Reviews

George Pal directed this classic from 1960, starring Rod Taylor as the scientist who travels back through time (George, although we are meant to understand that this is a character-cipher for H.G. Wells), and Yvette Mimieux in a very early role (interestingly, she became an anthropologist, the study of which has a concern in the overall plot development and socio-political points Wells was trying to drive home with his novel).

The plot follows Wells' late Victorian novel fairly well. Scientist George invents a time machine, and after making the proclamation to several of his nay-saying friends, including a test with a miniature time machine, takes off on a few journeys. The early journeys are just to test, and we see a few fascinating effects here. But the greater story lies in George's hope for the future, so he sets himself to go nearly a million years in to the future - the year 802701.

Trivia buffs will recognise the date on the machine as October 12, the same date Columbus discovered the new world. George embarks into this new world, finding the human race has evolved into a split species - the above-ground Eloi, and the below-ground Morlochs. The Eloi are carefree airheads for the most part - that is, until the Morlochs threaten, and then they become the hunted. The Morlochs are presented as base creatures, following only their appetites, and afraid to remain above for too long.

The effects of the time machine itself and the transition scenes are quite good for the time - I recall as a child watching this film on television and being mesmerised by the passage of time, the scenery changes through George's window as the time streamed by, and the contrast between the Victorian household set and the future world.

The more recent remake did homage to this classic film by incorporating a few of the same ideas - the scene changes through the windows, for example. Also, Alan Young (who played Filby in the 1960 film) appeared in the more recent film, the only actor to appear in both.

George has a tough decision to make - his time machine is stolen by the Morlochs; does he risk his life to get it back? And does he opt to stay in the future or go back to his own time if he recovers it? Only time will tell.

I recall seeing the original of this film when it first came out, and found it to be a good plot, which was for the most part adhered to, with an interesting twist on the finale.

The names, of course, are a play on the 'Fun with Dick and Jane' series of children's books. In this film version, they even have a dog, Spot - see Spot stop barking (in quite an interesting manner, and yes, I sat through the film to make sure that no animals were harmed). This updated version of the 1977 original film adds elements of the modern American corporate world to the basic storyline, which still works nearly a generation later. In the credits, inspirational credit is given to Enron, Worldcom and a host of other corporations whose financial outcomes did not live up to the fullness of the American dream.

Dick is a mid-level executive with a multinational corporation. His wife Jane is a travel agent, who seems to only attract the customers from hell. When Dick gets the promotion to senior executive, vice-presidential level, Jane sees the opportunity to let her job sail away, and becomes a full-time housewife. Meanwhile, Dick's company does a dot-com bubble burst fast enough to generate a sonic boom, leaving both Dick and Jane without a job in a corporate town where suddenly everyone is unemployed.

The furniture, the car, even the lawn gets sold or repossessed, as Dick and Jane variously look for ways to make ends meet with odd jobs and gray-market tactics. Finally, Dick has had enough. He decides to rob a convenience store. After a few abortive attempts, he finally succeeds in a small score, and both the cash and the excitement propel both Dick and Jane into further and further escapades. However, this is small-time items, and when another couple from the same corporation is caught doing the same thing as Dick and Jane, the couple decide that it is time to retire, but not before making one last retirement heist.

Enter here the twist - in the original film, Dick knew of a safe upstairs in the corporate office that held lots of undocumented cash. In the modern version, Dick discovers a sort of modern equivalent, that being off-shore accounts. Can Dick and Jane find a way to take the loot? The ending here is in some ways predictable, but has a very interesting twist which shows both a generosity of spirit and a justice-will-be-done aspect that is truly well done. Would that the same could be done for the real-life corporations mentioned in the end! Jim Carrey and Tea Leone make a great comedic duo in this film; Alec Baldwin plays the not-quite-as-stupid-as-he-seems corporate leader with good flair. The slip from success to unemployment to armed robbery is not seen as shocking, but somehow natural and understandable in the modern world (which is in and of itself a frightening idea).

Nothing deep or profound, and the script is serviceable if not brilliant, but there is fun indeed with this film.

In the pantheon of baseball movies, this one, 61*, is in my personal top five, and perhaps the top three. Billy Crystal, better known as a comedian or as host of the Academy Awards, took the director's chair for this film, and produced a story that was a grand insight into the personal and professional world of baseball during the era of Mantle and Maris. Produced very shortly after Mark McGwire broke the Maris record, Crystal framed the 1961 story with scenes from the McGwire run.

Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in the 1927 season, and Yankee stadium was still known, a generation later, as the house that Ruth built. In 1961, Ruth's longstanding record seemed secure. Mickey Mantle had inherited the status of 'Yankee favourite' from predecessors Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth, but Roger Maris had narrowly beat him in the poll for MVP the previous year, all the more remarkable because Maris was a newcomer from the midwest. The sportwriters were divided in how they reported about the team, but almost all were more focused upon Mantle until the runs began to stack up. However, the press (and often, it seemed, the fans) were still favouring Mantle, and sometimes booed Maris when he would hit a home run.

Crystal did a good job at showing the kind of personal stresses, both family and professional, that Mantle and Maris had to endure going through what should have been one of the most glorious seasons in baseball history. There was a kind of institutional resistance to anyone breaking Ruth's record, but even more resistance to Maris than to Mantle. This is embodied in the asterisk that followed the number 61 in record books (and the title of this film) - Ruth's season was several games shorter, and it was deemed 'unfair' for Maris to take the record, having not hit the same number of runs in the same number of games. Eventually the asterisk would be removed, but not before Maris' death some time later.

Good little touches like Maris' special eggs (which Mantle began to eat with reluctance, but came around when Maris said he hit home runs after eating them), scrap book collections shown periodically throughout the film, the song 'I love Mickey', and other audio-visual pieces of baseball memorabilia make this a baseball trivia-buff treat. The personal stories of the family lives, increasingly under stress as both players come within striking distance of the record, show details most likely fictional, but certainly understandable.

Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane star as Maris and Mantle, respectively, and both turn in great performances as the athletes. They both look like naturals on the field and in the locker room, and do a good job with the personal angle as well, Pepper playing the low-key Maris and Jane playing the hard-living Mantle. They both bear striking resemblance to the men they portray, Pepper especially so. Other performers include Anthony Michael Hall, Richard Masur, and Christopher McDonald in memorable supporting roles. Donald Moffat as the commissioner Frick is especially good. Jennifer Foley (actually, Jennifer Crystal Foley, Billy Crystal's daughter) turns in a good performance as Pat Maris, the long-suffering and supportive wife, struggling from half a country away to be strong for her husband as he faces the stress of success.

