Reviews

Watching this film, I found it rather easy to imagine Humphrey Bogart not playing Captain Queeg, but instead playing Richard Nixon mulling over his enemies list in lieu of the most likely suspects to have pilfered the strawberries. Bogart's intensity here is brilliant as he caroms back and forth between discipline-oriented naval officer and frightened paranoiac. His meltdown in the witness chair is one of the more memorable court-room scenes in cinematic history. While Bogie is the main event here, Jose Ferrer turns in an outstanding performance as the defense attorney. Fred McMurray is also tremendous in the role of the real "Yellow Stain," Tonm Keefer. I find it fascinating that one of TV's most innocuous 60's sitcoms dads played morally deficient characters in his two best film roles (the second being the amoral Walter Neff in "Double Indemnity"). There is no mistaking, however, that this film belongs to Bogart.

I am not a fan of melodrama. This movie has two fantastic performances: by Dorothy Malone and Robert Keith. After that there is not much to recommend it. Lauren Bacall is quite attractive, but this is FAR from her best work. It is not explained in the movie how two wealthy playboys, especially Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack), would be so completely swept off their feet by her. Malone steals the show, but the bone weariness of Robert Keith as the patriarch of the Hadley family is the only other memorable performance in this piece of Douglas Sirk fluff. The story Sirk wants to tell, of the debilitating effect of wealth and privilege, is better told in "East of Eden" and "Giant," among roughly contemporary films. Even the soundtrack for this film is over the top. I am not a fan of melodrama in general, but particularly not of this melodrama.

This film is bogged down by some mediocre acting (Robert Cummings in the lead, Priscilla Lane as the love interest) and some below-average writing. Hitchcock does play with some camera work that will pop up later in better pictures -- most notably people dangling perilously from national landmarks and a man pictured falling from a great height. Unfortunately, the story gets downright silly in places, with people inexplicably popping up in and out of captivity. Curiously, we are told at one point that Frank Fry's hiding place in Soda City is "up north" (i.e., Northern California), but when we and Cummings find Soda City, it's situated with a fine view of Hoover Dam, on the Arizona-Nevada border. The police allow a bit too much activity by Cummings and Lane in the climactic scenes of the film, when the authorities and presumably trying to round up the saboteurs, to be plausible. Still, there are enough deft Hitchcock touches to prevent the film from being a total disaster. This one may not even be in Hitchcock's top 50, but it's not a bad little diversion.

Okay, seeing Dennis Hopper naked is not something that was on my list of things to do in my lifetime, but it was not the abomination that some of the reviews make it out to be. I give Hopper and the director and screenwriter a lot of credit for fearlessly letting it all hang out, as it were, when that privilege is usually reserved for the "beautiful people" of Hollywood. That's what people look like -- it's just not such a big deal (no offense intended, Dennis).

My vote places this film into what I consider the vast "average" category. There are some issues here. Casting is one of them. Amy Locane was 25 playing 17 in this film. No sale. I have a 17 year old son, and not a one of his female friends looks much like Amy Locane. She was just not a convincing teenager. I realize that there are issues with having an actual seventeen year old in this role, but the casting director should have worked a little harder to find a more convincing actor for such a pivotal role. Locane invoked Lolita's aunt that works at Hooters more than she invoked Lolita.

Hopper was quite good as the male lead, acting out the fantasy that Sting and the Police put to music so many years ago. Amy Irving was quite good as the "comfortable" love interest.

Still, this story was rather predictable. The middle-aged teacher climbs out of his routine by having a sexual fling with one of his students, with predictable unhappy results. Still, despite the unhappy results, the fling was life-affirming over against all those stifling impulses that compel us into the comfort and safety of the routine.

This re-telling of the Lolita tale put a somewhat more human face on the lonely, love-lorn middle-aged man, but may have replaced that image with the notion that such relationships are really the fault of the young nymphettes who tempt them. That is a troublesome notion. Relationships such as this one need not necessarily be portrayed in terms of "victimization," but to the extent that there was a victim in this film, it was the teacher, the authority figure, who was the victim of the slutty teen-aged girl. In a sense, I guess that completes the Lolita fantasy -- that it is the young woman who creates and insist upon the relationship to the point that the resistant will of the older man is overcome. That image is a fantasy to the Nth degree.

Nonetheless, this is a reasonably entertaining little evening's diversion for the thoughtful performances of Hopper, Irving and Gary Busey as Catherine's father. I wouldn't go out of my way to find it, but if it shows up again on IFC, it's worth a look.

