Reviews

First off, let me start off by saying I'm appalled at the stupidity in some of the comments regarding this episode. For the folks that are degrading David for "allowing a body to be thrown and left in the street"- UM HELLO??? He was being KIDNAPPED at GUNPOINT!!! Have YOU ever had a GUN pointed at your head?? You're not going to care about anything except YOUR own life. And people in circumstances like these react differently. I have gone through traumatic experiences. Trust me, you often freeze up. There is no logic. You're in survival mode- and also in a "WTF" mode. I really can't stand the fact that some commenters actually are claiming David's character was in the wrong. Blame the victim? I think not.

The power of this episode is the fact that a good 1/3 of it revolves around a continuous setting, vs quick jumps from scene to scene. After Keith goes away on business, David is left doubting his relationship and see's an attractive hitchhiker. He picks him up for 2 reasons I suspect. One- he's cute, and David was already "getting guys on the side" so to speak. And Two, this exhibits his overall kind nature to strangers. He has compassion. He believes this guy is in trouble. It may also show a hint of nativity on his part, but remember this is LA. Lots of crazies. And this was the first time the series dealt with a main character being put in a traumatizing situation with a complete stranger.

Remember, the series focuses on death. Both on how the main characters deal with it on a daily basis in their funeral home, and also how the people coming to them deal with it. Every episode opens with a way someone can die. And in David's case, this was terrifying because it basically hinders on the possibility that someone innocent can be taken for granted, by heartless people in this world.

The first 20 minutes also focus on other characters. The lunch between Brenda and her mother is quite funny- I always like their chemistry. Ruth getting told she's meddling by George with his past son is also the beginnings of the troublesome marriage the two will soon share.

But it is indeed David's storyline that is the highlight. And the actor playing the hitchhiker really nails the sociopath, bully role; you don't know what he's going to do or say next. The ride the two take is truly scary. Because we don't know whether David will live through it.

Kudos to the writers for coming up with a episode that broke barriers and thought outside the box. For someone like David, who often took life for granted and was uptight and often worried about meticulous things- this was a definite life changer for him. And in future episodes, he learns what he's truly fearing in life. Was it this experience that opened him up a bit more? And realized- It's HIMSELF he fears, and it's HIMSELF he must come to terms with, in order to except his life and be content with his family, and his relationship with Keith.

Four stars. A masterpiece.

I just got back from seeing The Revenant. Took my friend Helen to see it- we're both poor so we had to see a matinée and pool our money together. The movie is a total question mark. We both kept saying out loud "What's going on???" To audible groans from our fellow audience members. At one point, Helen got up and said "They're going to kill Leo- might as well leave now." It was the scene where they put cloth over his eyes after that bear attack. I convinced her to stay.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a 1800s frontiersman in the rural wilderness, who's a fur trader. When their camp is attacked by vicious Indians (Native Americans), they fight and then flee.

Then a bear attacks DiCaprio and in a gruesome 10 minutes we witness lot's of blood and screaming. I had to cover my eyes, and Helen went to the bathroom during this horrid turning of events.

Now it starts getting confusing. Leo's gang finds him, and because he knows where they're going- they agree to carry him around on a stretcher. But Tom Hardy, the evil one of the bunch, doesn't like this. He's a power hungry mongrel. He insists they leave him for dead. But DiCaprio's companion, someone who looks Native American too, pleas they don't do that. But somehow- Leo gets abandoned, and the Native American friend is killed by Hardy.

Leo then discovers the dead body of his friend- and pursues to cross the wilderness on his own. He befriends the Native Americans, saves a woman from being raped, hooks up with ANOTHER Native American who looks like his dead friend - and then has to hide in a dead horse because the bad guys return. Then he finally gets back to camp, and seeks revenge on Hardy. There's a final battle between them, and he finally kills Hardy.

Then he breathes heavily in the snow- see's a "spirit" of his dead friend, and the camera blacks out before we know if he dies or not. Just like the director did with his previous film, Birdman.

Helen and I agree that while the movie was visually stunning, it didn't make much sense. There was no character development. Leonardo Dicaprio spends most of the movie mumbling. "I couldn't understand what he was saying", Helen added. "He's supposed to be a fur trader. As a salesman, he wasn't very customer focused. I like to hear what my salesman says to me." We laughed at this, knowing it was a joke. But seriously- who was DiCaprio's character? There's no backstory. Hardy was also poorly written. Just evil to be evil.

Everyone says Leo is winning an Oscar for this, and he does have some scenes of intensity (his big Bear scene, his reflection in the cabin towards the end)- but it's nuanced and not very showy. Hard to win when you're too subdued.

And the whole Native American war didn't make a lick of sense either. What was the purpose for their battle? What benefit did either team get? They were stuck in the middle of a cold, heartless deadline. Why not make peace and work together?

FINAL GRADE: C for Confusing!

Just finished The Big Short- blows Spotlight out of the water! I loved it. The first 10 minutes made me think it was trying to ripoff The Wolf of Wall Street and GoodFellas with "gangsta tawk" voice- overs and camera stills, but trust me- this is not a distraction once the story gets going. While Spotlight focuses on the topic of scandalous Priests and the Catholic Church, The Big Short focuses on the housing market crash and corporate greed. In terms of topics alone, Big Short feels more important. I'm not downgrading the former movie's subject matter and dismissing it entirely. I'm simply stating Big Short already has a theme voters will relate to more.