Any baseball fan will love this film. Those who aren't necessarily fans of baseball may find a new-found passion for the game.

The Yankee's retired Maris' number 9 in 1984. Maris' bat is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Perhaps some day, Maris will be, too.

I must confess that I march to a different drummer when it comes to this film. I enjoyed it for the most part, and find it very clever in many aspects. The major drawback comes from the plot - it is far too simplistic for the elaborate care that went into both the visual aspect of the film as well as the nice touches at almost every turn.

The plot is rather simple - Alexander Hartdegen, a mechanical physics professor in turn-of-the-century New York (turn of the nineteenth-into-the-twentieth century, that is), has his head in his equations, apart from one thing, his love for Emma. When she is killed in a botched mugging (yes, New York at that time even had muggings in Central Park), Hartdegen drops everything to invent the time machine he'd theorised, in order to prevent Emma's death. He soon makes the discovery that it isn't possible to undo the past (at least not that aspect of the past), but becomes obsessed with finding the reason why. He speculates this is more likely to be answered in the future than in the past or present, and thus goes forward in time. He makes a few stops along the way before arriving at a far-distant future (nearly a million years in the future), in which the human race has evolved into two distinct species - one on the surface, and one below the earth.

So far, so good - departure from H.G. Wells' original classic (a great piece of literature) and from the earlier film, but not beyond the pale. The effects here are truly stunning in many respects - the time machine itself is a marvel (the DVD has a feature on the making of the machine), and the time transformation scenes are very inspiring, up to and including the zoom-away shot from the machine into the air all the way to the city on the moon. The Eloi city along the river is also a remarkable scene. The movie rightly won awards, including the Academy Award, for these effects. Unfortunately, effects do not a movie make. This is where the plot failure comes into play.

Hartdegen seems to give up far too early in trying to change the past, and his relationships (such as we get to see them) in the future are very stilted. Jeremy Irons (himself an Academy Award winner) has precious little screen time, to deliver what is perhaps the most anticlimactic resolutions I've seen in a long time. The overarching question should be 'why?', but seems to transformed into 'what if?' in an unclear way (the deleted introductory scene, available on the DVD, helps to more firmly establish the question, but, alas, it was deleted). Hartdegen remains in the future (like Wells' and the earlier film's scientists, albeit in a different way), perhaps to help transform the future, but we'll never know (a sequel is not likely).

Despite the thin plot, what I found most enjoyable (apart from the special effects) were the clever touches here and there, far too numerous to mention. When Hartdegen arrives in 2030 (prompted by an advertisement proclaiming 'the future is now'), he encounters a user-friendly library computer (personified by Orlando Bloom) with a real sense of humour and humanity. When Hartdegen asks about time travel, the library computer even incorporates Star Trek gestures and sound effects into its discussion (as well as the yet-unwritten musical version of 'The Time Machine', by Andrew Lloyd Weber). One woman in the distant future speaks English (now called the stone language, for the stone engravings that remain from store fronts and the like), but speaks without accent (strange enough, but even stranger that New Yorker Hartdegen sounds more British, as does the Morlock leader Jeremy Irons).

Indeed, there are so many little pieces here is seems that the writers spent more time trying to incorporate bits of cleverness throughout the script than making sure the script as a whole had thorough soundness.

Another piece I really liked was the music. The sombre brass tones, the triumphant orchestral arrangements, the folk/modern synthesis for the Eloi, and the dramatic scoring really enhanced this film beyond measure. The DVD has bits of the score that replay on a loop sequence during menu screens, and I've sometimes left these on to hear the pieces over and over again.

The DVD has one of the better menu sequence set-ups I've seen, simulating the machine effects in visuals and sound, as well as incorporating score elements and special effects. DVD extras include the delete scene, commentaries by many of the crew, several pieces on the special effects (including one on the time machine itself), This is a fairly good film, despite its flaws. Overall I would award it three-and-a-half stars, but will round up to four in honour of the effects, the music, and clever pieces.

Rumour has it that 'Rumor Has It' is a pretty good film. This will by no means be an Oscar contender, but as a pleasant diversion on a weekend afternoon, or possibly as a date movie (for those who still go on dates), this could be a winning movie. Jennifer Aniston, late of 'Friends', plays a role that is in many ways reminiscent of the Rachel role - she is a transplanted New Yorker, returning home to L.A. (actually, Pasadena, which becomes a running joke) with her as-yet-unannounced fiancé to attend her younger sister's wedding. We learn all of this in the first few minutes, possibly before the credits are done scrolling on the screen - the frenetic pace of 'Friends' is still here.

Rumour has it that there was a family in Pasadena that the film 'The Graduate' is based upon - Sarah (Anniston) fixates upon the idea that this may be her family. She questions her grandmother (Shirley MacLaine, but don't call her grandmother), who tells of a possible affair her mother had with a playboy before her marriage (Kevin Costner, now a dot-com mega-millionaire). Sarah goes off without her fiancé in search of her mother's past, but finds a past of her own, of a sort.

Lots of twists and turns in the film have the characters racing up and down the coast of California in search of the past, the future, and the truth, which ends up being both expected and unexpected in this complicated but easily-followed plot.

There aren't major effects and major surprises here. The situational comedy is very much in keeping with an extended version of a comfortable television show, even with the star power of MacLaine and Costner backing Anniston up. The writing is serviceable with occasional flashes of true wit, and the pace of the film is even and pleasant. In all, this is a good film, well worth seeing for a bit of entertainment. Director Rob Reiner does have a talent for good films, and this is one of them.

Casanova is a minor gem of a film. It is carefully bracketed as a memoir of Casanova, who is busy in his old age writing his memories in his famous book. However, this is worth paying attention to, because in a film of masks, deceptions and subterfuge, this too is perhaps the best of all possible masks. Giacomo Casanova may be many things to many people (particularly the women of Venice), but he is a very human being, if he would but know it.

After spending the greater part of his youth in pursuit of being the pursuer ('be the flame, not the moth,' he says as he gives advice to a young man in need of help courting his love) rather than the pursued, he has finally had to promise (the Doge and the Inquisition) that he will mend his ways and marry. But, in typical Casanova fashion, the woman he intends is the unofficial intended of another, and the woman he wants is not his intended, but intended to another. If you can't quite keep pace, you might be on to something. For Casanova's desire (not to be confused with his intended) is intended to another, whose identity Casanova 'borrows' to better woo her.

