Movie Review #32

Out of Sight (1998)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Written by Scott Frank
Based on the novel by Elmore Leonard

Rating: 8.00/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

Out of Sight can be labeled as a crime drama, a romance, a comedy, a thriller, or a caper. The beauty of this film is that each of these genres mixes so well that the film's purpose is not of one but of all. Soderbergh is able to balance a number of characters and their storylines into a nonchronological sequence of events that makes sense and is crystal clear. Out of Sight is a joy to watch.

The film stars George Clooney as Jack Foley, a man who can get away with anything just by talking but has no purpose in life other than to rob banks. Foley was almost made to rob banks, and nonviolently. Foley never used a gun to illegally take money from bank after bank, and it took hundreds of robberies for investigators to finally catch him. The first scene of the movie shows an angry Foley become calm and somewhat zealous as he walks into a bank and "politely" asks the teller to give him some cash. Soderbergh gives us a glimpse of what is to come in the movie here as he intricately mixes intelligent dialogue with charismatic acting. Clooney relishes his part, as his character Foley asks the teller, "Is this your first robbery?"

Soderbergh does what few directors choose to do with these types of films: He uses the plot to study human behavior rather than using people to keep a storyline going. Each character makes sense, and each scene serves a purpose. Take the several flashbacks presented throughout the movie. At the time, some of them may not make sense, but Soderbergh's intent is not necessarily that of furthering a plot point. His motivation is character development and clarity. I love the flashbacks involving Snoopy Miller (Don Cheadle). Snoopy is a bad dude. He has no issues with murder, bribery, extortion, you name it. Foley meets Snoopy in jail (after the robbery we see at the beginning of the film). The scenes we see do not really further the storyline the film is presenting, but instead the scenes present to us an evil man with a unique personality.

Foley plans a break-out from prison, and his plan is brilliant. However, during the escape, he uses Karen Sisco as a hostage. He and his friend Buddy Bragg (Ving Rhames) kidnap Sisco (Jennifer Lopez), and Foley takes Sisco into the back of the trunk. The resulting scene is masterful as Clooney and Lopez dig into their roles here. Foley and Sisco discuss movies (among other things) in a scene in which you can see the sparks of attraction in their eyes and their body movements. The scene is a true joy to watch. Throughout the movie, you can see the energy and the attraction the two characters have for each other. Such great performances come from Clooney and Lopez.

Foley's escape works, and the rest of the film focuses on how Sisco tracks him down. Meanwhile, Foley and Bragg are off to Detroit to find five million dollars worth of uncut diamonds in the home of Richard Ripley (Albert Brooks), a Wall Street businessman who idiotically decides to spill the beans to Foley (and others) while in prison. The climax of the movie involves Snoopy and his cohorts (including the hilariously clumsy White Boy Bob) invading 'Dick the Ripper' Ripley's home to steal the diamonds. Meanwhile, Buddy and Jack follow suit and the final showdown is between Foley, Snoopy, and Sisco, who learns quickly of the planned break-ins.

Even though the crime part of the film is well-presented and formulated, the romantic feelings between Sisco and Foley are the most interesting part of the film. Take the sequence in which Foley and Sisco "meet" in a bar and discuss their attraction for each other. The dialogue does not match what we are seeing, further emphasized by brief but frequent freeze frames added in from Soderbergh. The effect here is somewhat surreal. The scenes never match the dialogue, but it always makes sense. The freeze frames add a great deal by prolonging the moments, making them more pronounced. And the dialogue is so fresh that more attention is paid to what we are hearing and not what we are seeing.

I wish Soderbergh would not be excessive with his style, though. The freeze frames work in that scene, but they work nowhere else. All they do is attract more attention to scenes than what they truly deserve. Take the sequence in which Sisco is interviewing a bad-boy youth. The man threatens Sisco with words, and Sisco decides to take action in an almost "superhero" like fashion. The scene ends with a freeze frame of her sly smile while the man is shown in great pain. The freeze frame just makes the scene look silly and pretentious. There are other scenarios like this one that detract from the movie.

