Reviews

If you are looking for a movie that confirms preconceived notions, don't go to this one. Rather than trotting out a character as a rooting interest in the second or third scene, the film presents four individuals who are definitely worthy of your interest and compassion.

The two men in this drama, Jacob and Jorgen, are each powerful in their own ways. Jacob in the power of his convictions, Jorgen in the power of money and commerce. The two women, Helene and Anne, and the decisions they make, are the characters that move the story and set up the very real personal tragedies that ultimately unfold. Rather than a recanting of the general plot, my recommendation is to go into this movie as cold as you can. There are twists to be resolved and lives to learn about -- they are not aided by hearing about them beforehand.

There are no special effects, no flashbacks, no grainy images, and resolution is provided without the use of gun-play. (When was the last time you saw a movie that didn't have a gun figuring in the outcome.) Like real life, it takes a while to learn who the characters are and confirm that first impressions may (or may not) be correct. The pacing of the movie seems to be a primary criticism on the message boards but it seemed to move at a breakneck pace to me. I was very sorry to see it end.

This is a human drama that the "old" Hollywood once made by the boatload. Highly recommended.

If you have any interest whatsoever in French cinema, World War II, moral ambiguity, or Simone Signoret, see this film.

Filmed in a cold, documentary-like style, the "Shadow Army" tells the intertwining stories of several members of the French resistance. The movie defies any sort of simple categorization. It is a thriller without being thrilling. It is a spy story without a single gadget. It portrays the tedium of the task without being boring. Finally, it tells a story of heroic courage without the benefit of a single hero. That last point isn't immediately evident and you are free to disagree, of course, but heroes (as defined in the usual movie terms) are hard to come by in this story.

A popular adage goes; one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This movie serves up proof to that lie. There are true freedom fighters that will never be labeled "terrorist" and you will meet them during the course of this film. The movie makes clear that they, and the ones around them, paid a high price in pursuit of freedom. Not just in life and limb, but in moral conviction. As the movie unfolds, I found myself asking, is this action justified? The answer, of course, is that it most certainly is. The better question is would I, or anyone I know, have the courage to do what had to be done.

The technical aspects of the film are all first rate even though a bit below the best of European cinema at the time. (In some ways, the lack of high definition color and sets give it a feel much more in keeping with the time it portrays.) The actors disappear into their roles and there is not a star-turn to be found.

According to the announcement made before the screening I attended, it is being released in the United States on May 12, 2006, just before the summer blockbuster crush. Why that date and why now, almost 30 years after it was made, I do not know. My guess is it probably has something to do with money. (Doesn't it always?) Whatever the reasons, skip the Tom Cruise vehicle and don't miss the opportunity to see it.

This is a fine retelling of foreign adoption and I heartily recommend it for people who are considering adoption with, however, a major caveat. If you are a potential adopter, you had better be VERY comfortable in your own skin or, after you see this film, you may decide not to go through with it. For the average film-goer, feel free to give this one a pass.

All of the frustrations and guilt surrounding the process are on display, albeit from a strong French perspective. I was a bit taken back by the quantity of whining of the participants about the "Americans and Canadians" who are so rich that they pervert the process. Maybe true, maybe not, but all of the potential French adopters are portrayed as just average folks who do not have the resources that a North American might. (A lower middle class doctor?) To my eyes, that theme became a disturbing political polemic that took away from the thrust of the movie. For reference, I am usually just to the left of Lenin so this takes some doing.

There are other factual lapses in the movie that begin to get under your skin after a while but the heart really is there. As a foreign adopter myself, there are a lot of moments in this film when I recognized an identical scene in my own life. The emotions flow to the surface throughout.

As a movie going experience, well, this film needs an editor. There are scenes that go on forever; story lines that are dropped; characters who appear and disappear without resolution; more lapses in logic than a bad horror film; etc., etc. The director's determination to include all the film he had in the can creates a movie going experience more akin to the Lifetime network than great cinema. Too bad, really.

Overall, a qualified yes for those in the process now or in the past. The film's emotional center is spot on. For everyone else, look elsewhere.