In the end, this is a fairly standard but well-done costume drama of mistaken identities, plots going awry, and love triumphant (of course it would have to be, for after all, this is Casanova). Heath Ledger plays a very serviceable Casanova (no pun intended, well, perhaps a little intended); Sienna Miller plays the fair Francesca, a woman with a brain far in advance of her time (she is some ways portrayed as a female da Vinci-esquire character). Lena Olin plays Francesca's mother, who has arranged a marriage for Francesca, which certainly does not involve Casanova. Charlie Cox plays Francesca's brother, Giovanni, jealous of the attentions Casanova is paying to his unannounced intended across the canal (in an interesting twist, Charlie Cox played in 'The Merchant of Venice' the year before this film was made, together with Jeremy Irons).

I was very pleased with the role played by Oliver Platt, the merchant of Genoa (coming to Venice, a very subtle, witty reversal on Shakespeare) - he played the intended of Francesca, a pupil of Casanova, a lard merchant of wealth and fame, and in the end one of the good guys. Tim McInnerny plays the hapless but good-intentioned Doge. However, highest praise goes to Jeremy Irons, who plays the papal visitor/inquisitor, Bishop Pucci, who, if he isn't threatening inquisitorial tortures on illiterate philosophers or falling over backwards in boats is promising to restore the virginity of young maidens. Irons provides a delightful mixture of terror and farce that plays in both comedic and dramatic ways, and he looks every inch the post-medieval bishop.

The sets are stunning - of course, this was filmed on location in Venice, so how could they be otherwise? The music is well-selected and drawn into the overall film, using Italian and Italian-influenced compositions of the Renaissance and later periods heavily.

This is a fun film, with an unexpected ending in several ways, but love reigns triumphant, and Casanova (in a very interesting twist) both 'gets the girl' and continues his amorous ways - but I'll not spoil it for you.

There are several problems with the film 'Troy', if one is trying to fit it too closely with the literature which inspired it, Homer's Illiad. There are too many deviations from the ancient Greek epic poem for this to be other than 'inspired by' - there are characters missing; there are characters whose fates are different from the Illiad (no spoilers, so you'll have to trust me), and the overall situation is cast in a very different light.

In the film, Achilles (Brad Pitt, looking more bulky than usual) is the greatest warrior alive, with a reputation unparalleled in the world. However, he is a loose cannon, as likely to kill his own leaders as the enemy. Achilles is tempted to the battle with Troy, portrayed as one of the greatest battles in history, by the call of everlasting glory. Achilles is persuaded by no less an ironic character than his own mother, who recounts to him the prophecy of an idyllic life at home should he stay, but then to be forgotten after he dies, or the chance at immortality in legend, despite the fact that he'll die at Troy. Achilles sets sail.

The war with Troy is portrayed as having been going on for a decade; at a peace meeting in Sparta, Paris (younger prince of Troy, Orlando Bloom) falls in love with the fair 'was this the face that launched a thousand ships' Helen, wife Sparta's king, Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson). Helen steals away with Paris on the ship returning to Troy; Hector, the elder prince and heir to the throne (Eric Bana) is conflicted as to what to do, but opts to journey on to Troy, and the die is cast.

Agamemnon (Brian Cox) uses the event to band all the Greek city-states together into a final battle with Troy, the greatest rival to his power in the Aegean (and the centre of much of the civilization of the world at that time). This is where the retelling becomes much more modern. The Illiad is not so concerned with economics and hegemonies as with ethics and honour - Agamemnon is portrayed as a Realpolitick power-seeker of the first order, willing to stop at nothing to decimate allies and foes alike for his own power, willing to use honourable pretenses to achieve dishonourable ends. An astonishing armada is amassed and sets sail for the coasts of Troy. Once there, the beachhead is taken, and the first major act is a desecration of the temple of Apollo by Achilles, who nonetheless proves himself the most valuable warrior the Greeks have. At this point, the internal strife becomes as problematic for the Greeks as the front lines, as Achilles disregards the commands of Agamemnon and cares little for the political outcomes of the war.

The intrigues and the plotting of the Greek leaders are cast in high relief against the more pastoral leadership of 'good king' Priam (portrayed by Peter O'Toole with his characteristic panache). Hector is a strong and wise leader under his father; Paris is the foolish and rather cowardly one. (We are missing the back-story of the Illiad of how Paris came to be part of Troy's royal family, and it is assumed that there is no unusual story there.) We rather lose sight of the fact that, indeed, Paris stole the queen of Sparta (again, the modern idea creeps in - in our day, a woman would have the right to choose where she wished to live, but not so in the ancient world; one might question whether the queen of a nation has the right to abandon her role and 'shack-up' with the neighbouring prince at will, but I digress...).

The people of Troy are seen as virtuous despite the fact that they are defending the less-defensible position morally. The Greeks might have right on their side in some respects, but this is lost in their brutality and by the unbridled greed of their leaders, and of course it is the ordinary foot-soldiers, including Achilles, who have to do the fighting and dying for the cause, as their princes exchange gifts of gold, money and priceless art treasures to congratulate themselves on their victories.

The film portrays the battle lasting only a matter of a few weeks; the brutality of the battle scenes is as dramatic as any in modern war films, just as bloody. The single-combat scenes between Achilles and Hector, Hector and Patroclus, and others are extremely well choreographed, introducing various techniques I've not seen before in sword-play films.

I don't think it is a spoiler to give away the major ending here, in that Troy eventually falls, not to military might, but to trickery. The Greek ships have sailed, leaving only an offering to Poseidon behind - a giant horse. The Trojan Horse (if the Greeks built it, why is it always called 'the Trojan Horse?') is carted into the city whose walls cannot be breeched, and the people celebrate their victory. As they rest after the revelry, Greek soldier inside the horse emerge (including in this telling, Achilles), open the gates to the city, and the Greek army swarms in. However, the individual endings of the different characters is still left up in the air - who survives, and who doesn't? This is even more crucial than the pre-ordained destruction of the city.

A nice touch to the film is the hand-off of the great sword of Troy to a young man named Aeneas, with the instruction that so long as a Trojan has the sword, Troy will live on (this connects to the Roman epic poem, the Aeneid, which tells of Aeneas' journey from Troy to Rome, making them the spiritual successors of Troy, particularly meaningful when the Romans then conquer the Greeks).

The tale of Thomas Becket has had many incarnations over time. T.S. Eliot's 'Murder in the Cathedral' is but the most recent acclaimed literary treatment; each revisitation seems to draw new elements forth from the story. Edward Anhalt won the Oscar for best screenplay (adapted from other material) for this film. This film shows Henry and Thomas Becket roughly equal in age (at variance from history, for in this time the age difference of 15 years is practically a generational difference). Becket is shown as being a guide to Henry, but less from a master/pupil standpoint as it is a clever diplomatic with a utilitarian and almost Machiavellian sense about him. Henry is presented as coarse and unrefined, uneducated and in need of assistance, but historically this is unlikely.