Nonetheless, this is small potatoes when compared to the rest of the film. The acting, the colorful characters, the energy, and the storyline are all an immense amount of entertainment. With solid acting from Clooney, Lopez, Rhames, Brooks, Cheadle, Dennis Farina (as Sisco's father), and Steve Zahn (as the comedic Glenn Michaels), top-notch writing from Leonard and Frank, and a director's knowing touch from Soderbergh, this is one of the more entertaining movies I have ever seen. Personally not a great fan of Soderbergh's, I have to give him credit for this one, a most entertaining and enjoyable yarn.

Movie Review #31

Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001)
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Written by Alfonso Cuaron and Carlos Cuaron

Rating: 7.75/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

My friend Antonio recently explained his necessity for movies to be alive, to have momentum. Antonio, I present to you Y Tu Mama Tambien. My first thought after seeing this film was that no movie has seemed so alive, so fresh, so true. Y Tu Mama Tambien represents an overused genre with a twist: freedom of expression.

The road trip has been a tale told time and time again in films over the past few decades. One was even named Road Trip. You can rest your fears now; Y Tu Mama Tambien is much better than Road Trip and may be the best movie this genre has ever seen.

The first scene we see is that of Tenoch having sex with his girlfriend. Tenoch is an eighteen-year-old with an excessive amount of horniness. He is, shall we say, the typical teenage boy. We see this right away in the graphic scene between him and his girlfriend. Yes, there is full nudity and graphic content, but I dare to ask two questions right away: While watching this film, did you ever think the sex scenes were dirty? Did the film seem pornographic to you? After watching the film, I emphatically proclaim that the film is neither dirty nor pornographic. The film is *real*. It is alive. It is true to form.

Alfonso Cuaron, the director of this fresh film, has the freedom to express what he wants to express here. Total freedom. And he does. And the viewer is rewarded because of it. Cuaron shows full frontal female and male nudity, virtually all forms of sex, and masturbation. However, never do these scenes take away, distract, or overdramatize the flow of the movie. Each of these scenes makes sense; they seem appropriate. The film would not make sense without it.

Tenoch and his best friend Julio are two teenagers obsessed with drugs and sex. Their futures seem unimportant to them now as they are only concerned about what happens today. Soon Tenoch and Julio become bored with their lives. They spontaneously ask older, wiser, and very attractive Luisa to go on a road trip to a distant beach fantasized as their paradise on Earth. Luisa is at first reluctant, but after learning of her husband's infidelity, she returns the spontaneity and decides to go with them. The boys are, of course, excited, neither of them knowing that they would learn many things on the trip.

Yes, so the last paragraph seems like typical road trip movie. But it never is. It is extremely difficult to explain, but the movie feels so real that at times I feel like I am right there alongside them as the fourth companion. Rarely do films grasp me like this one does, and this one is not necessarily trying to whisk the viewers off their feet. The film takes us away on the road trip too with an ease few films can achieve.

Yet the trip remains true to the road trip form; events happen where we learn that Tenoch and Julio may not have the perfect friendship. Luisa teaches the two boys about sex, about how to treat women, about what relationships should mean, etc. Much more importantly, though, the film is free to openly state and show these lessons rather than to hint at them in a naughty-and-nice fashion.

There are also voiceover cut-ins in the film that serve as a parallel purpose. The voiceover discusses Mexican economy and poverty, certain things that characters feel, certain things that have happened to characters, and things that will happen to the characters soon. Soon we realize the purpose of this voiceover. The voiceover is showing us the obvious but the often ignored. We often live life one moment at a time always looking at our picture, not necessarily the big picture or smaller pictures. We always look at our own. Take the frequent instances where the movie shows us the poverty of Mexico, the moments where civilians use extortion or guilt to earn some money, the drug busts. We think about them when we hear about them or see them. But then we forget about it. We move on to our own lives once again, not caring about what happens around us.

The movie is showing us that our lives are in the moment, and Tenoch and Julio are extreme examples of that. With adulthood, we appear to mature and move on from such a reckless and blunt way of living, but the only difference is that age has given us more experience to handle the volatility the world brings us. We still do not escape the idea of living in the moment, for we still infrequently think about what happens around us. We only think about us. The film has an eerie sense of showing us the in-the-moment footage, then panning back to show us that it is, in fact, just a moment in time, a moment much different than a year ago or a year from now.