Much like the city under analysis, this film school project is without equal in many respects. However, just like Los Angeles, the warts make for less than a perfect experience.

My posting is thoroughly biased since I am, like so many of the posters to IMDb, a Los Angeleno who loves this city. We get the joke about Los Angeles. We live it every day. Someone told me that you have to live here for seven years before you begin to peel back the image of the city and actually find there are people living here. Whether seven is the correct number, I can tell you that viewing this movie will speed up the process considerably.

With the director's guidance, viewing various movie clips over the years is an enlightening experience. The emphasis is placed on the background of the shot, not the foreground actors. This proves to be liberating and an unexpected pleasure. The insightful voice over convinced me that they had done their homework. Even if you think you know a lot about this city, you will learn more in two hours than you would pouring over history books for a month.

Then there is the third hour. Ouch. Feel safe to leave the theater after the intermission. All semblance of historical detachment is thrown out the window and it becomes a personal diatribe against perceived slights and his take on racial politics. I happen to agree with with many of his sentiments, but his language is equal parts preachy, treacle, and bombastic. Also, unfortunately, in many places just plain wrong. Statements are made as fact (without attribution) that are mere opinion. No voice is given to reasonable voices from any other source. It is, of course, the director's right to make a personal film and take any side he wants. Watching it is another thing all together.

The other major problem is the video transfer. Many of the clips are clearly lifted from VHS tapes that have been in a library or video store just a little too long. Even the best of the film has a washed out look would probably not be as noticeable on a TV, but on a big screen, the effect will take you back a bit. Oh, did you notice the running time? Obviously one of the filmmakers heroes is Michael Cimino.

In the end, the entire experience is well worth your time if you have any interest at all in Los Angeels/Urban America/Big City politics.

Just somebody get him an editor. While you are at it, how about a fact checker.

This is a terrific movie about adults and the inevitable loss of (and search for) passion. It is advertised as a mystery but, really, that is just a backdrop for the human relationships. The story is told in the multi-level format employed by Robert Altman and is just as naked and effective.

The story revolves around five couples (current and would be) and their loss and aspirations. Breaking with most movie conventions, four of the couples are work-a-day blokes who live in homes appropriate to their lot in life. (If this were Hollywood, they would all be living in a Manhattan brownstone.) All of their lives intersect at one point or another and when they do, the secrets they share make for a very complex stew. Great acting all around by people who look like the role they are portraying.

There are a lot of comments on this site that portray the film as a bore and I attribute that to the deliberate pacing employed. It IS as slow as a summer day but, to me, that is a plus rather than a negative. Perhaps you have to be "of a certain age" to get the truths that are being portrayed to which I plead guilty. I saw this movie during its original theater run and was blown away. IFC has it in rotation now and it transitions almost as well to the small screen.

I will probably be one of the first of many screeners of "Birth" to use this quote in their review. It is uttered late in the movie by the Nicole Kidman character in the midst of a crisis. Amen. The backers of this film were probably uttering the exact same thing in the editing room.

The movie begins with the death of a jogger in Central Park. As we see the poor soul expiring, the scene changes to a birthing suite with a dark-haired child joining the human race. Hmm, do you believe in reincarnation?

Fast forward 10 years to the present and we are at an engagement party for the sort of well-to-do yuppie (Danny Huston) and well-to-do widow (Kidman) that only seem to live in movies like this. Lurking in the foyer of the apartment building is a young, sullen boy who watches the comings and goings of the engagement party guests. We follow one of the guests (Anne Heche) on an enigmatic walk into Central Park that you recognize immediately as having some unstated importance. So far, so good.

At this point the movie could turn into a 'beyond the grave' thriller. Or, it could become a search for what motivates a creepy kid into hounding a beautiful woman. Or, it could become the psycho-sexual obsession of an older woman for a (prepubescent) younger man. To its credit, it tries to be all of these things. To its failings, its reach exceeds its grasp.