This is a so-so film. It is reasonably entertaining and has some good performances. I am struck by something in reading 20 or so of the 92 comments on this film. None of them have noted one of the more important facts about this story: that is that "To Die For" is loosely based on a real-life drama that unfolded in New England involving a teacher's aide named Pamela Smart who was convicted of having enlisted her teen-aged lover and some of his dull-witted school mates to murder her husband. A&E's series "American Justice" ran a very good episode on the subject which they, in true A&E fashion, re-air periodically. It is fascinating to see what Buck Henry did with that true story in "To Die For." Jimmy Emmett, as written by Hery and portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix, comes very close to Pamela Smart's real-life boyfriend (and I use the term BOYfriend advisedly). The real life teen was obviously smitten by the attractive older woman (Pamela Smart is no Nicole Kidman, but she was reasonably attractive and, more importantly for a teen-ager, willing). The scenes of his testimony during the trial of Pamela Smart are riveting because he was obviously so naive as to have believed that Ms. Smart was in love with him and wanted to be with him. Phoenix captures the mind of that teen confused teen brilliantly. In this case, seeing the real life story helped me as a viewer better understand Phoenix's take on the character.

On the other hand, Henry makes Suzanne a reprehensible character, too dim-witted to understand how little she actually knows; ultimately she wasn't even smart enough to realize that manipulating less-than-brilliant teens into an act of murder was not likely to end well. Henry, I think, took more liberties with the 'real life" character here than he did with Jimmy Emmett. The primary attribute Suzanne has in common with Pamela Smart is a willingness to manipulate teen agers to do her bidding. Nonetheless, Henry's take on Suzanne is Buck Henry at his leeringly sardonic best.

Nicole Kidman is not one of my favorite actors, but she does well in this role of Suzanne, largely due to Henry's wonderfully caustic take on the ambition to be a television personality. Suzanne's only talent is her looks, but the only people she can find who readily agree that has sufficient looks to be a TV news personality are a small group of troubled teen agers. No one else is fooled other than her equally love-struck husband (Matt Dillon).

"To Die For" is not a great film by any means. At times the story slows to a crawl as Henry tries to delve into some depth in the relationships. Of course that is not really what the film is about -- it's about Henry's acerbic take on celebrity in America circa the final decade of the 20th century. On that level the movie works. Where it doesn't work so well, despite the strong performance of Joaquin Phoenix, is in the portrayal of the teenagers. Their motivations are complex (more complex than simply having sex with the gorgeous older woman) and neither the screenplay nor the direction manage to pull off the merger of the dramatic story of Jimmy Emmett with the dark comedy of Suzanne.

This movie is not far behind "Patton" as a standout in the genre of biographical films. The performances are remarkable and the tracing of a life from rural Kentucky to the bight lights and glitter of Nashville is masterfully told here.

Cissy Spacek shows remarkable range coming forward from her days as the tormented teen in "Carrie" to the star of the Grand Ole Opry.

The most surprising turn, though, is that of Levon Helm as Loretta Lynn's father, Ted Webb. For the uninitiated, prior to being cast in this role, Helm spent his time as the drummer and vocalist for the rock band self-confident enough to call itself, simply, "The Band." Perhaps while working with Martin Scorsese on the documentary about The Band, "The Last Waltz," Helm was bitten by the acting bug. Whatever the cause, his understated, earthy portrayal of Loretta's earnest, simple, honest, hard-working father was brilliant.

Tommy Lee Jones also excels in the role of Doolittle "Mooney" Lynn. He takes the 13-year old Loretta from her family and proves to be the relentless force propelling her to stardom, while at the same time he fights his own demons. He's determined not to get stuck in the mines like Ted Webb, but learns to his surprise that Loretta is his ticket out. Despite his penchant for booze and womanizing, Loretta does not cast Doo aside when she reaches the stage at the Grnad Ole Opry. She no longer needs him, but she remains as loyal to him as she does to her humble origins.

I'm not a fan of country music in general or Loretta Lynn in particular, but this was an entertaining look at a very different world than most of us are accustomed to.

Romance tales are not my cup of tea, but sometimes we do what we have to and go see them anyway. My wife had read the novel and wanted to see the film, so I went along for the Civil War scenes.