Now let's get to the rest. First of all, Kudos to Adam McKay- this is a splendidly vibrant and compelling movie, and his direction is quick and alive. I think he's a VERY strong contender for Best Director, not only in the nomination department- but also the win. We'll see what DGA says, but right now he's in my predictions.

The acting was stronger then the ensemble work in Spolight, the former movie having a solid cast but no one seemed to really come to life save Tucci and Ruffalo. Where as here, EVERYBODY is electrifying. Christian Bale and Steve Carell are the standouts, and Bale def deserves a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Carell also - WOW- just didn't expect him to be this good after being slightly underwhelmed with his work last year in Foxcatcher. But he's brilliant in this- and both him and Bale are also very funny! I also enjoyed Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling, Finn Wittrock, Jeremy Strong, John Magaro and Marisa Tomei (the latter being a relief to see playing a wife who's actually the proper age; if this movie had been directed by David O. Russell, ten points for guessing who he would have cast).

The screenplay is also fresh and informative. Even if you're someone like me who doesn't understand all the fundamentals or backdrops for what caused the housing market crash or how banks operate, this movie breaks it down so it's a little more clear- and in fun, innovative ways including a cameo by Selena Gomez playing blackjack in Las Vegas.

I know Spotlight is still the favorite, but with a year so open and full of surprises- looking for an alternative to go against it might be The Big Short and not the sci-fi threesome (which may be a two pair or just a loner by Oscar Nomination morning). The Golden Globes are on January 10th- and if any movie is beating The Martian for the Comedy Globe, this is your horse to bet on. The SAG Ensemble award also could be going to The Big Short cast, which in my eyes did a hell of a better job then Spotlight's must quieter group

Steve Jobs has one of the worst movie titles in film history. Of all the names for the marketing team to come up with, this was the weakest one. If the Ashton Kutcher movie hadn't been released already, I am betting the farm this would have been named Jobs. That being said, the movie plays REALLY long- and until the ending, it's a talky bore.

Michael Fassbender plays the title role, and although he's a fine actor- Christian Bale (the original choice), should have been cast. Nonetheless Fassbender does what he can. We witness how the co-founder of Apple is during three behind-the-scenes unveiling's for his product, all before the 2000s.

When watching the movie, I was reminded of The Iron Lady with Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Both that film and this center around a famous public figure, but the movies aren't really about them or told as biopics. They are more personalized and experimental. Streep's movie is really about how a woman deals with dementia and her love for her husband. Fassbender's movie really is about how a man deals with narcissism and his love for his daughter. Both films are uneven and messy because the focus is too grounded in emotion, when the audience is more interested in their overall lives and not just these niche moments. Because of this, both movies are not that interesting to watch- but are elevated by strong performances. Streep won an Oscar for her role, and Fassbender will be nominated.

Kate Winslet, with an uneven accent, plays Steve Jobs' assistant who is the only person who can really stand up to him (well, that's a lie- since Seth Rogan and Jeff Daniels also have cat fights). I was a little annoyed with Winslet's personality, and awful hairdo. She starts getting on my nerves when she threatens to quit unless Steve can patch things up with his daughter. Any professional knows not to mix business with personal- and her job is to work for Apple, not be a therapist. Winslet is okay in her scenes, but her character is unlikable. If I were Steve Jobs, I would have fired her.

Then there's the business of Lisa- the daughter, and I guess the TRUE emotional back-story for the movie's purpose. Forget that I'm worth billions of dollars, I better run after my little girl and remind her that I plan to invent the iPod for her songs and that I remembered some dumb painting she made on the Macintosh when she was 5. The daughter is also unnerving because Steve Jobs was paying child support, and didn't love the Mother anymore. He owes nothing to his daughter if he doesn't wish to donate- but he attempts to show he cares, and she eventually folds in the parking lot (which looks just like the parking lot in the Tom Cruise movie Vanilla Sky).

Steve Jobs is talky and overtly uncinematic, so I was restless when viewing it. There is nothing happening but a lot of nerdy white people talking really fast and using big words to impress folks. Oh, sound like The Social Network all over again? Well, Aaron Sorkin wrote that too. He's not a good screenwriter- he's an elitist who has a big vocabulary. But he sucks at creating characters that are believable. Fassbender and Daniels aside, this movie is one of 2015's biggest disappointments.

FINAL GRADE: D

The film Spotlight plays like an average Joe type of movie. There is no inspiring cinematography or unique dialogue floating off the screen. It's a clean cut film about a team of reporters who decide to expose Priests molesting children in Boston- and later, we learn, all over the world.

It takes place in 2001, right when the internet was just starting to replace print journalism as the new way people read their news. As the story opens, we learn that a section of the Boston Globe- the movie's title- is suffering from low ratings and no readers. The new boss that is hired to direct the team asks the Editor of Spotlight, Michael Keaton, how long it will take for the next story to unfold.

"A few months, maybe more." Keaton says casually. This does not make his boss very enthused. The rest of the team, which includes Mark Ruffalo as an eager reporter, and Rachel McAdams as a bland one - begin digging for clues and interviewing victims of the Priests around town. Other people in town refuse to address the topic. Stanley Tucci, who is very good, eventually lets Ruffalo interview a victim who goes into deep detail on how his molestation took place. It's rather uncomfortable to hear, but necessary. McAdams also has interviews like this, and soon everybody wants the story to release. But then September 11th hits and they decide to wait. And wait longer.