Becket is played admirably by Richard Burton; Henry II is portrayed by Peter O'Toole. Both were nominated for the best actor Oscar, but neither won. In addition to these nominations and the best screenplay award, the film was nominated for nine other Oscars, running the list from costumes, music, directing, best picture, and a best supporting actor nod for John Gielgud, whose cameo as the King of France is rather interestingly presented.

Indeed, the movie has a remarkable realistic feel to it, particularly for a film from the 1960s, when cinema was as likely to portray stylised and idealistic images of the past. The sets are in bare stone with a minimum of ornamentation, as would have been the case in Plantagenet times; likewise, the ceremony around the royal person is much less grand, and the church rather grand, which is both accurate and serves to highlight the underlying conflict of the story in the film.

Becket is portrayed as a man of ambiguous loyalties -- a man of principle who has yet to find principles worthy of loyalty. Finally, in the role of archbishop, he finds a calling from the honour of God (and in so doing is not unlikely many priests who see their path to ordination as the means of spiritual grace; indeed, many are disappointed that the faith does not come with the office). Whether Thomas Becket actually experienced a spiritual conversion that made him a strong champion of the church, or in fact saw the power of the church as a means to an end of dominating the country, we will perhaps never know.

In the film, Becket is often disparaged as being a Saxon; this is perhaps overstated, given his Norman lineage, which is never hinted at in the film. While he does not come from Norman nobility, he is far from being a simple Saxon. Burton's portrayal of Becket shows the change from worldly chancellor to spiritual archbishop in unsubtle terms. Even so, there is an ambiguity that plays out marvelously in both his performance, and the reactions of the other characters who constantly question his sincerity.

O'Toole's performance is not as polished as Burton's; when he plays an older, wiser Henry II in 'The Lion in Winter' four years later, the acting is much more dramatic and effective. It perhaps goes without saying that Pamela Brown does not make the same impression on the screen as Eleanor of Aquitaine as Katherine Hepburn does in the later film, but Eleanor is an incidental character in Becket in any case.

Music in this film is not a prominent feature -- various trumpet and brass flourishes announce events or major scene changes in parts; a lot of chant (long before Gregorian chant achieved popular status) accompanies church scenes -- indeed, I credit this film for giving me my first real taste of Gregorian chant. The scene with Sian Phillips as Becket's love Gwendolyen is accompanied by period string instruments -- again, Phillips is a remarkable actress who is under-utilised in this performance.

Done in a flash-back manner, there is a resolution in the film -- Becket is dead, made a saint, honour is satisfied as the King does penance, and the people are happy. We know what is going to happen, but then, anyone with knowledge of history would likely know the story already. In fact, Henry's reign was rarely without challenge, but he was always powerful, and much more effective after Becket's death than before. Reigning for nearly twenty years after Becket's death, he left a very powerful Western European coalition of lands that soon fell apart, and embroiled England and France in war for centuries later. The tensions between church and state carry forward to this day; while the specifics of the challenges faces Becket and Henry II are very different from issues today, the principle of the relationship between church and state is far from definitively resolved.

Also, the side-line issue of class warfare and racial prejudice (teased out with subtle nuance between the Normans and Saxons, who, ironically, look exactly the same on the screen) are addressed in an interesting, pre-civil rights sort of manner. This issue is never resolved in the film, as indeed it wasn't in the 1960s, either.

This is an intriguing film, with great acting and great production values, and an interesting story that, even if not completely historically accurate, does not alter the history so much that it becomes a parody of the subject.

I thoroughly enjoyed this series on the American presidents. I am a fan of historical programming on television, both on cable channels and on the PBS network, from which this collection comes. Perhaps the most unique feature of this series is that instead of going through the list of presidents in chronological order, it groups them into broad categories. These categories include:

* Family Ties * Happenstance * Independent Cast of Mind * Professional Politicians * The American Way * The World Stage * Heroic Posture * Compromise Choices * Expanding Power * The Balance of Power

These ten categories have four presidents each, save one, Happenstance, which has an extra member of the category, to add up to 41 presidents. (If you recall that the current President Bush is number 43, you would be correct; Grover Cleveland gets two numbers in the listing, his terms of office being non-consecutive). Deriving from the book on the presidents by the Kunhardts, the categories are not definitive, but rather generally descriptive of some of the key aspects of the individual presidents.

For example, the presidents featured under the category 'Heroic Posture' in episode seven were all military leaders. These included Washington, Harrison, Grant, and Eisenhower. While one might question the inclusion of Harrison in this, in fact he was elected in part based on his heroic image, even if he didn't last long. His death early in office provided America with its first 'Happenstance' leader, John Tyler, who set the precedent for vice presidents assuming full authority when a president dies or otherwise leaves office (it is hard for us in the modern day, when such a transfer seems automatic, to image there was a time when it was unclear if the vice president should become president at this event).

The overall narration is given by Hugh Sidey, the recently deceased White House correspondent who served with presidents throughout the last half of the twentieth century. Adding 'colour commentary' is Richard Neustadt, himself a veteran of White House work. No presentation of political figures can ever be apolitical, particularly when issues reach into the current day, but between Sidey, Neustadt and the Kunhardts, a reasonably balanced picture is portrayed of most of the presidents.

There is a necessary limitation to the depth that can be devoted to each figure in this kind of format. Given the balance of presentation, it also seems somewhat strange for William Henry Harrison and Millard Filmore to get equal time with figures such as Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt - after all, FDR's term of office was almost 150 times as long as W.H. Harrison's, yet they both have almost equal time in the documentary. However, the presentation does more than simply present the politics or the personalities of the presidents highlighted, but also give a sense and flavour of the time in the country in which each served.

For later presidents, their own voices and words are heard in part describing their actions and presidencies - some sat for interviews as part of this series (both Carter and Bush gave extensive interviews). For earlier presidents, other notable figures lent their voices to the task - William F. Buckley as Teddy Roosevelt, Walter Cronkite as George Washington, Billy Graham as James Garfield (a clever casting, given that Garfield was the only minister ever to become president), and so forth.

This series will be useful to teachers, students at the high school and undergraduate level, and those who simply want more information. This is more of a survey with some interesting trivia bits than a comprehensive treatment, but in honesty, how many people have time to watch a multi-night documentary on each president? One thing that viewers might draw from this is an interest to do further reading and further viewing on selected topics raised.

The use of art work, natural settings, manuscripts, and archival footage makes for a very interesting presentation. This is a series I watch on a frequent basis to reacquaint myself with aspects of American history.

