gilles, being aggressively cruel, while the wife, Marion, is passively cruel to her spouse. The motives and motivations behind these actions are never significantly explained and the viewer is left to fill in the blank spaces.

Being puzzled by the ambiguity of some of the events in the film (Just Like Swimming Pool), I went to the deleted scenes and found a prologue that was not included in the final cut of the film. The scene implies that the couple at some point reconcile and are again living together. Marion awakes and moves about the home that is piled with moving boxes. She goes to one box and removes a book "Histoire d'O" (The Story of O) and a scarf. For those who are unaware, this a book about sadomasochism/dominance and submission, and a woman's experiences with it. Reading a bit of the book, she puts it down and goes to make coffee. She later re-enters the room, finds Gilles reading the same book, sneaks up behind him and blindfolds him with the scarf, while kissing him. Gilles removes the scarf and uses it to bind her hands behind her. They begin the preliminaries of lovemaking but part instead. They end up laying side by side, looking at their surroundings, glancing at one another.

This scene implies that the individuals have made personal growth and had come to recognize that their previous marriage had been based on dominance and submission and neither of them wished to return to the sadomasochistic relationship of their past. It also implies, as they both look about, neither of them really have any idea where to begin, if this is not to be the nature of their new relationship. Of course, knowing what you don't want is a start of sorts. It's a great scene, quiet, somber and reflective. More importantly, it is hopeful. Hopeful, that even damaged people can learn and grow. It's too bad that it did not make the final cut of the film. What we do have in the film is probably more realistic--all too often love ends--but hopefully we do take something better to our next beginning. The final scene in 5 x 2 reminds each of us just how beautiful love can be. It is worth a viewing for that reason alone.

The Fantastic Four is pure dumb fun, a light summer confection. It is not in the same league as the aforementioned Spiderman, the first two Batman movies or the recently released Batman Begins. Nonetheless, it can be enjoyed for what it is--a family friendly popcorn flick.

The film starts somewhat slowly. It could almost be forgiven if it were due to exposition, however, this was not the case. Instead we were introduced to main characters with but sketchy information about their pasts together. It is a movie that requires that work your imagination a bit to fill in the blanks. Then, shortly after the catastrophic event that changes these characters for life, we are given a quick cut that feels like someone forgot a reel. One minute we are in outer space, and in the next we are back on earth in a hospital setting. It is jarring. Happily, things pick up form there and fun ensues.

The portrayals of the Human Torch and The Thing are the best parts of the film. The two of them provide the majority of the humor and action for the final two thirds of the film. Other half of the quartet don't quite click as well. Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic and Sue Storm, The Invisible Girl, don't quite have the chemistry. The romance between them seems a bit forced. Only the quickly unfolding relationship between Ben Grimm (The Thing) and the blind Alicia appears more unlikely. This is the first of a three movie deal--an origin film. Hopefully, they will do more in the other two films. The pieces are here to build a very good film franchise.

I'm ready for the next one.

It's finally over. I viewed this film over the Memorial Day weekend. It was more as an act of faith than than a burning desire. The first two films of this new trilogy have left much to desire. Episode I was a kiddie film, Spy Kids set in a galaxy "far, far, away." There were good sections, but not a good film. Episode II was much better but Anakin Skywaler as a petulant teen got on the nerves. Thank God American teens can't access the Force! I know that the character was supposed to be a flawed and conflicted individual, but the story and dialog did nothing to present that case. Worse, Skywalker and Padme had no chemistry. This was supposed to be a love that shook worlds and destroyed governments. That's not what I saw on film.

There are still problems in Episode III but it is visually stunning and moved with a purpose. As an action picture it was quite good. As a drama it was mediocre. There were things done in this film that should have had much more emotional impact than it did. Some of Anakin's actions were monstrous, but I never felt it. Therefore, you have my score--7--for action and visuals. Any higher score required things that were lacking in this film. It is the fourth best of the series. At least we finished on a high note.

This a film to make you think. A film that points out the futility and stupidity of failing to live up to all of the rules and values of your religion teachings. The moment that exceptions are made, chaos and madness may be done in the name of God. This message is not always rendered subtly by Ridley Scott, but that is perhaps what is needed to gain the attention of many of us. We are all the same. We are both good and bad--and extremism is bad for all.

While watching the film I was given the impression that some things were missing from the film. I have since learned that the DVD when released will contain some 80 additional minutes of film. The will probably fill in the holes nicely, and may make my rated 8 a 10.