I am a Civil War buff. I have tromped around on battlefields, visited Lincoln sites and toured museums. I've read most of the best of what is out there to be read on the subject, and I have to say, Anothnoy Minghella admirably captured the battle scenes depicting the slaughter in the "crater" portion of the battle of Cold Harbor. He also displayed a deft touch with the more subtle concept that by 1864, the Confederate army were becoming increasingly disenchanted at the idea that they could win the war.Consequently, many did simply head for home, hoping that there was still a home to get to when they got there. Those are the two things Minghella did very well. That's where he earned most of the five points on the IMDb scale that I gave this film.

Beyond that, this movie seemed to take days to tell a story that can be summed up in three sentences. Inman (Jude Law) is fed up with the war and wants to go hone and consummate his love for Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). On the way he encounters hardships, acts of courage, acts of cowardice and the like while Ada battles with the help of some unlikely allies to keep from dying herself. Finally Inman gets home, makes to love Ada, and then he dies.

Jude Law turned in a credible performance as the soldiers' soldier, Inman. Renee Zellweger was entertaining as Ada's friend and companion (lover?) Ruby Thewes. Phillip Seymour Hoffman turned in a nice performance as the cad, Rev. Veasey. Otherwise the performances were certainly not horrible; the cast was solid and portrayed the broad brush characters they were given to portray with reliable predictability. As for Nicole Kidman, I never for a moment believed that she was on the brink of starvation after her father (portrayed with a kind of bemused indifference by Donald Suterland) died. People on the brink of starvation are not perfectly groomed with meticulously combed hair, fluorescent white teeth and not a callous on her hands. I suppose it's not her fault that that the director and make-up people were unable to suppress her natural beauty, but she never looked to be suffering from anything more than mild discomfort. As is often the case with "Hollywood" productions, the people are just a little too pretty to be believed.

The whole purpose of the movie seemed to be to get to the torrid love scene between Inman and Ada, followed hard by his death. I hope the journey was worth it for Inman; it certainly wasn't for me.

This film is a poor shadow of its two monumental predecessors. It is more a run-of-the-mill sequel (read: pale imitation of the predecessor) than another film in the great tradition of the first two Godfather films.

Admittedly, this film had gigantic footsteps in which to follow. Sadly, it doesn't come remotely close to following them. Al Pacino gives a solid if uninspired performance as the aging Michael Corleone. (He was saving his intensity for Scarface, I suppose.) The other performances are flat. Worse, the story lines seem generally less plausible. Part of what made the first two films so effective was the more or less close parallels to actual underworld events. This story did not succeed at that project.

I suppose that seeing this version completed the full circle, but I did not need to see Michael's daughter (Sophia Coppola) take a bullet intended for him to get the idea that the gangster life had cost Michael everything he held dear. Part II completed that part of the saga with tremendous insight and subtle power. I did not need to be hit over the head with the idea in Part III.

The movie is not a total dog, but it is not in the same league as the first two -- not by a long shot.

Francis Ford Coppola came perilously close in this film to accomplishing something rarely, if ever, done: he nearly made the second movie revolving around a particular set of characters and themes better than the first.

In the truest sense of the word, Godfather II is NOT a sequel, nor was it intended to be. What Part II does is fill in details about Don Vito Corleone's arrival in America and rise to underworld power. That story was told by Mario Puzo in the novel, but involved too lengthy a story to include in the 1972 film. Coppola and Puzo did the next best thing: they told the prequel, the rise to power of Don Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) and then appended to the prequel the story of the Corleone family subsequent to Michael's gangland triumph at the close of the first film. "Appended" should not be taken to have a pejorative connotation. There is certainly nothing slapdash about the tale of the Corleone family's fortunes following the obliteration of the rival gang leaders at the end of the first film.

Al Pacino is stunningly believable as the still-reluctant Don Michael Corleone. He wants to move the family business toward legitimacy, but in the end events compel him to "be strong for everyone" by taking down all of the family's enemies, even when one of them is his older brother Fredo (John Cazale, again brilliant).

Unlike the first film, Coppola does not pull off the same level of audience empathy for the Corleone family in the second film. Clearly the life of the crime boss is costing Michael everything while he gains all the power in the world. The first film is more equivocal on that point and also remarkably draws the viewer into a world where the Corleones can be viewed with some empathy. In Part II, Michael is far more cold-blooded and consequently a less sympathetic character. He seems less drawn into the vortex of organized crime by unexpected events, as was the case in the first film, and more the ruthless manipulator.