While the subject matter of the movie is very interesting, I found the movie to be an uninspiring showcase of events save some strong performances- Ruffalo and Tucci are the best in show. Keaton is okay but nothing to write home about. And Rachel McAdams has NEVER been so dull. Why she's the only one in Oscar consideration is beyond me; her character lacks any personality other then to speak like a dial tone and be the sole female on the team. She can do better than this. But because the script is dominated by male personalities (and screenwriters), what more do you expect?

Is this the Best Picture of 2015? According to many sources, yes. It's the default, safe choice because allegedly voters aren't going to want to crown far more intriguing movies like The Martian, Mad Max, Brooklyn or Room- to name a few titles I found far more exhilarating. It's an okay attempt to tell this important story about a corrupt justice system and of course the Catholic Church in general. But it's stale when it comes to the artistry.

FINAL GRADE: C

I had been looking forward to this film for months, and upon finally viewing it- it's a huge disappointment. Todd Haynes, who's finest achievement is still Far From Heaven (2002), has a knack for creating intimate atmospheres with radiant colors and backdrops. Like Far from Heaven, he succeeds with the aesthetic values of the 1950s by giving us refined art direction and beautiful costumes. Unlike Far from Heaven, we are given wooden characters and a predictable script, with a score by Carter Burwell that sounds exactly like Philip Glass's creation for The Hours (2002).

Rooney Mara works in a department store, and finds herself attracted to Cate Blanchett, a well to do married woman who flirts with her while shopping for Christmas presents. Later they have lunch, and in the only truly well acted scene in the film, seem to connect almost instantaneously. The dialogue here is cleverly limited- so we can instead watch the suggestive gestures of both characters that indicate sexual attraction- and tension. It's too bad this is the only scene I felt was able to capture this. The rest of the movie unfolds like a poorly written episode of the series Mad Men, as the women keep meeting up secretly whilst the husband gets suspicious and even hires a detective to follow them to a hotel so he can later gain custody of Blanchett's child. This is because homosexuality is "naughty".

Perhaps the reason I felt bored watching Carol was that the material is old and tired. Sexual repression in the 50s? We've seen this so many times. Brokeback Mountain (2005) also dealt with homosexuality with two men- and with much sharper direction and a more interesting story. The actors there were also more believable. Speaking of the acting, Cate Blanchett is indeed the standout. She's not nearly as strong as I had heard or hoped for, but she's none the less ravishing and breathtaking to gaze upon. She's at the peek of her career now, with 2 Oscars under her belt, and indeed Carol should easily earn her a deserved 7th nomination. But besides a juicy scene towards the end, the character isn't that intriguing. There's a lot to be desired, and that easily could be the fault of the screenwriter (Phyllis Nagy), who adapted the script. Yes I get it- it's supposed to be subtle, but this character felt empty. Blanchett is a fine actress- we could have gotten some more fire from her character.

Rooney Mara is even more flat. She relies simply on her pretty face. I kept thinking Natalie Portman would have exuded so much more energy with the role, since both women have similar physical dynamics to their facial structures. Mara just comes off weak. There's not an ounce of integrity or feeling coming through with this performance. If that's how she was supposed to play it, then the fault lies in the director. How she won at Cannes is beyond me. She's not impressive at all. She's pretty, but that doesn't constitute good acting.

The rest of the cast is easily forgettable. Sarah Paulson has a thankless role, and she's usually very good (watch her in 12 Years a Slave). Mara's boyfriend is the worst acting I've seen all year; very high school drama club. Everyone else is going through their lines in a robotic tone.

This could have been an exceptional film. And I'm in the minority who didn't like it (it's currently one of the top reviewed films of 2015, and destined to be crowned with nominations on Oscar morning). But it left me feeling cold, and bored. I might just be sick of seeing movies about the 1950s and how everyone couldn't "talk about things like being gay, and sex, and racial relations" back then. The subject has been hammered over my head too many times. But the trailer for this movie was a love letter. Why couldn't the movie be the same? Mara and Blanchett are supposed to be in love, and yet their first meeting aside- I never really felt a true connection between them. There was never enough juice in their chemistry for me to believe it.

Gravity in physics means the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. Alfonso Cuaron's film that centers around outer space and Sandra Bullock, defines this notion both technically and emotionally.

I won't get into minute details of the film; I am not a science geek nor do I aspire to be one. I will say this is outstanding to look at, and aesthetically it is a triumph of both atmosphere and boundaries. Bullock plays a doctor who, along with George Clooney- an engineer- are dealing with an abrupt crisis that causes death and despair, and then for Bullock, ultimate survival.

I am not too keen on watching one-man shows unless there is something intriguing with the actor's personality. Tom Hanks succeeded to do this with Cast Away on a remote island; James Franco wasn't as successful but still sufficient in 27 Hours immersed in a cave; and Will Smith wasn't as forthcoming in I Am Legend, though that could also be because the movie itself was a laughably bad approach to isolation. Sandra Bullock, however, is quite impressive with her limited yet engaging presence. We want her to survive, but we also connect with her personally. She briefly confesses to Clooney (while they're plummeting in space) that she had a four year-old daughter who died unexpectedly. Now, she has nothing to live for. After the dire circumstances involving the mission, she must choose between accepting death, or willing to stand strong.

