Reviews

The opening of the movie finds us reading the words, "Based on a True Story," but "Patch Adams" feels like a movie with a wildly out of control comic as its lead.

Robin Williams plays a real-life medical student named Hunter "Patch" Adams, who dreams of giving his future patients a better "quality of life." He prances around and makes patients laugh and feel good about themselves to make them forget their pains.

The message in "Patch Adams" is a nice one, but the actors don't make it real. The big payoffs feel cheap, especially a key speech by Williams late in the film. One of main problems is the screenplay, which doesn't really give us much to care about. Everything happens in such a set-up way that nothing feels right.

And so, this is not one of Williams' shining hours. Compare his work as a doctor in the wonderful "Awakenings" (1990) to this and it's night and day.

I like "Star Trek." The characters are fun to watch and the movies are usually entertaining, sometimes very good.

In "Star Trek: Insurrection," the latest in the series, the crew must try to protect a mystical "fountain of youth" planet from being over-taken by villains using an alliance with the Federation.

OK. Sounds simple enough, right? Wrong. This "Star Trek" movie has some great ideas for a good movie, but nothing is right. The actors are incredibly indifferent to the material. They are lazy. Where is the customary urgency, the sense that the crew needs to race time to save humanity? It's missing because the actors make no effort to make us care about the people on this planet that makes them stay youthful.

A subplot involving a romance between Riker (Jonathan Frakes) and Counselor Troi (Marina Sirtis) is handled with such an abruptness and awkward timing that it generates no interest. The comedic moments are so badly timed that they aren't funny, just perplexing.

Captain Picard's involvment with one of the planet's inhabitants is sweet but inconsequential. And other subplots concerning Data are wasted, adding only annoyance to the film.

Even the usually adequate special effects and sets are cheesy this time. The magic is not there.

Frakes directed the much more confident "First Contact" a few years ago. That film was suspensful, funny and well-acted. The story moved with eased and grace, creating a sense of awe and interest in its characters. "Insurrection" is directly the opposite. Instead of moving along breezily, it slogs along. I'm inclined to say this is worse than "Star Trek V." At least the film makers seemed to be trying for something in that one.

Jim Carrey would not be on too many lists for very good actors, but he is a major talent. His comedy is alternately inventive and off-putting. Yet here he is in a role that is original and interesting.

He plays Truman Burbank, who lives in a nice, quiet town where everyone knows everyone. But little does he know he is the subject of a 24-hour TV show.

The screenplay is creative in inventing ways to keep Truman from knowing this fact, such as a fear of the ocean, and in the gradual awakening to a new reality that Truman must face.

Carrey makes Truman into a sympathetic character, who is thrust into a situation that is hard to accept. Everything he's ever known is staged. It is a touching, likable performance that is complete and true to character.

Ed Harris provides fine support as Cristof, the creator of "The Truman Show," opting for a low-key approach rather than a madman performance that makes him worthy of pity.

Andrew Niccol ("Gattaca")'s screenplay is one of the most creative in a long time, which presents intriguing questions about the nature of television, privacy and how far technology should be taken. Is it okay to place a person in a bubble all his life for all to see? Just because we can, must we? Those questions provide for a multi-layered plot that makes you think.

Strong direction from Peter Weir ("Witness," "Dead Poets Society").

This is a story worthy of interest: Death decides to take a holiday and visits the human race, during which time stands still for those about to die.

Death (Brad Pitt) visits a businessman (Anthony Hopkins) on the day he is to die and strikes a deal. If the businessman will give Death a tour of life, his death will be suspended until after he celebrates his birthday.

During his time on Earth, Death learns about matters of the heart and soul, as well as what peanut butter tastes like.

Although this is a flawed film -- mainly its length -- it is filled with charm and old-fashioned fun.

Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins have worked together before, in the award-winning "Legends of the Fall," and they work well together.

The screenplay is flawed in that it stretches a rather thin story out to its limit, but the actors make the most of it. On that level the movie is a pleasure to watch. There are enough scenes of humor and charm to make it entertaining.

Kenneth Branagh's towering achievement, "Hamlet," is a bold, richly developed full-length version of one of Shakespeare's most famous plays.

Using an international cast of some of today's most popular and best actors, Branagh wastes no time or a single line. Adding color and power to many oft-repeated monologues, he sets some of the key scenes in new and intriguing places.

Branagh's actors are, for the most part, terrific. Derek Jacobi plays Claudius with skill and intelligence, making us realize he may have been a fine leader under better circumstances; Kate Winslet makes for a moving Ophelia, the doomed lover of Hamlet; Julie Christie is a stronger Gertrude than Glenn Close was; Charlton Heston is impressive as the Player King; and Branagh, himself, is a graceful Hamlet, in both the quiet moments and the more intense ones.

The sets and art direction are beautiful, as are the costumes, creating a world of intrigue, secrets, and mysteries.

Branagh's pacing flows so well we never stop to think how long the film is (4 hours). This is something rare among movies.

The Academy Awards snubbed the movie in the major categories, acknlowledging the art direction, costumes, and the Patrick Doyle score. Branagh recieved a nomination for adapting the play. Some critics thought this was odd, but actually it is appropriate considering some of the ingenious ways in which the director uses Shakespeare's words with compelling images.

This is one of the best films ever made.

Here is a film that could have been a disaster if it were not for the work of two very different actors: Robin Williams and Robert De Niro. Although De Niro is known for powerful dramatic roles, Williams had rarely done drama. Aside from Oscar-nominated work in "Good Morning, Vietnam" (1987) and "Dead Poets Society" (1989), his dramatic roles had been limited.

In "Awakenings," Williams completely does away with his usual zaniness found even in his previous serious parts. He is subtle, subdued and in character through-out. As a doctor with a vision of life for his comatose patients, he creates a likable, shy, determined, three-dimensional portrait.

Robert De Niro is also sympathetic and moving as one of the key patients who Williams tries his experimental therapy on.

Although the film was nominated for three Academy Awards, including De Niro, the screenplay and the picture itself, Williams was unjustly snubbed. So was director Penny Marshall, whose confidence in straightforward story-telling and getting superb performances out of her actors, makes this her greatest achievment as a film maker thus far. It is also one of the best movies of its year.

This movie marked the debut of Williams, in a role suited to his skills at the time as an actor. He looks the part and has fun with the silliness, making the title character likable. Shelley Duvall matches his ability to make her role as Olive Oil likable and she gets some well-deserved laughs in some scenes. It's just good, clean fun.