Reviews

Aaron Sorkin's script and pitch-perfect performances by Annette Bening and Michael Douglas create a funny and ultimately poignant movie that makes a viewer happy to be an American.

Douglas portrays a flawed but deeply honest president who knows how to learn from his mistakes. He conducts himself with dignity. Bening is a political lobbyist with a strong commitment to the environment. (Interesting that a film made 23years ago outlines environmental issues more clearly than they would be articulated today!) How can a relationship develop between two people given their very different positions in the political life of the country? How they work through these issues goes from humorous to dramatic and, of course, a happy ending.

All the minor characters are well fleshed out. In particular, Martin Sheen as Chief of Staff wants happiness for his old friend, but is very aware of the poltiical realities involved. Michael J. Fox wants the president to be the best man he can be, wants him to live up to the highest values of the office.

Watching this film, I am struck by the ability of the Office of the President to create positive change in this world. I hope we can see this reflected at the White House once again some day.

I didn't expect much of this film, but wound up being very taken with the acting and the script.

A man and a child live a rootless life but are clearly very close to each other, but the viewer knows from the beginning that there is more to the story. An unexpected encounter with a missing child poster sets both of them on a life-changing journey. How the father and daughter deal with their fate and the changes that must come into their lives unfolds slowly, with few big moments, and yet with a sense of inevitability.

Tom Hildreth is excellent, portraying a complex character with many sides, but whose life has been changed by love. I predict a great acting future-- if she chooses it-- for Maggie Elizabeth Jones, whose acting was natural and affecting. Ted Levine, as usual, brings depth to a role that could have been very pro forma.

All in all, well worth watching.

I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan for 50 years, but I'm not a purist and have long felt that most large screen portrayals of Sherlock Holmes did him a disservice. Should Holmes and Watson be younger than their traditional casting? Certainly! Can Holmes be a man of action? Of course! His physicality was often implied and sometimes written very explicitly in Doyle's stories. I was looking forward to seeing a characterization of Holmes enriched with these under-realized elements.

But as eccentric as Holmes was, he was also a man of his times. Early in the film, Holmes goes to dinner with Watson to meet his fiancé Mary-- and he goes unshaved! Holmes may be a slob at home, but he would always be appropriate in public. Then, he insults Mary and Mary throws a glass of wine in his face-- again, two actions that would never take place in the society of the times.

Even so, I tried to put my reservations aside. I saw great potential in Robert Downey Jr's interpretation of Holmes, and appreciated Jude Law's re-imagining of Watson. The script, however, failed the characters. Holmes' intellect was mostly ignored; Watson's loyalty was portrayed as irrational. The new interest that Holmes' physicality could have added was undermined because it was overplayed.

Worse, the story was confusing and unengaging. About an hour into the movie, I realized that I was remaining in my seat only because of the ticket price. I was bored by the chaos.

The sets and art direction were excellent but ultimately lacked impact because of their unrelieved darkness.

My biggest disappointment is that this current telling of the Sherlock Holmes story, and the franchise that's bound to follow, will prevent any new re-imagining for years to come.

Blending the mystical with the political, Thunderheart manages to cover a lot of ground while developing a real sense of place. The script is respectful without romantizating native americans, and with the exception of Val Kilmer (to the best of my knowledge) native characters are played by native people (even Fred Ward!) The prolific James Horner's score never dominates but moves the story along well.

People who want to honor the core spirit of this movie owe it to themselves to do some exploring about what can be done TODAY to preserve native rights and lands. Use the Internet! Battles still rage.

For those of us who can't get enough of Holmes and Watson, this film fits the bill. The young actors successfully imply their adult characters; the mystery is adequate if not overambitious; and its fun to see the development of some of Holmes' better known affectations-- such as hat and pipe. We are also presented with at least one theory to explain holmes' adult life of celebacy.

One of Barry Levinson's (Wag the Dog, Rain Man) first directorial efforts.

What a pleasure to see a film so unabashedly idealistic! The film's emotional ending (a well-deserved and long-overdue tribute to Pasteur's work by his collegues) centers on a closing speech by Pasteur (Paul Muni) in which he explains, simply and with passion, that making a contribution to the wellbeing of mankind is the most important work of all.

Pasteur's discovery of the role of bacteria in spreading disease seems self-evident now, but he faced years of ridicule and isolation before his findings were accepted and played their part in transforming our world.

This film is a vaccine against the cynical, self-referential, "in it for me (and maybe my small circle of friends)" films of the recent decades. See it and feel good about being human.

Interesting character studies of a Maine farm family and the young woman they take in without knowing her background. The villian of the piece is from the upper classes, although not without some redeeming characteristics. The movie's climax is set on ice flows on a raging river and had me totally caught up in the action (felt pretty cold, too!) A good chance to see Henry Fonda before he had fully settled into his familiar persona.