I won't say how the film concludes, only that it is quite satisfying and beautifully executed. While Clooney does his usual dose of Clooney-isms, Bullock is great at portraying a woman that is reserved and cautious in her approach to life, but still sympathetic.

The film over-all is awesome to watch and the visual effects are ahead of their time; there isn't a cartoon or CGI feel to the movie. A great experience.

The previews for "The Kids Are All Right" make the movie look like a lighthearted romp in the exploration of power lesbians who are married, have children and of course are incredibly wealthy. While this is certainly true, the plot unfolds into a less conventional story about loyalty, betrayal and commitment.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore- both at their prime and both looking amazing- play Nic and Jules, a married couple who have raised two children Laser and Joni, through artificial insemination. Bening is a controlling and analytical pain, who is the driving force in the household. Moore is more passive and sustained, but her insecurity is mainly escalated because of Bening's domineering ideals. While Nic is a successful doctor, Jules struggles to find time to incorporate her landscaping business. Enter Paul, played by Mark Ruffalo. He's the sperm donor that is discovered by the kids- played by Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson. Paul turns out to be a happy go lucky "nice" guy, who owns his own organic restaurant and is thrilled to meet his two kids. While Laser is skeptical at first to Paul's self-absorbed happiness, Joni- whose older, 18- likes him, and finds him to be a sporadic role model for her right before she goes to college.

The kids introduce Paul to Nic and Jules over lunch in their backyard patio, which itself is a summery joy to watch. Nic, who is fond of drinking too much wine, is apathetic and annoyed by Paul's gooey narcissism, but Jules takes an interest once Paul offers to help landscape her project. When the two abruptly fall into a lusty affair, Paul's "nice guy" image is suddenly shattered, and Jules must now face whether she would rather be with him or her overcritical wife.

"The Kids Are All Right" is a smart, witty and emotional look at a relationship that's a lot more complex then we first think. The screenplay is juicy and articulate. Written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, it strays away from obvious tactics of drama (I would have loathed if Paul got to have sex with both Jules & Nic) and instead examines its characters with extreme sensitivity. The dialog is never stupid. Nic and Jules are highly intellectual, and when they argue its more sympathetic. Neither over steps their boundaries or insults the other. They listen to each other and they care for each other. It's such a relief to watch real grownups playing real grownups. Too often we see adult actors stripped down to teenagers. Though Nic isn't afraid to drop the f bomb, she at least drops it while calling Paul an "interloper." These are not dumb people. And Nic especially comes off almost too intellectual then she wants to be.

Without giving away the ending, I must say that it was an unexpected one. Not in a twist of any sense. Just that it was handled realistically and heartfelt rather then going for the cheap way out. The more we explore Paul's actions with Jules, the more we get a sense of his true character. Is he really a nice guy who wants to help this family? Or is he just horny for Julianne Moore? Speaking of Moore, what a performance! It makes me realize why she is a 4-time Oscar nominee and why she is hailed for being so subversively strong. Her final speech to the family is one that should go down as breathtaking. It's such a felt moment for the character and the audience. I also can't end the review without praising Annette Bening. This is by far her most mature performance to date, and much more polished and inhibited then her hammy turn in "American Beauty". Both roles require her to be an overbearing mother, but in "The Kids Are All Right" we get to see her angle for being so and her hidden morality. She is just so bold and injected in this role and her Oscar nomination for it is very deserved. I wanted to see more of Nic, and this is probably why the film doesn't earn a 10 from me. We see more of Jules in regards to her desires and passions, but Nic is one to be left for the stars. Still, there's so much fire in this performance. Watch, for instance, the scene where Bening returns to the dinner table after discovering Jules is cheating on her. The glaze of fury and then resilience in her face is spot on.

"The Kids Are All Right" is one of the best films of 2010 but also one of the smartest. You can tell the screenwriters were very adamant about making sure the story came off real. And it did.

Just saw 127 Hours and this was a spectacular experience! James Franco is truly remarkable, and gives a touching and triumphant performance of a man forced to take survival to the next level. While Tom Hanks had a whole island to explore and grow on, Franco has an arm wedged in-between a rock in a canyon. And he makes the most of it, with the infamous "amputation" scene being just as graphic and terrifying as its hyped to be.

I also want to praise the ending. I have been recently let down by endings from two other Oscar contenders (Black Swan and Blue Valentine). But this one has a satisfying finish, though no movie ending has ended as emotionally as The King's Speech this year. Kudos to Danny Boyle for bringing Franco's situation to other levels by inserting visions and hyper-hallucinations into the movie.

The best acting I saw from Franco was actually a smaller moment. When he's bidding farewell to the two pretty ladies who accompany him on a mini-adventure, they tell him about a party they want him to come to. As they're talking to him about it, he intertwines some "Umm-hmmms" and "uh-huhs" into the mix. The flat and almost automated way he speaks this dialog is extremely convincing. I have met many a guy who is sort of rushed in their way of interaction, and so the words he speaks come across muddled but still friendly. Franco also was a character who was sort of a loner in his own respect, and marched to his own drummer. And that comes across so well in Franco's interpretation.