And this is the brilliance of Y Tu Mama Tambien. It ceaselessly and unforcefully shows us this, teaches this to us. We are all taken on the same road trip and learn a few things because of it. Maybe we relearn the same lessons, but the fact of the matter is we relearn it without even thinking about it. Learning the lessons this movie is telling us seems so instinctive.

Cuaron is a gifted director with an amazing sense of style and reality. Coupled with this is superb acting by Ana Lopez Mercado (Luisa), Diego Luna (Tenoch), and Gael Garcia Bernal (Julio). Luna and Bernal are not acting here. They just are Tenoch and Julio, two teenage boys living. All three are a delight to see onscreen. But it is Luisa's performance that is the most important and the most successful. Luisa portrays the teacher, portrays the wise one who teaches the younger ones what they're missing. At the same time, Luisa learns how to live herself. She realizes that in the moment is her mode of living. She has reached her paradise while the boys have learned that there is more to their life than what they have seen so far.

Y Tu Mama Tambien is an astounding achievement. It not only is able to provide freshness to an old genre, but it also provides some innovation. From now on, all road trip movies will be compared to this one and most likely will fall far below it.

Movie Review #30

Talk to Her (2002)
Written and Directed by Pedro Almodovar

Rating: 6.25/10.00 or ** 1/2 (out of 4)

***MAJOR SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW***

Like many films of 2002, this one is overrated, overly artistic, and borderline pretentious. All I could think about after the movie was how much this movie reminded me of the nearly arrogant tendencies of Spike Jonze with his latest film Adaptation. Although I have to say this film is far less artsy or pretentious than Adaptation, the film "makes up" for this with the use of disturbing material in what he intends to show as almost touching. Furthermore, he shows us characters that I think we are to empathize with that result (for me) in no relation whatsoever to any of the characters.

The premise of this film is offbeat and interesting. It is a tale of two men with the same natural tendencies, their relationships with the women they care for, and the growing attachment they have with one another. The offbeatness comes in when we learn that both women are either already or will become comatose, the men have a very strong bond (rarely portrayed in such honest and bold style in a film), and the love each man feels for the women they care for borders on obsessive.

The movie stars Javier Camara as Benigno, a male nurse who cares for comatose patients, and Dario Graninetti as Marco, a jounalist who meets and falls in love with bullfighter Lydia. Tragically, Lydia gets in a bullfighting accident, suffers serious brain damage, and spends the rest of her life in a coma. It is through this accident that Marco meets Benigno, and an ever-growing friendship between Benigno and Marco develops. We learn of Benigno's roots during this time. Benigno cares for his mother for several years before her death. During this time, he sees a dancer in a neighboring building. The dancer, named Alicia, is unaware of Benigno's growing obsession for her. One day, Benigno gets the nerve to meet her. The meeting is on the border between innocent and disturbing. Alicia is obviously disturbed and becomes more so with time. Tragically, she gets in a traffic accident one day and becomes comatose. Benigno, caring for comatose patients, cares for Alicia, and his attachment grows. In a revealing moment of the film, Benigno tells Marco that the last four years of his life (the length of time Alicia has been in a coma) have been the "richest" in his life.

Talk to Her has several themes it toys with and leaves to the viewer to decide how to handle. The major theme is the fine line between love and obsession. Benigno undoubtedly loves Alicia, but his ever-growing obsession with her leads him to what society would conclude as unacceptable circumstances. Benigno rapes Alicia while she is comatose, and Alicia becomes pregnant. Does Benigno do this out of love or out of obsession? No matter what the case, what are we to feel toward him? I felt nothing but hatred and distaste, and my growing detachment to his character became ever clearer the moment this is presented.

Meanwhile, Marco has to deal with a love now lost in unconsciousness. Marco is an emotional man, but he is also a strong one. He is presented as unflinchingly selfless toward his friend Benigno but selfishly absorbed in his relationships with all people. He relates to people with large amounts of emotion, almost becoming one at the will of others. So the film presents another question: Is Marco's friendship with Benigno and his actions to help Benigno admirable? Pure? Honest? Devoted? Are they morally wrong? Undesirable? Or are they selfish?