I saw this first when I was barely a lad of sixteen or so, just at my school-leaving age and going off to university. I was amazed then at how much from 'before the war' remained true to form for school, and watching it again now twenty years later, it stands up to the test of time perfectly well (and I was once again amazed at the true-to-life nature of the whole enterprise). The series won the BAFTA award for the best television series of its year, and rightfully so.

The miniseries is done in thirteen parts, each just under an hour long, as a co-production of the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was filmed in a real public school, Milton Abbey School in Dorset (not too far from part of the country where the mythical Bamfylde School resides), and many of the 'extras' in school shots are actually school boys of the Milton Abbey School. The settings didn't have to be changed too much to accommodate the inter-war period décor, and of course the architecture for the most part was hundreds of years older.

However well done the sets and images are, this is still a teleplay about relationships and the coming of age, not just of the boys in the school, nor even of the lead character, Mr. Powlett-Jones, but really of the whole of society. The inter-war period in Britain was a fascinating time of societal development, particularly in terms of politics. Delderfield introduces this as an ever-present but never centre stage idea through the dealings of Powlett-Jones, son of a Welsh coal mining family, some of his out-of-school relationships, and the clash that this inevitably sets up with the privileged corps of boys at the school.

In the first episode, David Powlett-Jones has just returned from the trenches in the first world war, wounded both physically and spiritually. He is suspicious of the job offer at this upper-class bastion, but the gentle understanding of the headmaster, Algy Herries, encourages him to stay. His relationships with the other teachers are a fascinating study, particularly the gung-ho-warrior type Carter (whose not-always-disabled knee seems to have kept him out of the war) and the cynic-with-a-good-soul Howarth, who becomes Powlett-Jones' best friend over the course of their life together at Bamfylde.

Howarth chides Powlett-Jones at one point about the kind of monastic life that one can fall into at a remote school such as Bamfylde.

Howarth: Some men can live the celibate life. I don't fancy you're one of them. David Powlett-Jones: What did *you* do about women all these years? Howarth (pausing, smiling): Your appetite for sordid revelations never ceases to astonish me.

Howarth reveals some of his indiscretions (remember, this is post-Victorian England, and the revelations, such as they are, would be considered exceedingly mild by television standards today). Powlett-Jones over the course of his twenty years at Bamfylde ends up with three primary loves; Beth, a young wife who dies early; Julia, someone not to be tied down to a school (or even the island of Britain), but keeps regular if long-separated contact with David over time; and Christine, the failed Labour candidate who becomes his second wife, taking on a role at the school as well, not the least of which is to remind the now-headmaster Powlett-Jones that there is a world outside the still-privileged halls of Bamfylde.

The teleplay is exceedingly well done, with the acting and the writing supporting each other in such a way to give real insight into the psychological make-up of the characters. John Duttine played David Powlett-Jones with a good amount of passion; however, I am torn between Frank Middlemass (as Herries) and Alan MacNaughtan (as Howarth) as to who my favourite actor is in the series. Both bring so much to their roles, and I can see myself in each of them in many ways more so than I can identify with Powlett-Jones. For the women, David's first wife Beth is played by Belinda Lang; Julia is played by Kim Braden (trekkies may recognise her from bit parts both in Star Trek film and series work); Susan Jameson plays Christine, David's second wife (fans of 'Coronation Street' may recognise her from that show). Each of the three is very well suited for their respective roles - Lang plays the young, optimist; Braden plays the worldly, ambitious but sensitive soul; Jameson plays the idealist who comes down to earth, managing to keep her ideals intact.

The play does a good job also of keep the boys from becoming a faceless, anonymous mass (a decided danger, given their uniformity in dress as well as age). There are particular boys who stand out, but one gets the sense from the watching that they are all individuals, and treated as such, both by the careful and caring headmasterly type Harries and Powlett-Jones, as well as the cynical Howarth (and even by the more scathing of the teachers, whose style is no longer in vogue).

The situations are credible, interesting, and instructive. The characters are fully formed and worthwhile. The production values are not to cinematic standards, but hold up very well over time (the lack of lavishness befits the nature of the school and the nature of the time as well).

This remains one of my favourite series of all time. The DVD has few extras, but among them are photographs, background information both on the school and on Delderfield, and the lyrics to the school song (which opens each episode, sung by the congregation of boys), by Kenyon Emrys-Roberts: 'Look ahead to a life worth living, Full of hope, full of faith, full of cheer,...'

I have long been an admirer of penguins, so when this film was released in the cinema, my friends variously and collectively rushed to inform me of the film. I went to see it, and was amazed.

The plot of the film is extraordinarily simple - the film follows the Emperor Penguins of Antarctica during their annual mating and rearing cycle. It is framed from start to finish in terms of the march - the march from the sea to the mating spot, the march to return to the sea for food, the march again for rearing the young, and the march again finally to return to the sea.

There is a great deal of humour and grace; penguins are gentle beings, vulnerable to predators and to the hazards of the winter - despite being fashioned for some of the coldest climates on earth, they nonetheless require warmth, particularly for their eggs and the hatchlings. In the severe cold and far-below-zero windchills, many do not make it, and the one negative side of the film for me was a somewhat constant lingering on this downside. While it is a part of nature, it still becomes a bit more tragic in the cycle of the film than it needs to be. As this is billed as a family film, I worried that some of the children viewing might be more emotionally upset at this than they needed to be.

Still, the details presented are fascinating, and it is a true testament to film-making that these shots and images were captured as dramatically, humorously, gracefully and beautifully as they were.

This film has 'Academy Award' written all over it, in many categories. Cinematography, musical score, directing, documentary - these are only some of the categories in which this film is likely to get a nod. Morgan Freeman never appears on camera, but gives a wonderful reading as the narrator of this visual feast, adding subtle emphasis that never detracts and often adds to the tale in the English-language version of this film.

Director Luc Jacquet and cinematographers, Laurent Chalet and Jerome Maison have produced a masterpiece that transcends language barriers (indeed, there is no native human language for Antarctica). A French team, they have translated this film into many languages around the world, as people everywhere will find something with which they can relate.

Perhaps the most skillful part of the filming was to make Antarctica seem so varied in texture and place; on a continent covered with ice and snow, one still gets the sense of the length of the journey, the beauty inherent in the surroundings, and the dangers involved for the penguins.

Through the credits, one gets to see the film crew in some light-hearted scenes with curious penguins. These are expanded upon in the DVD version, with many more scenes of penguins swimming, diving and feeding in truly remarkable filming. There is also a Warner Brothers short animation as a bonus. The audio track can be done in English or Spanish (French is also available as subtitles) - because of the nature of this film, overdubbing in different languages is in no way a detraction.