This is one of the best films of 2010, and James Franco deserved his best actor Oscar nod. Also the music is uplifting and pat, and the song "If I Rise" is beautiful.

"Black Swan"is a dark look at the world of ballet, but its only giving us a surface of what makes it so biting. Natalie Portman delivers an outstanding performance, but because we can't really relate to her or understand her motives, it just looks like a really great piece of chocolate that's too bitter to enjoy.

Portman is Nina, a hyper-sensitive, vulnerable beauty that lives with her mother in New York in quite a nice pad for a single parent. There's evidence that she cuts herself and is a perfectionist, and the first time we see her dance she's punishing her poise and acting like the world is about to demolish. Over-dramatic? Of course all artists are like this, but in Nina's case she seems to be twirling in her own universe. She wants the role of the Snow Queen, the lead role in the premiere ballet of a French Director whose so positively sleazy his accent justifies his predictable actions. She confronts him in his office about getting the role, and when he tries to seduce her she bites him. 10 minutes later she finds out she has landed the role. Is the director intoxicated by her hard to get actions? Or is she just that great? Nina is a great dancer, but technique- as he points out- isn't everything. She needs to lose herself in the role of the White Swan & later the darker Black Swan. She seems to be able to play the White Swan fine. After all, the White Swan is delicate and refrained. But the Black Swan is elaborate, sultry and relaxed. Nothing that Nina is used to. This whole White Swan/Black Swan ordeal would work if we understood what makes Nina so uptight and scared when she dances? Its as if she performing for Hitler every time. I would have understood this fear more if it escalated as the rehearsals progressed. But instead, she remains psychotic from day one. It's like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining": We knew he was a nut the moment he entered the Overlook Hotel. No need to be shocked he later tried to murder his family. Nina is a mess from the start, and so she ends the same way.

The other problem with "Black Swan" is the confusion of reality. What's real and what's a hallucination? Nina meets a girl named Lily who resembles her quite a bit and also is more vivacious and forward. This tips Nina into thinking Lily is trying to back stab her for the part. Or is she just this innocent sexpot? The movie can't decide and neither can the audience. The cinematography is so jerky that we're inept to think this is all just a mind twist.

Without revealing the ending, I will say its a bit daunting and underwhelming. Nina's final curtain is supposed to be a spectacular emotional moment, but instead we're still looking for clues as to what the hell is wrong with this girl, and what makes her so paranoid? Why is her mother this abstract figure in her life? Why is Lily coming across as a mysterious persona? And does her director just want sex or does he believe in her? There's also the business of Winona Ryder, who plays a brief role of a has-been who tries to warn Nina of the directors ways. After she's hurt in a senseless accident, we never really get a glimpse of her purpose. She's just thrown in for a reason to see a drunk woman say nasty obscenities to the new star.

Natalie Portman luckily kept me intrigued the entire way through. She's extremely beautiful to gaze upon and her dancing is impeccable for a movie star's standards. It's just too bad even her performance can't save this dying swan that's got a lot of potential, but not enough empathy for me to care about the outcome.

"It's Complicated" has a premise that's first of all not meant to be unfolded into a 2 hour film. The story is simple enough that we really don't need the extra baggage Meyers piles on us, though even here it doesn't matter.

Meryl Streep, who is effortless as always in showing us a woman usually uptight in her ways but still joyful, plays a recently divorced woman who is still (of course) successful in business. She runs her own catering company. She also has three successful children, all in their college years, who I had a hard time reading since they seem plucked out of 1960s sitcom land. Her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin, has married a young uptight bitch, whose son is a royal pain and whose main objective in this movie is to be "the villain". Hence she gets no back-story or even a glimpse of dimension. Steve Martin is Streep's reserved architect, designing her dream home and also sharing chocolate croissants with her and basking in loneliness together.

The major plot: Alec Baldwin decides he wants to have an affair with Streep when they all go to New York for a graduation, and Streep can't handle this because...well it's complicated.

The problem with the movie is that the stakes are way too low. How is the audience supposed to care about Meryl being so enraged with Alec for seducing her? She's not married. Her children are gone. She has no commitments. There's a possible attraction to Steve, but it's not confirmed. When she spills the beans to her children, they behave like nine year-olds and run into a separate bedroom with they all huddle on the bed together as if they've been drafted to Iraq. Get over it- your parents are rich enough to own a country and you're all getting your tuition paid for. In a really annoying scene, Streep hands over her credit card to her son so he can go "party it up" in New York. Yeah, these people have real issues all right.

There are, of course, parts of the movie that work. I enjoyed watching Streep and Baldwin together, talk about getting old together and their chemistry. The scene where Streep and Martin get high together is the one major laugh in the film, as the pacing is excellent and the absurdity of these mature, grown squares lighting it up as if they're frat boys is comical. But these are the few exceptions.

Of the three principal performances, Meryl Streep comes off glowing. Despite the flawed plot and dreadful screenplay, Streep gives one of her most relaxed and sensual performances. She seems so on top in her form that its a shame the rest of the picture couldn't be as dedicated. Her expressions are as strong as her use with dialect, and in one particular fun scene she gives a glaring look to her ex's new squeeze in an elevator.