The film ends on a hopeful note, according to review after review. I disagree. The film ends by presenting Marco with Alicia (now awake from her coma) in much the same way it presented Marco and Lydia and next Benigno and Alicia. Disturbing things happened after the first two "presentations," and who is to say similar disturbing events will not come after that? I don't know if Almodovar's intentions here are as hopeful as reviewers have proclaimed.

There are three major problems with this film that I cannot ignore. The first is that the story touches the border between likeness and hatred toward the main characters. I found Benigno's character too disturbing to be likable, and it is obvious that Almodovar's intent is for Benigno to be likable. Since I could not relate nor fully understand or even come close to empathizing with Benigno, I did not care about what happened to him. In fact, it could be argued I felt no emotion toward him at all other than a dislike. This hampered the film's dramatic impact on me, an impact that was meant to be much more profound than it turned out to be.

The second problem is that the film takes ridiculous excursions into absurdity and comedy. There is one sequence I love. It is the beginning of the film where Marco and Benigno sit next to each other (at the time unaware that they would become friends) at a theater. Marco cries as a ballet dancer gracefully dances blindly almost colliding with props all around her as another man throws them out of the way. It was a comedic but important introduction to the film that artistically shows each man's tendency to devote themselves to the women they love.

However, there is another sequence that is just too absurd to be funny or artistic. It is a short film that Benigno watches one night in which the man is shrunk to the size of a penny. He then gratifies a woman by diving onto her breasts and then jumping into her vagina. Absurd to be sure. I did not find the sequence to be funny (which is the obvious intent). It seemed to me to be a drastic shock-value sequence that "artistically" shows Benigno's devotion to and then rape of Alicia. I actually find the scene distasteful as it seems Almodovar is lightening a disturbing and almost unspeakable crime with absurd humor. There is nothing humorous about what Benigno does to Alicia, and treating the rape as Almodovar appears to do here is just too revolting for me to find humorous or brilliantly artistic. The artistry also gives me a sense of pretentiousness as it seems as if Almodovar is manipulating us by laughter to like his characters.

I sometimes wonder if this reaction is too strong for this sequence, but I cannot deny what I felt here.

Finally, the movie is too long. I was shifting in my seat quite a bit toward the end of the film. Perhaps this is related to the two problems detailed above.

The film's strong points are solid acting and a fine script. Almodovar certainly shows he can write a good product, but his directive touch leaves a bit to be desired. It is obvious that Almodovar likes to touch on subjects that constantly border the disturbing, offbeat, or the unique. But he touches this border too many times for me to like the film more than I did. Overall, the premise is promising and at the same time limiting. The film further limits itself by presenting disturbing topics with obvious intentions in mind. The result is an often manipulative motion picture that dares to demonstrate and present answers to its own questions without completely thinking about its implications.

Movie Review #29

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Directed by Robert Mulligan
Written by Horton Foote
Based on the novel by Harper Lee

Rating: 8.00/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

"I remember when my daddy gave me that gun. He told me that I should never point it at anything in the house. And that he'd rather I'd shoot at tin cans in the backyard, but he said that sooner or later he supposed the temptation to go after birds would be too much, and that I could shoot all the blue jays I wanted, if I could hit 'em, but to remember it was a sin to kill a mockingbird. Well, I reckon because mockingbirds don't do anything but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat people's gardens, don't nest in the corncrib, they don't do one thing but just sing their hearts out for us."

Atticus Finch says that about a third of the way through the movie. It's the most important dialogue of the film as it foreshadows the movie's ending. Yet it also says something overall about the movie's content. There are two mockingbirds in this film. One is a black man wrongfully accused of raping a white woman in 1930s small-town Alabama. The other is a mysterious, rarely seen neighbor erroneously claimed as a monster by the townspeople of Maycomb, "a tired old town." The argument can be made whether Tom Robinson (the wrongfully accused black man) is a mockingbird or not (The film never really exploits this fact.), but Boo Radley (the "scary" neighbor) certainly is. I happen to think Robinson is too. For after all, Robinson did nothing to anybody, but he was certainly kind to everyone around him. And society sinned by not believing him. Society kills Robinson, but an individual saves innocence. The glowing and yet not entirely obvious brilliance of To Kill a Mockingbird is that it exploits both very complex facts in powerfully dramatic fashion. However, the film never becomes too complex nor is it at all manipulative.

