Reviews

Sorry, but this film lost me when blood started coming out of the wall.

The film is classified as a comedy, but the only funny thing about it was that it reminded me of that old SNL skit, 'find the Pope in the Pizza' by Father Guido Sarducci! The Good News? You don't have to be an atheist to be annoyed by this thinly-disguised religious-propaganda film; the hackneyed script & poor acting will do the job.

And sorry, but Esperanza was just plain irritating (and her attachment to "God's face" was only partly responsible for that...) I'm not an atheist, nor do I have a problem with films about God, miracles, faith & hope ('Simon Birch' is one of my favorite movies.) Heck, I can even stomach stories about the stigmata if they're well-written. But a bad film is a bad film. In fact, watching too many films like this might just TURN me into an atheist.

Luke Wilson must have been fooled like the rest of us, thinking he was signing on for a comedy instead of a movie about a grieving filmmaker's religious beliefs, along with the requisite distrust of science...

~NN

(*This is a Season 1 review only. Hopefully the show got better in the subsequent seasons.*) Being a long-time fan of Gabriel Byrne, I was hoping for a smart & edgy show. Instead I found a well-disguised soap opera.

The pace, intensity and acting are highly engaging, but as a serious drama, it's short on believability. The thing I kept wondering was, 'How can Paul Weston get away with being such a bad therapist?' All the cases are conceivable enough, including Laura's narcissistic acting out (which somehow our good doctor never manages to fully grasp session after session.) But Paul himself is insufferable--both as a person & as a shrink. And not because of hard-hitting questions, but because of his painfully awkward demeanor, emotional cluelessness and disconnectedness from his own psyche. I also had an issue with the crossed boundaries in many of the sessions, most glaringly with Laura, who a real therapist would have referred to someone else in short order. I do get that the writers are pushing the ethical envelope in order to keep people watching, but it's still annoying if you're even remotely familiar with counseling psychology and its protocol & ethics.

Even if you can somehow get past Paul's prickliness, sad smiles & missteps, his "sessions" with Gina are maddening. Why she puts up with him is not a mystery, but a disappointment. Is he paying her for these sessions? If so, then he's completely out of line as a patient when he repeatedly discusses HER life, past, etc. If he's not paying her & they're just having tete-a-tetes as old friends, then she's either a little masochistic, too lonely, or truly Buddha-like in her compassion, as he's a self-absorbed schmuck. By letting herself get sucked into Paul's drama (with or without payment) is Gina really helping him? I stopped caring enough to find out.

If you've never worked with a therapist and one day find yourself in treatment with someone like Paul Weston...RUNNNN.

On a positive note, Diane Wiest & Michelle Forbes are terrific here.

~NN

The problem with this film is that it's not really a true horror flick, nor is it a very convincing drama. And the script beats you over the head with metaphors and symbols to make its too-many points.

If the goal was to bring to light the damage "fear" can do to us, it didn't work for me. All it managed to do was to make a mockery of the film's valid points (and make me hope never to land in a hospital.) A great film about fear of the unfamiliar and distrust of people of other backgrounds/color/race, was 'Crash'. It dealt with fear, racism, sexism, violence, misogyny, love, sex and human alienation, and managed to do so brilliantly and touchingly while maintaining a consistent level of suspense.

By taking the "horror" slant, 'Sublime' caricaturized the message and the characters. The unrealistic "sexy nurse", the sloppy and again unrealistic banter with the Persian doctor about his nationality/credentials, Mandingo's deranged & angry black-vs.-white racial rants and sadistic acts, were all so over-the-top that all they managed to do was annoy me.

But I still gave the film a few stars because I actually liked Tom Cavanaugh in this role, and the rest of the actors were okay though not great, with the exception again of Zoe & Mandingo, who were both just ridiculous stereotypes instead of well-portrayed manifestations of our deepest desires and fears. I blame neither the actors or the director, but the writer.

I did like the soundtrack quite a bit; too bad it had to accompany such a silly script.

~NN

I recommend this documentary because of its chilling story & message and not necessarily for its production value (though it was still engaging.) In the tradition of other films in the genre like Erin Brokovich, Silkwood, Norma Rae, etc., this is another disturbing account of innocent lives destroyed by corporate greed & corrupt motives. Only in this case, art, education and the First Amendment are on trial along with the victim. Respected science teacher & artist, Steve Kurtz, wakes up one morning to find his wife, (dramatization played by the great Tilda Swinton) dead next to him in bed, with the cause of death quickly determined to be heart failure. The paramedics who arrive on the scene notice the art-show-related chemicals & science-lab paraphernalia and alert the FBI which leads to Kurtz being arrested for "bio-terrorism". It's a surreal nightmare for Kurtz who never even gets a chance to properly grieve the sudden loss of his wife.

But things don't end once the "terrorist" charge is cleared due to insufficient evidence. Since his art show was conceived as an exposé to educate/inform the public about genetically-modified food, the powers that be (industry/companies) must make it go away.