This film is sometimes described as a comedy, and while it has humorous bits (a more sardonic and biting form of humour most of the time), it has never really felt at home being classified as a comedy, in my estimation. I do like the rapid-fire wit that Holmes seems to have here (a bit more in abundance than in the canonical Conan Doyle stories), but the Holmes presented here is a bit more dark and brooding, more akin to the extra-canonical 'Seven Percent Solution' Holmes in many ways.

Wilder was an extraordinary director and genius who sometimes gets carried away with his subject (in this regard, he is sometimes compared with Stanley Kubrick). His films are often of epic-proportions, even though they are not essentially 'epic' subjects. This film is reputed to have been nearly twice as long as the final cut version, but this may be apocryphal in that much of the raw footage never made it to final print and production. The restoration available on the disc currently available is, in fact, rather minimal - a few scenes and a few extras, but not much more than the original release of the film. This is disappointing to many fans, but in fact is more than most of us have had for a long time, as the somewhat choppy film was often mercilessly cut for television broadcast.

Holmes in this case is played by Robert Stephens, an unlikely Holmes in comparison to standards such as Rathbone, Brett, or Gillette, but still an interesting choice - quintessentially British, reserved but daring, brilliant yet flawed and faltering. Colin Blakely presents a stronger Watson than often portrayed before (this film, being made in 1970, presented this as a newer idea for Watson, one that has been picked up by many subsequent productions). Wilder has the actors play at various issues of Victorian sensibility and morality, including the implication (dismissed in the end) that Holmes might have a sexual identity issue. Christopher Lee, who himself plays Holmes in other productions, plays Holmes' smarter brother Mycroft here, to good effect.

The story line does have some inspiration from the canonical stories (the Bruce-Partington Plans, for one), and from Gillette's play (the strange case of Miss Faulkner, introducing an ending that allowed for a love interest for Holmes in the end), but for the most part takes the characters from Conan Doyle and runs far afield. Still, this is must-see film for any fan of Holmes, and any fan of Wilder, who saw this as one of his last great productions.

This is a film based on a true story, the story of Robert Burns, a World War I veteran who fell upon hard times, turned to petty crime in a point of desperation, and then went through the harrowing experience of the Southern prison system, with all the inhumanities that are attendant to that. Deprivations and cruel punishments abounded, as prisoners were literally whipped to death and set to work at back-breaking labour on chain gangs. At a certain point, Burns escaped, and finding a new life in a Northern state, became a prosperous businessman, still ever mindful of his escapee status. Burns, being assured of the justice of the system and that such inhumanities would not happen again, was led to seek to clarify his status by returning to the South, only to be absorbed once more into the inhuman system. However, this time his public profile was known around the country, and his cause became a cause célèbre. It forced a change in the prison system that remains a turning point in the humane treatment of prisoners to this day.

This film is based upon Robert Burns' own book, 'I am Fugitive from the Georgia Chain Gang'. Directed by Daniel Mann, the story stars Val Kilmer in a remarkably full role, with powerful performances by Charles Durning, Kyra Sedgwick and Elisha Cook Jr. (a veteran actor whose credits include 'The Maltese Falcon' and 'Sergeant York', in this his final role). The scenes are often breathtaking for their brutality and realism, and the overall tone is very true to life, albeit a reality we often want to hide from.

This is a rare film, not yet available on DVD, but one well worth watching, particularly for those who are interested in American history of a different sort.

This is a wonderful film for the entire family. The effects are staggering, and the story is faithful to the original story - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve C.S. Lewis was a great storyteller and a great theologian. He was able to weave together elements from fairly orthodox Christian belief into metaphoric stories that show a classic battle between good and evil in ways that transcend the purely Christian context. Elements such as the innocence and wonderment expressed by children, the power of nature and natural elements, the struggle between good and bad - these are things that have been shown in mythological and cultural stories from the most ancient of times up to the modern day television serials. They are brought to a strong pitch here in this film, hopefully the first of several installments of the rest of the Chronicles of Narnia.

One needn't be Christian to enjoy these tales, nor must one subscribe to any particular theology to find them accessible - this really isn't evangelism as it is known via 'televangelism' today.

The director Andrew Adamson and writers Ann Peacock, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely worked with the estate of C.S. Lewis to strive to remain faithful to Lewis' original vision in terms of story and characters, but also to allow for the developments of technological expression that permit fuller visualisation than Lewis could give. This also occurs in the acting - the four leading roles of children are played by relative newcomers: Georgie Henley plays Lucy, Skandar Keynes plays Edmund, William Moseley plays Peter, and Anna Popplewell plays Susan - the four Pevensie children exiled from London during the war, thrust into an austere and severe household in the country that is full of real-life mystery apart from the wardrobe that holds the portal to Narnia. The film is very faithful to the spirit of Lewis' work, as well as much of the detail of the stories. This makes this a good companion to encourage reading.

Narnia is presented not as a fantasy or dream (a la Peter Pan or Wizard of Oz), but rather as a real place; comparisons will be made with the Lord of the Rings trilogy in many respects (including the incredible scenery from New Zealand mountainous regions), but one primary difference here is that the connection to the real world here is very real indeed. The White Witch, portrayed by Tilda Swinton, is played in a very realistic way - she represents what children fear the most, not as much bloody violence and evil as much as a cold detachment and lack of caring and compassion (something that children in all eras find frightening). Just as the place is real, the children are real, and the situations in the real world are just as harrowing as those in Narnia. However, in Narnia (unlike the real world) it is the children who have the real power.

The CGI effects are astounding, but the voices bring the real life to the characters. Actors such as Liam Neeson (Aslan), Rupert Everett (Fox) and Dawn French (Mrs. Beaver) add their unique personalities to the characterisations of the animal roles. Things are done in a truly wonderful way.

This is a film for all ages, and all sorts of people who love a good story.

Martin Scorsese's 'The King of Comedy' has long been a favourite film of mine. The storyline is nothing grand, and the acting is passing fair, but it is the little psychological pieces that keep poking in that make this movie an interesting one to watch. This is not a typical Jerry Lewis film by any means. He is not a comedian in this film (of course, I know many who think, 'he's not a comedian in any film'). He plays the straight man, a rather sour and jaded entertainment professional. Robert DeNiro (as Rupert Pupkin) and Sandra Bernhard (as Marsha) play two star-struck fans who have focused their lives on Jerry Langford (Lewis' character) to the extent that they are imagining weekend outings with him and knitting sweaters for him. The story largely revolves around Rupert's desire to be a comic and appear on Langford's Tonight Show-style talkshow.

In an interesting twist, given the Tonight Show character of the show, the movie features cameos from many old talkshow stand-bys, including Victor Borge, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Tony Randall.