This is really two great films in one. Vito Corleone's rise to power is portrayed with subtle intensity by DeNiro, always observant and always absorbing important information from his observations. Those scenes really capture remarkably the story of Don Vito's early years woven by Puzo in the novel. Wrapped around that prequel is a marvelous continuation of the original story with remarkable twists and turns and deft uses of historical circumstances (Congressional racketeering hearings and the Castro revolution in Cuba). This is another magnificent film, and fitting second step in the Godfather story.

Don't end the story with the first Godfather movie. See them both. As for Godfather 3, well, if you really want to go ahead, but be prepared for a let down.

That two word summary captures my bottom line feelings about this film: simply extraordinary.

This is, of course, Francis Ford Coppola's greatest film achievement to date. I frankly doubt that he, or anyone else, can surpass this film, although he gave it a pretty good run in "Godfather II." Part of what sets this film apart is that Coppola took one very well known star in Marlon Brando and surrounded him with an ensemble of lesser known actors. The result is that many of those lesser knowns were catapulted into stardom themselves, particularly Al Pacino (Michael Corleone) and Diane Keaton (Kay Adams). John Cazale is perfectly cast is the ignored middle child, Fredo Corleone, and James Caan turns in a memorable performance as the hot-tempered Santino "Sonny" Corleone.

The subtle undertow of this film is that Coppola and Mario Puzo crafted a brilliant script that draws the viewer into a level of empathy with a family of cold-blooded killers. The Corleones are, after all, a family under siege after the surprise attack on the Don, the abduction of Tom Hagen (Duvall) and the murder of the Don's most trusted assassin, Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana). The family draws closer, with the estranged son, Micahel, returning to rescue the family business from chaos. It becomes easy to lose sight of the fact that Coppola has the audience "rooting" for one set of ruthless murderers over the other set.

The climax of the film occurs when Michael orchestrates the final revenge of the family for the murder attempt against his father, the murder of Sonny, the physical abuse of his sister, the abuse of Fredo and disrespect shown for the Corleone family in Las Vegas, the murder of his Sicilian wife, and against the traitor within the family business. Those scenes are controversial on many levels, not least of which was the juxtaposition of a number of the murders with the baptism of Michael's nephew.

This film is a masterpiece of movie-making. You owe it to yourself to see it.

I wanted to like this film, I really did. The remake of the old Rat Pack vehicle, Oceans Eleven, was nicely done. There was a compact feel to it and some elegant twists and turns of plot that made for an entertaining escapist movie.

In contrast, Oceans Twelve feels bloated, stumbling along with no apparent point in mind. Worse, there's far too much explanation going on. It has been said that if you have to explain a joke, the joke was a dud. Oceans Twelve proves that the same theory holds true for movies. Since the script was perhaps trying to do too many things at once, there was a need to resort to extensive flashbacks to explain what should have been key plot points. Apparently no one wanted to work hard enough to weave those plot points into the script, so they resorted to Gilligan's Island-style flashbacks to reveal key pieces of information that would have made the story much more coherent had those bits of information simply been given to us in the first place.

That would have entailed some deft script-writing and, again, it doesn't seem like anyone other than Catherine Zeta-Jones and Matt Damon wanted to work that hard in this film. George Clooney and Brad Pitt spend most of their time on screen trying to out-smirk each other. I'd smirk a lot too if I was being to do as little as each did in this movie.

The most annoying bit of contrivance was the ever-so-cutey-pie idea of having Tess Ocean, played by Juila Roberts, of course, pretend to be Julia Roberts. I guess that gave them an excuse to let Bruce Willis add a few smirks of his own to the story.

In well-done "con" movies, like The Sting or even the Oceans Eleven remake, the viewer is pulled into the heist and knows enough about the con being pulled to enjoy seeing it unfold. In Oceans Twelve, the heist becomes secondary at best, with the story of the actual heists told in flashbacks. From the flashbacks it looks as if they had the makings of a pretty good sequel, but instead of telling us the story of the heist,we got a weak episode of the old TV show "It Takes a Thief." Perhaps most annoying feature of this movie were the painfully obvious teases for yet another sequel. When that comes out, I'll pass, but I do have a suggestion. Since they spent so much time telling the story of Oceans Twelve in plot-repairing or plot-supplying flashbacks, why not just tell us how they pulled the heist so that I don't have to sit through two hours of fluff to get there.

Mediocre at best.

If Dustin Hoffman can carry off a gender swap in "Tootsie," I suppose Robin Williams can do the same thing. The problem: Robin Williams is no Dustin Hoffman. Sally Field (Miranda Hilliard) and the children pull off fine, understated performances, as does Robert Prosky as the TV station owner who gives Daniel Hilliard the opportunity to carry his cross-dressing act to children's daytime television. Pierce Brosnan (Stu Dunmeyer) is appropriately charming and stuffy as Miranda's new love interest with whom Daniel wants desperately to compete.