The film has made over $110 million domestically, and almost $200 million worldwide. It pretty much demonstrates that Streep, Baldwin and Martin can still gather in the crowds. And it's nice to see older couples dealing with relationship issues. But I'm surprised still at the high numbers for a movie that really doesn't need to be longer then twenty minutes.

FINAL GRADE: D+

How can you not love this movie? It's easily the best movie to come out of Hollywood in 1988, not just because of its winsome charm and observant hilarity, but because you can watch it over and over and still find freshness in the story.

Melanie Griffith, in her only great role, is Tess McGill. She's smart, good on her feet but suffers from being taken as a tart, mainly because she's a good looking blonde and talks like Marilyn Monroe. She works as a secretary in New York, but quits when her first boss turns out to be a sleaze. Her next job is also that of a secretary, but her boss is more like able. Enter Katharine Parker, played by the brilliantly endowed Sigourney Weaver, who Tess warms up to more because a) Katharine is a woman, and b) Katharine seems inclined to help Tess move up.

But the cards are changed when Katharine is in a skiing accident, and Tess is forced to take over. She doesn't mind, until she finds out Katharine was going to steal one of her ideas to turn the industry they work for into a radio network. Now it's payback time. After also discovering her boyfriend, Alec Baldwin, is cheating on her, Tess goes into high gear to get her idea heard by the big leagues- even if it means posing as a boss- before her boss gets back.

All of this may sound very predictable, but director Mike Nichols is so wise in making the characters seem fresh and fun that you never worry. The stakes are set on high ground, and Tess is competing in a sexist society where men treat secretaries like dogs and women are expected to marry jerks like Baldwin. Enter Harrison Ford, who is perfectly toned down for the occasion, who finds himself involved with Griffith because he's the guy who can pull the strings to close the deal Tess needs. The two form a partnership, and affair, that is both brisk and entertaining. Joan Cusack also has a fabulous role as Tess's best friend who has a money-stealing scene where she poses as Tess's secretary and can't help but liven the scene a bit more.

"Working Girl" was nominated for 6 Academy Awards in 1988, winning a deserved song trophy. But It should have taken a few more. While Griffith was charming and cute as Tess, I do think Jodie Foster deserved the Oscar more for "The Accused" (and Meryl Streep should have won for "A Cry in the Dark" if we're being frank). But Sigourney Weaver was robbed the Oscar for best supporting actress for playing the snooty, conniving boss. It suits Weavers perfectly that she only is in the first and last parts of the film, but every second she's on screen she owns. She radiantly plays it coy and sheek, and submerges into more deviant tactics without going over the top. Watch, for example, the scene where Weaver coolly explains to Griffith that she can't get anywhere in life waiting for opportunity to come to her. It's subtle but strong in the message that indicates Weaver knows she's better then Griffith, and will always have the thrown of success. Weaver lost to one of my favorites, Geena Davis in "The Accidental Tourist". I love Davis in the role, but I love Weaver more. Davis should have won for "Thelma & Louise." "Working Girl" is one of best comedies ever made. The pacing, timing and accuracy of all the characters and their motives are perfectly matched.

The thing that separates "Precious" from other movies that insert physical abuse and incest on the screen is that it doesn't feel contrived or forced. These are real people we're watching, there is no unnecessary dramatic interludes of music, and it isn't a PG-13 rip-off so that twelve year-old white girls can go and feel they've "experienced" urban culture.

It is a fast-paced, raw display of domestic abuse and finding your roots to 'push' yourself forward.

Gabourey Sidibe delivers an earth-shattering performance as Precious, a sixteen year-old obese girl living in New York in the eighties who suffers from having a mother so abusive, she makes Ike Turner seem like Mr. Brady of "The Brady Bunch". She is pregnant with her father's second child, but acts indifferent and pretty normal in school- until she is transferred to a special learning center to help girls prepare for their GED by writing.

The simplistic nature of the plot helps pave the way for moments of power and incredibly sad scenes. Mo'Nique (who right now is a shoo-in for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar) is flawless as Mary, the dominant, insufferable mother who makes it her duty to harm, torture and abuse Sidibe's character- yet Sidibe stands strong, isn't beating herself up every day, and actually wakes up every morning and keeps doing her thing. This makes me think of all the hopeless, lame people I know who have problems minuscule to this girl, yet drown in their sorrow every day wanting attention from anyone who will listen. Precious is a heroic figure in that she never drops her guard, and keeps on going even when news gets worse and worse for her.

Mariah Carey also turns in a surprisingly honest and passive performance as a understanding Welfare officer who has sessions with Precious (and later Mary)and never feels fake or abstract in her approach. Its a nice turn, though an Oscar nomination may not quite be there...yet.

The rest of the cast is also stellar, and you're never bored. Its an emotional experience (especially the final twenty minutes), so be prepared to see one of the best films of the year.

Oh how I so wanted to be scared of this film. And truly appreciate its "artistry". But sadly, I am mundane and skeptical. Here is a film made for less than $15,000 that is now on its way to grossing over $100 million domestically. It is pretty much "The Blair Witch Project" ten years later. While that film captured true horror by never showing us anything remotely 'horrific', it was the idea of the horror that led us to find the movie chilling and heroic.