As Rupert and Marsha compete with each other to outdo the other in establishing a 'relationship' with Langford (everything from owning memorabilia to autographs to event attendance) Rupert's imagination keeps concocting more elaborate relationships, which he finally fails to be able to distinguish from reality. This comes to a confrontation when he travels out to Langford's weekend home (with an unsuspecting woman in tow) and gets ejected from the home by Langford and told, in no uncertain terms, that he is neither known nor wanted.

At this point, being confronted with a painful reality, Rupert decides upon drastic action, and with the assistance of Marsha, kidnaps Langford and holds him for ransom, the ransom being an appearance on the show.

Rupert's fantasies include being married to his high school crush on the show, by his old principal, who apologises for not seeing the worth in Rupert; Langford pleading with a resistant Rupert to guest host the show; essentially, in Rupert's fantasies, everything wrong with his life gets put right.

But will reality prove as accommodating?

This is dark humour, to be sure, and the pace can be rather slow. But this movie is largely overlooked, and deserves a bit more attention for the interesting psychological devices in the story.

Come visit the worst-run hotel in the whole of western Europe (well, except for that place in Eastbourne...) In a field with many top contenders, 'Fawlty Towers' remains my favourite of all 'Britcoms' - situation comedies originating on British television. Fawlty Towers has a cult following decades after the originals aired; it is sometimes hard to believe that there are but 12 episodes, six hours total. The regular cast is led by John Cleese, veteran of the famous Monty Python comedy troupe, as the irrepressible Basil Fawlty, titular head of the hotel with dreams of class and glory; Prunella Scales is his long-suffering and hardworking wife, Sybil, who recognises that while Basil may think 'the sky's the limit!', in fact, '22 rooms is the limit'. Connie Booth (Cleese's real-life wife) played the level-headed and sensible, overworked maid Polly, and in a role matched only by Fawlty's own bizarre manner, Andrew Sachs plays the lovable and ever-incompetent Spanish waiter, Manuel (he's from Barcelona...). Ballard Berkeley makes Ballard Berkeley makes a regular appearance as the Major, a retired long-term resident at the hotel. Brian Hall joined the cast for the second season as the not-quite-gourmet chef, Terry.

From the very first episode (first aired in 1975) featured a social-climbing Fawlty as perhaps the most rude and insufferable hotel manager in existence, in the resort town of Torquay, on the Channel coast of Britain. Sybil tries to maintain a reasonable level of service, but Fawlty's snobbishness permits him to be gracious (indeed, excessively fawning) toward those he considers 'worthy', which in this episode turns out to be Lord Melbury, who ends up not being Lord Melbury, but rather a confidence trickster, and Fawlty's revenge scares away the real 'posh' guests, whom Fawlty sends off with the hilarious shout, 'Snobs!' In each of the episodes, there is a crisis - one gets the sense that the life of Fawlty is non-stop crisis, with his wife and Polly forever picking up the pieces, Manuel always complicating things, and the others wandering around in a state of disbelief (or, in the case of the Major, perpetual daze). The twelve episodes highlight all the things that could wrong at hotel in classic comedic fashion - the institution of a Gourmet Night falls flat when the not-quite-recovering alcoholic chef starts drinking the night of the main event; a guest dies in the middle of the night, and Fawlty tries to slip him out unnoticed; remodelers install and remove the wrong doors; the health inspector unexpected shows up and gets served a bit of rat with his cheese.

However, nothing quite matches the kinds of situations Basil can get himself into. When trying to plan a surprise anniversary dinner for his wife, she leaves the hotel thinking that Basil has forgotten again, and Basil dresses Polly up as a sick-bed-bound Sybil to fool the guests. When Polly's friends check in for a wedding over the weekend, Basil suspects the group of free sexual expression (highlighting his own repression); this theme is carried over to a glorious extreme in the episode about the visiting Psychiatrist.

'How does he make his living?' Basil protests. 'He makes his money by sticking his nose into others' private parts, er, details...' This is also the episode where Sybil finally confronts Basil about his double-sided hotel manner toward guests: 'You're either crawling all over them, licking their boots, or spitting poison at them like some Benzedrine puff adder,' she declares. He replies in perfect form, 'Just trying to enjoy myself, dear.' As the psychiatrist will comment near the end, there's enough material for an entire psychiatrist conference. Indeed there is, as this is slapstick humour with a difference. Intelligent and witty while utterly chaotic and beyond the pale, one is treated to the moose-head incident and the ingrowing toenail as well as Fawlty's unique form of automobile motivation (how many of us have ever been tempted to whack away at a stalled car with a stick!) and a nice performance of Brahms (his 'third racket', to be precise). One must not overlook the little details, either, including the ever-changing sign in front (the actual hotel used for the exteriors unfortunately burned down many years after the show), and the fact that the interior and exterior layouts of the building cannot correspond (shades of 'The Simpsons' whose furniture layout changes from scene to scene).

It is almost inconceivable that the two series, each of six episodes, were four years apart (1975 and 1979), as they flow rather seamlessly together. Popular on television networks worldwide, it can be seen variously on BBC America and local public television channels, often during the fund drives, when the most popular pieces are shown.

This is a very interesting programme, produced in Britain and originally shown on the PBS series, Masterpiece Theatre.

This miniseries was directed by Coky Giedroyc, a veteran of television productions in Britain, including another royal-themed miniseries, 'William and Mary', in 2003. Giedroyc brings an interesting modern twist to the series - rather than filming things in majestic, sweeping camera pans with classical music as a background, and rather than having the dialogue (and acting) be in a stilted, falsely formal style, Giedroyc incorporates modern music with medieval and Celtic flavouring to it (both of which have experienced a renaissance of sorts in the past decade), and the situations are decidedly modern without being out of place in their own times.

This presents the life of Elizabeth from her young adulthood under Queen Mary, as a supposed participant in intrigues against the Catholic Queen, through to her death after serving decades on the throne of England as the Virgin Queen, the queen who never married. In fact, the miniseries plays a tantalising game with Elizabeth's virginity, showing her desires (as well as those around her) without ever giving up the game of 'was she or wasn't she?' Anne-Marie Duff plays the part of Elizabeth, and does a remarkably able job for such a complex figure. Duff won the Irish Television award and was nominated for the BAFTA award for best actress in a television drama in another series, 'Shameless', last year.