'Birth' wants to be all things at once and fails on most counts. (Whether you believe in reincarnation doesn't matter since it tries to have it both ways.) All of the performers give it their all and work hard to bring the director's vision to the screen. Unfortunately the director (Jonathan Glazer) and his co-writer (73 year old Jean-Claude Carriere) have fashioned a story that is too clever by half. They apparently are also hoping the audience is too stupid to see that the people inhabiting this story are dumber than teenage cannon-fodder in a slasher movie. The plot rests on the premise that none of these smart, rich, mature people would think to ask the protagonist a question rooted in his former (?) life's work in nuclear science. Sigh. Maybe they hoped the audience wouldn't notice.

A word about the controversial scene that is sure to get the most ink. It occurs midway through the movie and it had people in the audience gasping as it unfolded. It is discussed on the message boards and I won't give it away.

My take on it is that it is easy to fault the French for their obsession with making all sort of sexual aberration 'understandable under the circumstances.' (Carriere is no stranger to these waters.) Equally to blame is the puritanical outlook on some viewers' part that will see a sexual act where none exists. For this viewer, I did not see that the offending scene added much to the story arc other than shock value. In a Q&A with Glazer he argued that it defines the obsession the Kidman character has for the protagonist. Maybe. First you have to believe that anyone would be obsessed with such an unlikable, unresponsive creep. In short, I didn't buy the premise, and I didn't buy the bit.

After the brash cleverness of Mr. Glazer's first film (Sexy Beast) a lot of very talented people signed on for his second. Kidman and Huston should be particularly singled out for their efforts and willingness to follow where they were asked to go. Despite all of their efforts, it didn't turn out as well as they hoped. Ever hear of the sophomore jinx?

IMHO, if you want to see this film, catch it in its first weekend of release. It won't be around long in the crowded fall season.

This movie has been seen by most film buffs many, many years ago on late night TV. If you are like me, it was an interesting film purely as a reference point for a young George Lucas. If you remembered it at all, it was for the use of white space and the long periods during which almost nothing discernible happens.

Well, it is almost 35 years later (35 YEARS!) and for reasons best known to film and DVD marketers, George Lucas has pulled it out of the vaults. Instead of just transferring the original print to new film stock, Lucas has re-cut several critical scenes; added a tasteful bit of CGI; zipped up the sound track and film score; and, best of all, turned it into the best reason yet for digital projection. Whether this is the original version he had in his head as a 26-year-old or one that he has fleshed out over the years is sort of beside the point. What is on the screen now is definitely worth your $10.

Yes, it is still a bit tedious at times (in a '2001: A Space Odyssey' kind of way) and, yes, the plot holes and infamous continuity issues are still there.

But, Wow! The plot is a weird stew in which an allegorical Adam and Eve story is crossed with 'Brave New World.' (The Catholic act of confession will never be the same after you see it re-imagined here.) The crystal clear cinematography is a revelation. The characters' multiple layers are wonderful. Donald Pleasence's performance as the would-be leader/rebel is downright creepy. The way the camera lingers on a scene rather than quick cutting for effect is a welcome relief. This is adult subject matter and it is not what you expect out of Lucas. You have to ask why he didn't pursue themes like this in later films. (Who knows, maybe the upcoming Darth Vader fest will return us to the dark side.)

Be forewarned, this is not a casual film that you can sit back and munch popcorn while it plays out in front of you. This is definitely art-house fare by a young director finding his chops.

Many of the message boards and most of the reviews of this film point out how many elements carry over to later Lucas films. (C3PO, the climactic chase scene, drones in service to masters, etc.) For me, the touchstone is not for Lucas, but for the Executive Producer, Francis Ford Coppola. Many of the themes explored in THX show up in Coppola's 'The Conversation' three years later. Gene Hackman's Harry Caul character is a clone of Robert Duvall's loner forced to confront a faceless progenitor. See if you don't agree.

Though they are releasing the film to theaters ahead of the DVD release, the place to see it is in a theater with digital projection. Similar to 'Lawrence of Arabia,' much of the action takes place in the far corners of the scene and I can't imagine seeing this on anything less than a very large HDTV screen.

This is not a whodunit. You know from the trailer whodunit; it is, instead, a study on the effect a kidnapping has all of the participants. There are no "gotchas" or surprise plot twists anywhere along the way. If you enjoy character studies by actors whose mileage on this earth is measured in years rather than months, this is the movie for you.