"Paranormal Activity", which by the way should read 2009, not 2007, under IMDb, is a loathsomely tedious experience. It builds nicely- I admit I was nervous in the first thirty minute cycle. We meet the couple. He is a salicylic investment banker, she's his clingy girlfriend. They move into a nice house that has a pool that's apparently larger then their turf. But we know from the start why this is shot on a handy-cam. He has been videotaping their life because of the "activity" that has been going on. Weird noises at night. Bumps from downstairs. And worse of all- unexplainable happenings like fires starting, footsteps appearing, and actual levitation miraculously occurring.

Perhaps what makes this synopsis so frightening are two things. One, the couple appear to be real. Its like watching your friends on home video. Two, no music soundtrack. So you basically have to endure long periods of silence while their sleeping, ultimately wondering what will happen next. That part's scary. What's not scary is what actually happens. (Do not read further if you don't wish to be informed).

Without giving away too much, let's just say the happenings become more hokey, and if you're not religious you'll really laugh a quite a bit of what happens (there's a scene where the woman is dragged out of bed by the "demon" and flung to the floor, where the door slams behind her.) Many screamed in the audience. I was trying my best not to laugh too hard.

The conclusion of this over-hyped fiasco is what really makes me cringe. Without giving too much away, let's just say too much is revealed in too scarce amount of time for us to care, or sympathize, or even understand. If you've seen "The Ring", you'll get a general idea of where I'm coming from.

"Paranormal Activity" has been dubbed by some as the most frightening movie ever made. Hardly. It's not even the scariest film of the year. It's clever at best, but not scary or frightening except maybe when you dread what will happen. The critics who knight it the best ever have either only watched movies that have come out in the past decade, or simply have not seen "The Shining", "Jacob's Ladder", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "The Silence of the Lambs", "Psycho" or "The Exorcist"- let alone "Rosemary's Baby"- which is still the best horror film to contrive the idea of demonic happenings without revealing it. Save your money on this dud and rent it on Netflix. You're sure to conjure up more "paranormal" activity in your own work life then what is presented here.

"The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" could have been a very engaging experience for the art of selling cars. A car salesman, like the trusty insurance salesman and proficient civil attorney, is a hustler in his own right. He or she must convince the buyer of two things: that they're getting a good car, and that they're the right person for the car. If you can win a buyer with your charm, who cares about the merchandise your hoaxing them into getting? And so brings the comedy "The Goods...", with Jeremy Piven as our leading man. The three-time Emmy award winning actor from "Entourage" (and for you hardcore enthusiasts, "Ellen"), he doesn't quite have the Robert Downey, Jr. charm it takes to hold a flaky movie like this together. He's more of a supporting player. He is NO leading man.

The plot centers around him and a group of perverse car salespeople who decide to see if they can sell 200 cars off a lot in a short period of time. The purpose? More complicated then it seems, but really to impress a bunch of old rich white men. And to keep their jobs. Needless to say, we get plenty of scenes involving cars being sold, but not enough realism about the actual job. There's too much unnecessary sex jokes, too much scattered comedy for us to really invest in these characters.

If you want to see a good movie about selling things, rent "Glengarry Glen Ross"- an all-star cast playing sales people who must sell the most leads to keep themselves employed. David Mamet wrote the screenplay based on his play, and the movie stars Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris, Jonathan Pryce and Alec Baldwin (in a role he still can brag is his best).

There's a dumb subplot in "The Goods..." involving Piven and some wooden blond female he likes a lot. For what reason, I don't know- she has no interesting qualities other then her sexy lips. The only funny part of the movie involves two scenarios- one has a very old racist man trying to sell a car to a couple, and one has Will Ferrell falling to his death from an airplane. Oh, and two black women telling Piven he's too old to have a facebook account. That's about it. Ving Rhames has a thankless role of a man who is so stupid he has to tell a woman "Yesa ma'am, I do likes me a smart woman." Really? Is this how low the screenwriters have to sink- make the black guy dumb. Of course.

Big time waster.

Biopics are hard to sit through if you're tired of seeing drug addicts, hookers and mafia types mingle their way to fame and fortune. Luckily "Julie & Julia" is light entertainment that isn't about any of these things.

Amy Adams is Julie Powell, an underachieving nobody who moves to Queens with her husband in a small apartment above a pizzeria. Every day she sits at her cubicle coping with callers who are still sick with 9-11 trauma. While her more successful girlfriends are all VPs of their companies, Powell is a minute insect who longs to be someone at the age of thirty. Can we blame her? She's impending on a mid-life crisis and is stuck with a husband whose more dull then a stack of nails.

One night she decides she does have a talent- she can throw down in the kitchen like nobody's business. And the food she prepares is yummy and good! So she decides to blog about her cooking all 500+ recipes in "The Art of French Cooking" from Julia Child, the famous renown chef and Television personality. Adams, who has found a knack for her films roles (she's Australian but sounds perfectly Midwestern) falls right into home with her whiny character.

Enter Meryl Streep, who plays Julia Child. Director Nora Ephran ("Sleepless in Seattle") has merged these two women's stories together, and as Adams' storyline unfolds, so does Streep's. The Julia Child storyline is more fun, as we embark on a journey to see how Ms. Child came to be the robust, lively and 6'2 legend that she will remain today. Streep has the gusto to play her to, though sometimes her uncanny accent goes a little over the top ("Ohhhhh yessss, I knoowwww"). Still, there's a lot to like in the performances, contrived from Streep like a Saturday Night Live sketch with more stuffing, and plenty of imminent chemistry with co-star Stanley Tucci, as her patient husband.