To Kill a Mockingbird has earned its right to be claimed as a classic. The film is well shot, well acted, well displayed, and became undeniably important after its release. The film was an astonishingly simple look at how wrong racism really is. The film exploits this fact through the eyes of innocent and "normal" children named Jem and Scout. These are the children of a good-hearted and strong-willed attorney named Atticus, a soft-spoken and well-mannered man who just wanted to do right in the world. Atticus is a hero through the children's eyes and rightfully so.

Atticus is asked to defend Tom Robinson for raping a young white woman. It is obvious at the start of the film that no matter how much Atticus could do, there was no amount of heroism he could put forth to save him. The film is entirely predictable on this front, but this is not at all a fault of the film. The drama should not come from suspense; it should come from expectation. Mulligan never takes the easy way out. He directs with an amazing amount of elegance and style. Perhaps this is shown most powerfully in the famous courtroom sequence where Atticus gives his closing arguments. Never does Gregory Peck, impeccable as Atticus, overact or overemphasize his role. Never does the music soar to melodramatic heights. Never does the action become intensely loud or sappily emotional. Mulligan decides to evoke drama by the power of dialogue and the ensuing silence of defeat. When Atticus and Robinson learn of the guilty verdict placed upon the noble Tom Robinson, the black population of the town remain in the courtroom and *silently* show their pride and gratitude in Atticus. It is one of the most effective sequences I have ever seen on film.

And the dialogue, written so well by Horton Foote (and, of course, Harper Lee), is just mesmerizing. During the closing argument sequence, for example, there are two long monologues that the Internet Movie Database decided to put on their website. There is no denying the power of these words:

"...in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say guilt, gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She has committed no crime, she has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society. A code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offense. But what was the evidence of her offense? Tom Robinson - a human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. (He gestures, pushing away with his hands.) Tom Robinson was for her, a daily reminder of what she did. Now what did she do? She tempted a Negro. She was white, and she tempted a Negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable. She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a strong, young Negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards."

Atticus speaks of Mayella, the supposed victim of Tom's "crime." This is not to say she is not a victim. She is most certainly a victim of her father Bob's violent tendencies and racist attitudes. But Mayella broke the cardinal sin. She wrongfully accused another of a crime he did not commit, she knowingly lied with the obvious intention of harming another individual. And this is the real crime. But it is not just her own. Society joins in by wrongfully convicting Tom of the crime. But Atticus pleads a masterpiece of dialogue beforehand:

"Now gentlemen, in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system. That's no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality. Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family. In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson."

And the power of those words is unmistakable. But society chooses to ignore. And then an even greater crime is committed. The first mockingbird is killed.

Then the movie serves its audience some redemption. Boo Radley later saves Atticus's children from Bob Ewell's violent attack on them. Boo, proclaimed as a monster with yellow teeth, a nasty scar, murderous tendencies, all the cliched fantasy horror stories children (and adults alike) can make, shows that he is in actuality a good man with a kind heart. It is a fitting and necessary end to the film.

I love this movie. I can say using fancy words, extended examples, or metaphorical comparisons how much I love this film. But the film deserves as simple a review as is its presentation. It's a movie that moves and motivates its audience. Nothing more, nothing less. Having presented such a topic during such a tumultuous time in our history is amazing. And the impact it has upon me grows each time I think about the film.

Gregory Peck plays Atticus with subtlety and with perfection. Phillip Adford (Jem) and Mary Badham (Scout) play the most important roles of the film with touching innocence and without a hint of awkwardness. Robert Duvall plays Boo with solid grace. Duvall has no spoken part. That he is able to portray Boo like he does is simply amazing. Solid support comes from James Anderson (as Bob).

The most commendation should be given to Robert Mulligan, Harper Lee, and Horton Foote. Lee writes a tremendous book which Foote comprises into a screenplay so well-scripted that the words almost seem as music. And Mulligan directs with such elegance as to almost be unmatched by any modern director.