Helped by an ambitious prosecutor in search of career advancement & fame, the charge is swiftly changed to something that would stick: Mail fraud. Absurd? Not when powerful industry is involved & would stop at nothing to protect their interests.

Tilda Swinton is wonderful here in the few dramatization scenes she's in. This is a film that will be missed by many, but should be seen by all.

~NN

The use of symbolism in this visually-rich film lent a much-needed dimension to the script, including the dreamlike atmosphere as well as all the symbols of the Illuminati, Priory of Sion, Satanic cults and secret societies.

But... the problem is that symbolism alone is not enough to make a film "great", even one made by the legendary Kubrick. The cinematography was gorgeous, but I found the plot flimsy and patchy.

This film could have been truly great if Kubrick either spent more time on the relationship aspect of it, really developing the main characters, or just skipped the relationship talk and made it a full-on suspense thriller. But it aimed for both, and sadly neither was strong enough to make you take the story seriously...

Kidman is flawless & enchanting in appearance, however her character is poorly written & inconsistent, often over-acting to make up for the lack of depth. Cruise started out surprisingly strong & enjoyably subtle, but, like the story itself, got wobbly as things unfolded and was all over the place. His famous (or infamous) mega-watt grin was *way* overused, so that it became more annoying & transparently manipulative than charming (I know, surprise surprise!) Still, the film was compelling enough to make you want to keep watching. I just wished we could have seen the final cut which Kubrick submitted to WB before his death, but which was never made.

~NN

I had no idea what the movie was about since i had queued it ages ago. Well...this was no light-hearted comedy, to put it lightly! I ended up sobbing through the entire second half and kept crying for an hour afterward. I just decided to let myself go with it and embrace it--forgetting what that can do to you the next day--and woke up with a vicious headache.

But it was very good. Amanda Peet was flawless in this role. I love how she never overacts in her films and this was no exception. Mulroney was also very good & I don't usually care for him. Some may call this film too sentimental. To which i say: So what? Be sure to grab a big roll of paper-towels. And make it Bounty (the quicker dryer-upper.) And take 2 Advil ahead of time or you'll pay for it later. I sure did. This is not one of those gratuitously depressing films.

~NN

On August 6, 2001, the White House received an official memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the United States." The title of this memo is casually uttered by Condoleezza Rice in answer to a question during her testimony before the 9/11 commission. This comes after she poorly & repeatedly dodges important questions about this memo and other similar tips given to her and the administration about the threat and why no measures were taken to prevent the 9/11 tragedies.

This is only one of many disturbing clips featured in this film, which goes on to expose mounds of damning & documented evidence that the Bush administration not only HAD been warned repeatedly about the threat (and specifically about planes used by terrorists as weapons to blow up several important buildings), but that they had already taken steps to protect themselves and their families during their own travels & stays abroad.

Time & time again, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Fleischer and others in the Bush administration denied ANY knowledge of threats when questioned in interviews & press conferences. The evidence leaves no doubt as to their knowledge & subsequent failure to prevent the attacks. How can there be anyone left in this country who fails to see the atrocity of what was done on Sept 11, 2001, not just by terrorists, but by our own government.

The warnings could not have been more specific, practically connecting the dots FOR the CIA and the administration. We also learn about researcher, Paul Thompson, and his critical role in exposing the multiple conflicts in media reports (beginning at the 29-minute mark.) His research made it twice as hard to watch clips of the press conferences given at the time by Bush & his officials feigning ignorance when they were more than aware of the threats. The media managed to miss lies & inconsistencies in a # of press conferences & interviews. It's impossible to watch this film and not feel outraged.

~NN

As much as I enjoyed this film, my enthusiasm was dampened by the fact that most of Diamond's revelations are ideas that were in circulation as far back as a hundred years ago.

I couldn't help but wonder why someone so well-versed in history & anthropology would be triumphant about the "discovery" that Europeans used smallpox to wipe out Native Americans, that guns helped Europeans conquer Africa, or that malaria made it impossible for Europeans to migrate into the center of Africa in large numbers.

Furthermore, his explanation ignores the social, economic & political dimensions of world conquest by Europeans, not to mention the ethical & religious implications of past and present conquests and inequalities, chalking it all up to the impersonal forces of luck and "geography".

His reaction to witnessing the horrors of disease-ridden African children is startlingly naive, leaving one with the question: Why did Europeans set out to conquer Africa, killing hundreds of millions of people in order to spread out & enrich its economies, rather than do the same thing to China?? The Chinese invented gunpowder and had cannons before Europeans even heard of guns. Furthermore, they had a far greater population, a more advanced technology, & more efficient agriculture.

The answer lies in certain structures within European society. Until we figure out what this is and how it still manifests itself in our world, we will never be able to understand why inequality still exists in our world. Nevertheless, Jarred Diamond's optimistic conclusion is sincere. One can see how much he wants a better world.

~NN