Let me also echo earlier comments about the three terrific performances. Each performer is a joy to watch. During the course of the movie they convey as much (or more) on their faces as the dialect.

It is the first time out for the director but that actually works for the movie. He allows the actors to play off of one another and the currently fashionable quick-cut editing is, mercifully, missing. (When will directors get the message that not all of audience suffers from ADD?) He also uses a fractured time line device that sounds worse than how it plays. Once you figure out what is going on, you can't imagine it being done any other way.

Is this a movie for a someone on a date under the age of 22? Probably not. You/they just won't be able to relate to the world weariness of the characters. (Also, no sex, no music track, not enough cartoon violence.) For audience members over 30 and cinephiles who love great acting, get yourself to a local multiplex and enjoy.

First things first. I LOVED THE Z CHANNEL!

For those of you reading this who are not from Los Angeles or are not yet 30, you do not know what you missed. Imagine a late 60's, early 70's FM eclectic station that mixed Marvin Gaye, Frank Zappa, Charlie Parker, Parisian Ballads, The Rolling Stones and Parliment Funkadelic into their play list. Now, imagine the same kind of eclectic mix applied to movies. Oh yeah, add to that some late night Euro soft-core sex movies and a monthly magazine that provided the kind of insight you now find on IMDb with full cast lists and turkey alerts, 20 years before the internet.

The Z Channel got behind previously unheralded directors, actors and screenwriters and presented them to Hollywood power brokers in their Hollywood Hills living rooms. As much as any other factor, Z is responsible for the development of independent cinema in the USA. I know, I know, the Sundance festival is where it broke out. However, the Z Channel took the Raging Bulls of New York and Hollywood, mixed them with the best of world cinema, and presented them all in a single place where all the people responsible for making movies could watch them. Often times before or during their theatrical run! The imaginations ignited.

Nowadays, you have the segregation of radio and movies into distinct market niches (HBO = top 40; Black Starz = R&B; IFC = Alt rock; etc.) Z Channel broke the mold because the rules weren't in place. The credit for this diversity hangs on a cinephile programmer named Jerry Harvey.

And therein lies the tragedy. Much like an artist who borders on madness, Mr. Harvey's demons were almost always with him. The only escape he seemed to find was in a screening room and obsessively chasing down obscure, forgotten, interesting films. He must have been quite a character. Even the people who felt his wrath stand up for him in this film and accept his cruelness for what it was; a mental illness.

That is a long way to get around to an opinion but here goes:

The interviews are great. The film clips are terrific. The story is worth telling to a wider audience. (Though, as much as I would like to believe there is a theatrical market for this film, its subject may be too narrow.)

However, the film is not completely successful merging the parallel stories presented. The first story is the rise and eventual collapse of Z Channel itself. The second is the life of Mr. Harvey and his eventual crimes. The documentary drops hints that the fall of Z Channel parallels the demise of Mr. Harvey. The financial machinations that went on in the boardroom (five owners in ten years) probably had more to do with it than is presented. I suppose it is too much to ask that back room financing be presented as an interesting story arc but there you are.

Overall, the documentary works. The story presented is not one where all the pieces fall into place like a script. Instead it is a Hollywood tragedy played played out with all the blemishes. If it comes your way, do yourself a favor and see what we have lost.

Yes, the film sort of feels like "Ned Devine" (colorful characters / beat the system at its own game / gorgeous scenery) but it is much lighter than that. In fact, "Ned Devine" is a black comedy by comparison. Probably a closer comparison would be "The Gods Must be Crazy" meets "Local Hero" and spawns a love child.

This movie is downright sweet. That is not a bad thing and I can see why its Canadian supporters are trumpeting its virtue. However, as a former resident of Minnesota, I recognize small-town boosterism when I see it. La Grande Seduction is worth the price of admission and I urge anyone who is faced with the question "What movie do I take both my tweener and my parents to that won't make me cringe in my seat?" to go to this movie. However, this is not a movie with much depth below the caper aspects.

Check that. There is a line towards the end of the film that highlights the pathos of the circumstances welfare visits on its recipients. For this viewer, a bit more of this insight would have been appreciated.