The film, though, is all about Robin Williams. Some of the lines come off as improvised in the Williams staccato style of delivery, particularly when Mrs. Doubtfire is grilling Stu about what he expects to receive in return for the expensive birthday gift that he, Stu, purchased for Miranda.

The difference between "Tootsie" and this film is that despite all the makeup, Robin Williams smug self-righteousness and penchant for being too hip for the planet (in his own mind) permeates every scene in which he appears. There is nothing in this film that wasn't done funnier in "Tootsie," or even in "Some Like It Hot." This is a mediocre imitation of those two superior films, which is not surprising given its mediocre leading man/woman.

I'm not sure if it is the film or me showing age, but somehow this movie just doesn't pack as much wallop as many of Hitchcock's other movies. Perhaps I've seen it too often and my familiarity with the film is in he process of breeding a degree of contempt.

Technically, the film is beautiful. San Francisco, ever the photogenic backdrop, provides one glorious setting after another. The score superbly captures the pent-up emotions of the characters as the story unfolds. From there, however, problems begin.

As the reviewer "jrbleau" noted, the film suffers from a rather implausible set of circumstances. Rather than repeat "jrbleau's" synopsis, just this one example will suffice.

"Scottie" is supposed to be an experienced police detective, but his powers of detection seem none too sharp in the plot line. I find it pretty hard to believe that he didn't actually figure out that "Judy Barnes" was "Madeline" until she actually puts on "Carlotta's necklace." Perhaps we are supposed to chalk that up to the overwhelming infatuation/obsession he feels toward "Madeline," but Kim Novak's portrayal of the character does not provide a sufficient spark to carry the day on that score. Their encounters before the first all from the mission tower are really quite bland. Scottie doesn't seem to be overwhelmed by her at all -- just mildly interested.

This remains a fine film, but somewhat overrated in the overall context of Hitchcock's body of work.

I saw this film many years ago in a theatre in suburban Chicago. I went with a small group of friends and we decided on going to the late showing to avoid the possible protesters. We were right, there were two people there holding forlorn looking little signs warning me about something or other.

Upon seeing the film, I concluded that the protests were much ado about nothing, and that if anything Scorsese appreciated the buzz the protests generated since this film was not all that great on its own merits.

Peter Gabriel's score was tremendous. It conveyed an authentic feel as the scenes unfolded without the music being so intrusive as to become a distraction. As another commenter noted, the sound track may have been the best single feature of the film.

Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Christ was quite engaging as well. It was understanding and captured the essence of the struggle that the novelist, Nikos Kazantzakis, and Scorsese were trying to capture. Although it doesn't get a lot of attention from present-day theologians, the possibility of internal struggles between the human and divine sides of Jesus Christ was a topic debated vigorously, often bitterly, in the early existence of the Christian faith. Dafoe deftly captures the idea of an internal struggle -- sometimes confident, sometimes terrified, the human Jesus portrayed by Dafoe wrestles endlessly with who and what he is.

Finally, I think Scorsese's portrayals of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness are quite creative and extremely well done. The idea that Satan appeared to Jesus in attractive forms makes considerably more logical sense than do the traditional portrayals of a hoofed and horned Satan skulking in the background whispering temptations to Jesus.

Otherwise, the film was not wildly impressive. Harvey Keitel could have lost the Bozo fright wig he wore to make his character more credible. Harry Dean Stanton as Saul, after conversion the Apostle Paul, gave a decent enough performance, but the words he was given to say in the script were generally ludicrous. The notion that Paul didn't need the living Jesus, but relied on the dead Christ, is an important piece of theological and church history, but it came off too satirical to make the point. As it was, the portrayal of Judas as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and as the most worthy of the disciples, was predictable, even trite. The other male disciples mainly wander through the film in search of a clue.

The controversial scenes, of course, were those which constituted the last temptation of Christ. Appearing as a beautiful child, Satan (with an English accent), offers to Jesus a chance to be a regular Joe. Marry Mary and then when she gets knocked off by the Romans, marry her sister. After all, "there's only one woman in the world." Therein lies a problem with this film. There is more than one woman in the world, but there was only one woman in this film, and her name was seductress. With the exception of the little English devil-girl, all the women in this film seemed to have getting laid by Jesus as their primary purpose in life. That portrayal of women is not one of Scorsese's finer moments.