Duff is joined by Tom Hardy, who plays the role of Robert Dudley, the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. Dudley is also an extraordinarily complex role, as he played several sides in the political struggles during Elizabeth's early reign, and was part of a family well experienced in regal intrigue - Robert Dudley's family had tried to manage the reign of Elizabeth's brother Edward, engineer the accession of Lady Jane Grey (placing Guildford Dudley on the throne with her), and is sometimes referred to as 'the uncrowned kings of England'. In fact, perhaps the most stunning single scene in this miniseries is after Elizabeth has elevated Robert Dudley to the earldom of Leicester, and during her illness, he sits upon the throne as the protector of the realm. Hardy is well suited to this role, and plays it with skill.

The sets are appropriate to their time period, neither too ornate nor too medieval; the costumes also have a touch of modernity to them, but are still primarily of the period. The situations presented give good insight into the overall pattern of Elizabeth's reign and some of the principal concerns during that time period, although to compress such a long reign into such a short time frame as a four-hour miniseries by necessity means that the history has had to be selectively chosen. Elizabeth faced problems from without and within, many of which were far more complex and pressing than her marriage issue. In the end, Elizabeth made the right decision for the time, if not for the future.

This is a great production for television, and holds up well against other major productions featuring the Virgin Queen Elizabeth of a few years ago.

The series 'Christianity: The First Thousand Years', narrated by Ozzie Davis and Ruby Dee, was originally entitled 'The Rise of Christianity'. From the outset, the narrator states the purpose of this series as not being a look at the Bible or theological and spiritual ideas, but rather a history of the church, of Christendom and the whole institution of Christianity. Because this was done in four, fifty-minute episodes (roughly 250 years per segment), the history has had to be more selective than history ordinarily is. The documentary navigates a good and interesting course between major figures, events and ideas and interesting trivia and elements of the Christian experience.

Given the audio-visual nature of the documentary, there are lots of pictures of artwork, architecture, archaeological/historical sites, and re-creations of events; there is also a good deal of music as a background - in the first thousand years, the primary music of the church was plainsong and chant, so that is most frequently used here (besides the orchestrated theme and background music that turns up regularly).

One of the limitations of the audio-visual medium of documentaries is that deep theological issues cannot be examined in detail - one hopes that one of the benefits of a series like this is to spur interest in reading the actual works of the people being discussed. For example, a few excerpts from Augustine's 'Confessions' are used in that segment, but there is so much to Augustine that it is impossible even in a full documentary focussing exclusively on him to give more than a passing acquaintance with his work to the viewers. This is true for all major theological thinkers, from any era.

Another area of interest is in the historical development of Europe overall, during the first thousand years, and the spread of the church as the Europeans spread throughout the world, during the second thousand years. Again, the purpose of the documentary being to explore the history of the church, one should not expect a full historical development even of the areas directly touched upon - still, this documentary does a good job at setting the overall context in political, social, military, economic and intellectual terms.

This is a history produced in broad strokes - the overall aspects and trends of Christian history come through in good form, even if the details are not as fully developed as an historian might care to have. We have used these videos in church history classes at my seminary as a supplement to the primary texts and history surveys that students read - this really does help bring history to life.

The scholars represented on this video come from a very diverse background - the Roman Catholic and Orthodox members of the scholar team on this documentary may be surprised to find themselves classified and dismissed as 'Jesus Seminar types' (particularly people like Eastern Orthodox Archbishop Kalistos Ware); interestingly, this is not a documentary about the Bible, either what it says or how it was made - in this regard, that might be one of the gaps of this particular documentary series (how the Bible was made gets relatively little space in this video). On the other hand, A&E have another series, 'Who Wrote the Bible', which involves scholars, theologians and religious leaders who were involved in the production (and again, a diverse bunch - Jerry Falwell would not qualify as a 'Jesus Seminar' type either).

This is a great series.

Perhaps I am a softie or a romantic, but I can't agree with many who pan this film. It is far from the greatest of films, but it was touching in many ways. It is rather formulaic, but the formula works here for the most part. A rich upstart teenager comes into a small town and manages to get into a fight with a local and burn down the local diner. In a made-for-television kind of Solomonic wisdom, the judge sentences them to work together to rebuild the diner, Mabel's Table, the 'hot spot' of this whistle-stop town. Rich out-of-towner and local boy fight over the local girl, who has a tragic secret she is concealing.

Leelee Sobieski, plays the lead as Samantha, the local girl track star whose knee gave out, jeopardising her chance to go to college. Chris Klein plays Kelley, the spoiled rich kid who is nonetheless intelligent and has a heart he begins to discover during his time in the small town. Josh Hartnett is Jasper, the local boy who wants nothing more than to keep things the way they are, including his relationship with Samantha. Most of these performances are serviceable without being stellar; they are typical romantic B-film fare, with many long, ponderous glances overlooking scenic views, and silly situations in which everyday life is shown.

The action is slow, but then, it isn't meant to be a fast-paced film. Samantha is torn between the comfortable sameness of her life in the small town with Jasper and her family, and the attraction that rich 'bad boy' Kelley represents, particularly after she learns he does have a heart. Samantha overhears Kelley reciting the valedictory speech he was prevented from delivering because of his sentence to build the diner; Kelley in the end does get to the deliver the speech, under different circumstances.

Jasper and Kelley fight (both verbally and physically) over the affections of Samantha, but when Samantha falls ill, they are able to put this aside for her sake. The diner is rebuilt, the town is restored to wholeness, but the situation with Jasper, Kelley and Samantha enters a new dimension, as fate has a different ending in store that none of them anticipated at the beginning of the summer.

The other actors in the film are really background for the tale - few stand out, but one who does is Annette O'Toole, who plays Samantha's mother, a role very similar to the one she takes up on 'Smallville' as Clark Kent's mother.

The story is gentle, sad, poignant - not terribly original, but very understandable in human terms. Love is unpredictable, and love often hurts. Love sometimes requires a sacrifice. Love can transform you. These are all themes that come across in the film, if not always terribly successfully.

It is a film worth watching, though.

If all educational television were this good, we'd be a nation in which everyone is a genius. The acting is wonderful, the storyline compelling, the characterisations are superb - nothing overblown and nothing soap-opera-esquire here -- Hollywood could take lessons. I caught this being broadcast on the Annenberg/CPB channel, and was almost instantly hooked, despite the fact that I don't really need the pedagogical element attached at the end (yet even that is interesting, to watch the reactions of those watching).

High praise goes to Karin Anglin and Willy O'Donnell, who play Rebecca and Kevin Casey, sister and brother, going through a rough patch in their lives that include the death of a parent, reconnection with long lost relatives, friends who are in trouble, and both job and school situations that are interesting and realistic. This is perhaps the real hook of the series - it is very realistic, both in its production value and its plot/character developments. The 48 episodes are not nearly enough, as one commentator has already mentioned.