By the way, I saw this at a screening that had about 10 of us in a 600 seat theater. Maybe it was because it was a Monday night. Maybe it was because the English title is a bit lame. Whatever; Whoever is hoping to distribute the film in the states had better get its marketing muscle in gear. This sweet a movie deserves an audience.

Wow. A whole lot of fun on so many levels.

At its core, Big Fish is a series of tales told by Edward Bloom (Finney) that are throwbacks to a time when the ability to tell a tall tale carried some weight. (Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, Uncle Remus, etc.) The plot is exceedingly thin serving as a string to hang the tales on and nothing more. (Why the hell can't William Bloom/Crudup, get over it?! Oh yeah, we need a payoff in the end.) Still, this is a comedy/fantasy so don't look for Macbeth. Besides, the actors in these tales don't need a greater purpose other than to astound and amuse. And they do. Terrific performances by all the principals but special credit to McGregor and Finney for diving into to the part of Edward Bloom and making him a real person.

I can't think of a better director to handle this material. This is the gentle Tim Burton of Edward Scissorshands and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure in control here. The dark Tim Burton of Planet of the Apes and Batman are nowhere to be found.

For movie lovers, Burton throws several references to other films for your delight. Tip: The banjo player IS the same fellow who made the music famous 20 years ago. Trust me, you will get this when you see it.

In this season of major releases with casts of (CGI) thousands, it is fun to see a film that uses the location as a character and special effects that don't rely on computers to make them magical.

This is a troubling film with a troubling story to tell. It seeks to be a dark comedy and it succeeds more than it fails in that regard. However, it is definitely not for all tastes. I would go so far as to say the number of people who will get on the film's wavelength will be very limited. Paramount's marketing department must be tearing their hair out. (Test; if you thought "The Naked Lunch" was the pinnacle of alternative film making, you will probably like this film.)

Set against the background of a hack writer's skin disease, the real story in an Oedipal rage that gets a bit too squirmy at one point. The Downey character(s) are tough to sympathize with but sympathize you must if you expect to get to the end of movie without walking out. I saw it with a fairly sophisticated film audience at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood and several walked out within the first half hour. Their loss.

The performances are almost all excellent but Downey's is riveting. His acting is truly over the top and when he is on the screen (95% of film) you cannot take your eyes off of him. This is saying something since he shares the screen with Gibson, Wright Penn, and Woodard.

Great performances, troubling screenplay, some truly funny moments; so what is wrong with this movie? A multitude of little things I'm afraid.

It is a small budget film and it shows. The actors are acting and it shows. The sets are cheap and it shows. Adrien Brody hams it up and you cringe. An early song and dance number (!) is ripped right out of "Rocky Horror Picture Show." The movie ends on a happy note that looks like it was tacked on to satisfy a financier. The script must read great but the dialog sounds like a play rather than a film. These flaws, and a dozen others large and small, eventually wear you down. Some moments in the film are spectacular, still, it is less than an overwhelming success. Go for the performances, try to overlook the blemishes. (Yeah, the last comment was a bit of a pun.)

If the reader believes that movies can be much more than a poor replacement for an amusement park ride, this is the movie for you.

The performances are great. A career movie for Mr. Murray, a stunning star debut for Ms. Johansson. (Is she really just 19!) The visuals are great. The humor is droll and not forced. The direction is steady, confident, and captures the actors and script at their best. The tender moments are tender moments; not tacked on sex scenes. The relationship between the principals are human, not animal instincts.

This film absolutely captures the "lost" feeling a person experiences when they are in a place that is not your own. (The hotel bar scenes are a revelation.) Not a forced "movie reality" moment to be had. A truly romantic masterpiece.

Just go.

These comments are based upon a screening in Hollywood last night.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Screenings are generally meant to generate good word of mouth. However, most of the audience groaned and laughed at scenes that were meant to scare.

This is truly a paint (crayon) by numbers exercise. The movie starts at point A and ends up at point Z without a single diversion from the standard "family in peril" plot. It even has the characters doing things no thinking goat would do in order to advance the spook factor. It telegraphs every eventuality and there is no twist at any point. Plot points and scenes are air lifted out of other films. (Deep pit = Silence of the Lambs / Angry city slicker in country = Straw Dogs.)