Frankly, it seemed to me that if Christians were going to get upset by anything in this film relating to sexuality, it would have been the scene early in the film where Jesus sits by and watches and waits while Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, services her clientele. That scene caused one of the little group I was with to exit the theatre and wait for us in the car.

This film is not for the theological faint of heart. If you are open to the idea of a graphic depiction of one of the great controversies of ancient Christianity, then go for it. If it bothers you to think through the metaphysical and practical implications of a man being both human (frail, limited) and God (omnipotent, eternal) then this film is not for you.

It is a shame that Michael Tolkin couldn't decide which of the two primary themes of this movie to complete. He has a very interesting possibility relating to the role of religion as yet another alternative to drab existences. He also has an opportunity to delve into the compelling world of religious fanaticism and the kinds of forces that would prompt a mother to kill her child. Tolkin's movie offers tip of the iceberg glimpses of both themes but ultimately fails to deliver real satisfaction on either score.

I'll address the religious theme first. Many reviewers seem to think that the religious group that Sharon (Mimi Rodgers) joins is a "fundamentalist Christian" sect, portrayed in a "non-judgmental way." Some of the beliefs depicted in the film do share points of contact with American fundamentalist Christian groups, but nothing more than that. The emphasis on the importance of the mysterious child, for example, is not something that any fundamentalist Christian group would espouse. Similarly, the lengthy exposition of the "pearl of great price" is not a major point for American fundamentalists.

Therein lies part of the problem with Tolkin's take on American religion. He seems to want to portray a fundamentalist sect, but gets the details rather garbled and ends up with a mishmash of ideas and beliefs which individually can be found in some identifiable Christian groups, but are nowhere found in the combination in which they are presented in this film. Rightly, many fundamentalist Christian groups were highly offended by this caricature of "true believers." Sharon is a "born again" Christian in no sense other than the sense created by Tolkin for purposes of making the movie.

Being true to a particular version of American Protestant Christianity is beside the point, however, and that's why Tolkin would have been better advised to avoid some of the mangled theology he attempted to present and focus instead on the dynamics of fanaticism. Clearly, there is no more fanatical act than killing one's own young child for the sake of religious belief. Yet that theme is not only present in this film, it also presents itself in one of the oldest recorded tales of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament to Christians). In the book of Genesis, the story is told of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham does not understand the command. God "gave" Isaac to Abraham and his wife, Sarah, in their old age and promised Abraham that Isaac would carry forward the promise of God to Abraham to make a great people of Abraham's descendants. In the biblical story, God tests Abraham and Abraham proves faithful. He carries out every preparatory step to sacrifice Isaac to God, but then God calls off the killing of Isaac and provides a lamb for sacrifice instead. In Tolkin's vision, God does not call off the sacrifice. The question is, did God call for it in the first place? Of course it was the little girl who came up with the idea, but what kind of adult would agree to the scheme?

There's the religious story of this movie that Tolkin leaves largely untouched.

For the sake of space, I won;t launch on "the rapture" itself. Suffice it to say that Tolkin chose to depict those events in a manner fairly close to the literal unfolding as presented in the Book of Revelation. I am curious as to what Tolkin thought was happening in those scenes. There are many fundamentalists who adhere to the notion that a literal unfolding of the events depicted in Revelation is bound to happen. They also maintain, however, that true believers will be taken up into heaven either before anything bad happens, or in the midst of the evil events, or not until the very end (pre-Tribulation rapture vs. mid-Tribulation rapture vs. post-Tribulation rapture). While Tolkin could not let himself get bogged down into those sometimes obscure details, Sharon's continued presence on earth would suggest to the "pre-tribulation rapture" believers that Sharon was not a true believer at all.

Finally, I wanted to address the other theme in this movie that Tolkin failed to follow through to its conclusion. That is the theme of monotony. At the beginning of the film, Sharon is depicted as being stuck with a mind-numbing repetitive job with long-distance information. In an effort to bring some excitement in her life, she engages in a random acts of sexual adventure with multiple partners. But in the main scene depicting such an encounter, Sharon looks just as bored and unfulfilled by random group sex as she is by answering telephones all day. Into that mix comes this life-changing religious conversion. The fascinating question would have been whether that new life would also have bogged down into monotony had it carried on for a time. Tolkin does not probe that issue, suggesting instead that perhaps religious fanaticism is the answer to boredom in life.