To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the most powerful films ever made, and to think that it took me this long to watch it is almost unimaginable now that I have seen it. A must-see for any fan of film.

Some short reviews before the longer ones...

To Kill a Mockingbird - 8.00/10.00 or *** 1/2
Robert Mulligan directs this classic with elegance, class, and style. Gregory Peck gives an astounding performance as Atticus Finch, an attorney with the at-the-time unenviable task of defending a black man of sexual assault of a young white woman. Told through the eyes of Atticus's children, the film never loses itself in complexity or overdramatization. With a brilliant monologue from Peck comes some of the most powerful dialogue in film. Truly a daring and daunting motion picture for its time, it still has just as much validity now. A must-see for any fan of film.

Talk to Her - 6.25/10.00 or ** 1/2
Like most 2002 autumn films, overrated, pretentious, and too artistic for its own good. Furthermore, I related to none of the characters and felt no compassion for any of them. The story of two men and two comatose women (Well, most of the time...) and the interactions between all of them. Benigno is a nurse at a clinic treating comatose patients. He falls in love with one of them before she becomes comatose, but after the tragic events that cause her to become comatose, Benigno becomes disturbingly attached. Meanwhile, Marco meets Benigno at the clinic after his love interest also becomes comatose. The best part about the film is the eerily fresh dialogue and interaction between Benigno and Marco. The rest leaves much to be desired.

Y Tu Mama Tambien - 7.75/10.00 or *** 1/2
A road trip motion picture that isn't distasteful. Somewhat of a new twist on an old genre, the film's ultimate power is in its unflinching betrayal of its two main characters, Tenoch and Julio. Yes, after a road trip with a beautiful girl named Ana, their lives change forever, they learn new things about each other and themselves, they "grow up." But there's more here than the typical cliches. Y Tu Mama Tambien features well shot sequences, witty and sometimes biting dialogue, excellent use of voiceover, and free use of expression (The graphic sex scenes and the "here's how it is" presentation are examples.). Makes me wish more films had the freedom to film what directors actually want to film. Acting is also a plus for the movie. The effects of this film grow after watching it.

Out of Sight - 8.00/10.00 or *** 1/2
Steven Soderbergh succeeds in this caper, comedy, romance, thriller. George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez star in this always entertaining film about a man who talks his way into or out of everything but can't seem to find a true sense of living. He makes money by robbing banks using his mouth only. But when Karen Sisco (Lopez) is on his tail, the game is changed, but maybe not in the way either of them expect. Clooney and Lopez have strong chemistry, as provided in an excellent dream sequence. Soderbergh uses a technique of freezing the frame during this sequence that adds much to the scene. I just wish he wouldn't freeze the frame in other scenes of the movie. That small complaint aside, there is little else to complain about with this film. Solid support by several big names also helps.

Ghostbusters - 3.50/10.00 or * 1/2
Yuck. Nothing is worse than a film that tries to be campy and doesn't succeed. The film is a waste of talent and a waste of my time. The story of how three losers (sort of) succeed in life by eradicating ghosts and evil itself. Woohoo. More like boohoo (No pun intended.). The film is too unfunny, slow, and stupid for my taste. There is an extreme underuse of talent, like Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver, and Rick Moranis. Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, and Harold Ramis star in a film that is a shame to all three of these talents. Murray's hilarious performance in Caddyshack is marred by his lackluster one here. The ending is laughable, but not funny. A huge miss.

The Apartment - 7.00/10.00 or ***
I often wonder if I expect too much from so-called masterpiece films (the classics). An example is this film, claimed as one of the greatest ever made. Billy Wilder directs this film about a man who helps all other men out by renting out his apartment to his peers at work so he can get promoted. But his unhappiness is evident. He meets a beautiful girl named Fran, whom he immediately falls for. But her relationship with his boss proves to be troubling. Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacClaine star in an often brilliant but sometimes off-the-mark motion picture about self-absorption, romance, and redemption. The film is not really funny, usually not dramatic, and certainly not innovative. Worth a look but not worth the hype.

Full reviews upcoming in the next few days.