Do you see the only colorful stain glass window in the house? Can you guess what is going to happen to the stain glass window before the credits roll? Maybe if you have been locked up in a cave and haven't seen a thriller in the past 25 years some of this will be a surprise. Sigh.

This might have been a hoot in a "so bad it is good" kinda way if the cast and look of the film hadn't been so professional. The acting is way above average and Sharon Stone and Juliette Lewis are fun to watch. (Memo to producers; Ms. Lewis must surely be tiring of playing the town slut of "Natural Born Killers" fame, please find something worthy of her skills.) The sets are pretty to look at and cinematography is way above typical fare.

Don't encourage the studios to make more of this stuff. Please stay at home.

A truly clever, very funny film. If you thought Sienfeld made something out of nothing, wait till you see this. I cannot remember a movie where writers' block has been explored/exploited with as much wit.

Brought to you by the same director (Spike Jonze) and writer (Charlie Kaufman) who made "Being John Malkovich," this is a direct descendent, if not exactly a sequel, to that film. (Malkovich, Cathy Keenan, several others, make brief guest turns in this movie.) What sets the movie spinning (as opposed to a traditional plot) is a question; How do you make a movie adaptation of a book that is impossible to film? The answer is, make a film about the writer trying to make an adaptation of a book that is impossible to film. Oh, and while you are at it, make the movie of the book, make it a little autobiographical (in your own parallel universe), and, just for the heck of it, give it a Hollywood treatment. It is as loopy as it sounds . .. and that is a very good thing.

All of the actors turn in terrific performances. Cage reminds you why you thought he was such a great actor. (Tell the truth, didn't his last few movies have you wondering?) Meryl Streep is a joy to watch and should be congratulated for throwing herself into a role they have not often asked a "woman of a certain age" to do. She does so with considerable abandon. Somebody, please, find more rolls for this cinema treasure! (OK, I am the same age as she is and have had a crush forever, but she is great!) However, a Best Supporting Actor award of some stripe is going to go to Chris Cooper. His performance almost steals the movie from under everybody else's noses.

A word of caution. This is another in a very long line of "inside Hollywood" movies. It is even more inside than "The Player." I got to see it in a theater full of young men, dressed in black, speaking on cell phones, in the heart of Hollywood. Yes, an audience of insiders. The place was roaring with laughter. (Jonze, Kaufman, and Cage were in attendance and gave a terrific post-showing Q&A.) How this will play in, say, Kansas City, is another question.

OK, first off, there are parts of this movie that are inspired lunacy that might be worth the price of admission. Just not enough of them for me to suspend the amount of belief necessary to wholeheartedly endorse this movie.

Emily Watson plays an earth-mother with more compassion than physically possible to Adam Sandler's cracked psyche. I buy the premise that growing up as the only boy in a family with seven sisters would make you a little, well, damaged. But Sandler's emoting would get him locked up in most of the United States. And really, if it wasn't Adam Sandler in the part and PT Anderson as the director, would anyone have green-lighted the project and stirred up the dreaded "Oscar buzz?" At its heart, isn't this the same selfish character Sandler has played in a bunch of dopier movies?

As for the good parts, the cinematography is inspired, capturing the true dullness of the San Fernando Valley. Luis Guzman is terrific as a Chicano looking in from the real world onto the parallel universe that these crazy Anglos live in. The musical score is a CD worth owning.

The plot/story/tale that is being told? It has been told before in the sweeter (but just as cracked) "Joe vs. the Volcano." Come to think of it, rent that one and stay home.

I am a BIG fan of Mr. Moore's films but they are never perfect. Bowling included.

Someday, he will produce a film that is tightly focused, not overstated, and presents another side without a sneer. Until then, we will have to settle for extremely funny diatribes that provoke thought but open themselves up for dismissal from those on the other side of the argument.

The film is completely on point about the culture of fear. Any one watching the events in Washington D.C. over the past month can understand why the USA is in fear. But why is there wall to wall coverage of a psycho while Al Queda is attacking targets around the world? We are being to taught to be afraid of each other rather than legitimate evil. (This is not to say that the sniper wasn't a legitimate story, just over done.) Mr. Moore's coverage of the killing at Beulla Elementary makes an extremely tight case against the hair-dos that pass as reporters.

I heartily recommend this movie, I just wish it didn't wander (welfare to work?) and picked on the right targets (Dick Clark?). Go see for yourself and be prepared for a long night discussing the film with friends.

This is a not to be missed film if you value imagery.

Though the plot is not as engaging and the action a bit slower than "Princess Monoke", it makes up for it in its sheer beauty. It is not a child's movie, but I am certain a 10 to 14 year old will love it. Think of it as an anime version of "A Secret Garden" and you will get my point.

Beautiful.

This is a terrific bit of film making, but . . .

Given the rave reviews by critics and members of IMDB, you might be left with the impression that this is the best film Spielberg has made in a long, long time. I respectfully beg to differ.

Yes there is great cinematography (thanks Janusz Kaminski!), yes there is a brilliant little kernel of a plot premise (thanks Philip K. Dick!), yes there is a great cartoon chase scene filled with Spielberg humor, yes there are some Indiana Jones gross out scenes, yes there are fun performances aplenty and yes, it is way above what we have come to expect out of a summer movie. However, there are a lot of plot holes and movie coincidences that will nag at you for hours after the images have faded. OK, I know, willing suspension of belief and all that but still . . .

Also, haven't we seen most of this before? ("Blade Runner", "Chinatown", "Serpico", etc.) The difference between those movies and this one is that this one is filtered through an "Artificial Intelligence" trailer. In fact, AI is a much more compelling film. Though AI is a rehash of the Pinnochio story, it is a fresh take on a universal fable; much of "Minority Report" is just a rehash. ("Minority Report" does have better action scenes.)

This IS a good film, just not "Saving Private Ryan", "Indiana Jones", or "Artificial Intelligence." Go see it. Enjoy. Just don't believe all the hype.

Yeah, it has the pacing of a 007 movie but I LIKE James Bond movies. (And I bet you secretly do too.) Willing suspension of belief and all that stuff.

What makes it even better, it can be compared to the early spy movies when you actually thought the good guy has a chance to get hurt. Heck, he does get hurt! The movie doesn't insult your intelligence with a bunch of unbelievable decision making. (You know the sort, "Don't into that dark room, Buffy!") The movie sets up the action that follows by allowing the principals to think their way out of a jam, not just get lucky. The action, by the way, is great escapism.

The cherry on the top of this confection is the locale. It is nice to see the "new" Europe in a distinctly American movie.

Overall, a good movie that has plenty of eye candy, is exciting to watch, has actors actually acting, and is suitable for anyone over, say, the age of 14. (What is up with the ratings board?) Not a bad way to accompany popcorn.

This movie is not deep, has too many cliched characters, has a resolution you can see coming from across the street, but still . ..

It is funny, well acted, and has a terrific, shiny look that you don't usually get from a British film. A throwback to character based movies of the mid 20th century salted with witty writing. Will you remember this film in a year? Probably not, but it leaves a smile on your face during and after the screening.

As it happens, I know someone whose life could have served for the Hugh Grant character and his portrayal is on point. Only funnier.

This movie has a compelling direction with terrific acting but, in the end, there are a lot of blind alleys in the plot. The director was at the screening I saw and let it drop that it had been through at least one screenwriter change. That may account for the unfinished feel of the story.

If you go thinking you are going to see "Little Man Tate" (a gentle, early Jodi Foster attached project) you will probably walk out of the theater. Several people did at the screening I saw. However, if you go to the theater remembering early Jodi Foster ("The Little Girl Who Lived Down The Lane" or "Taxi Driver") you will enjoy the experience. No, Ms. Foster does not have a large part but the young stars are all up and comers who play the rolls she did at the same age.

Much is made of the animation and it is a highlight. It is not a stunt and advances the movie very well.

Overall a mixed bag, great film-making, less than great story-telling; . . . but worth your time