"Julie & Julia" is a fun time in the theater (and it makes you hungry), but what lacks from this two-character tale is tension and plot. What really happens? Julie has a few meltdowns in the kitchen and keeps dropping her boneless chicken on the floor. Julia can't pass the exams to get her cooking certificate? Where's the savage villain? Where's the subplot involving Child and her distaste of Powell later on when she found out about the blog? Now THAT would be something to boost the structure of the plot. There's never a dull moment in the movie (except maybe in the final fourth), but there certainly was room for MORE concise paranoia in which we could see the two women really tackle their issues. Another critic made a good point about the Adams character- where's her supportive gay work friend? Is her bland husband the only source she has to lean upon- and feed? Streep lost the Oscar for Best Actress last year to Kate Winslet in "The Reader". While I highly supported a win for Streep in "Doubt", there was no 'doubt' Winslet was past due for her subversive work in Daldry's masterpiece. However, is "Julie & Julia" really going to win Streep her third Oscar? She's charming as Julia Child, and nails the characterization- but there isn't a scene that truly depicts her as a woman (minus perhaps the breakdown in the kitchen, but that's nothing to hoohah about). A tasty morsel that's best described as a prominent appetizer.

FINAL GRADE: B-

Stephen Daldry's "The Hours" is a more a tribute to fine editing and abrasive situations then a true storyline. Set in three different time periods (1921, 1949, 2001), you will follow three women all sharing a similar experience.

Nicole Kidman, who won the Best Actress Oscar, is Virginia Woolf, who is writing a story about a woman buying flowers for a party. Julianne Moore is a bored housewife reading Woolf's book and experiencing the same ordeals. And Meryl Streep is actually living the life of the woman in the book, in the process of planning a party for AIDS victim Ed Harris, who is also her ex-husband.

This all sounds too juicy to be true (and probably a perfect cloud 9 experience for the author its based on, who won the Pulizter Prize- did I spell that right?) The music, by Phillip Glass, is imperative but gorgeous, and the editing is probably the best part of the movie. Though the story itself is dark and depressing, the performances are so immaculate it should be noted that this was probably one of the best casts of 2002- if not the 2000s. With Miranda Richardson, John C. Reilly, Toni Collette, Jeff Daniels, Margo Martindale and Claire Danes just to name a few, you should impend yourself on a movie-going experience unlike no other.

So which of the three main leads deserved all the acclaim? Well all of them do a pretty damn good job. Even Streep, who feels a bit exhausting here since she's just so ABOVE the rest of her co-stars in the way she inhibits her sadness and then breaks down in her kitchen ("I seem to be unraveling" she says to Daniels, her ex's new lover).

Julianne Moore does a good dose of underacting, with that dry, isolated characterization she usually churns up that critics seem to like (it didn't work for her in "Hannibal" though, where she just came across boring). She's an unhappy wife married to John C. Reilly, and raising a child (soon to be Harris) even though she doesn't love anything in her life. She abandons it all to go find her true calling (apparently being a lesbian). It's all fine, but her character is quite hat able.

Finally there's Nicole Kidman, fresh off her "Moulin Rouge!" and "The Others" acclaim, and Tom Cruise divorce. Here she seems to know all the boundaries of Woolf, and all the right facial expressions. She confabulates with a perfect British accent, and speaks in low and crippled whispers as if she is playing Norman Bates roommate. None the less it's quite exhilarating and fun to watch, and it is indeed the Kidman segments that reign the most watchable, if only because there are such limited scenes. Virginia Woolf, a proclaimed bisexual and genius of her time, committed suicide as more of a spiritual undoing then anything. If Kidman's work as the famous author is proof that she indeed HAD the potential of being the next Katharine Hepburn (and I think she did until she did "Bewitched" with Will Ferrell), then we all should be applauding the academy on its decision to knight her their highest honor.

"The Hours" is not for the frat boy who likes John Woo action films or the stoners who like "Superbad"- this is a movie for which mostly mature women and gay audiences will find the most sympathy.

FINAL GRADE: A-

"The Devil Wears Prada" is not sheik in how it presents its material- its more pretty and layered. However, the costumes (designed by Oscar-nominee Patricia Field) certainly hold all the weight of a runway show.

This was a film that probably would have been shelved into oblivion had it not been for Meryl Streep being attached to the project. Haven lost a lot of weight, dyed her hair a platinum white, and walking in with flamboyant coats, Ms. Streep seems born to play Miranda Priestley, the fierce and ruthless editor-in-chief of a top fashion magazine. She allegedly based her parody off real life editor-in-chief boss from hell Anna Wintour (from Vogue), though changed her accent to American and toned down her process of dialect to a more subtle and observant tone.

So as much as I loved watching Meryl sink her teeth into her best work of the decade (her line "Why is no one ready?" during a meeting is perhaps one of the best line deliveries I have ever witnessed), I couldn't help but cringe at Anne Hathaway's shrewd appearance, whiny manner and consistency of being a royal pain in the butt. I didn't mind Streep (or the great Emily Blunt) bossing the new assistant around because frankly she needed a dose of reality- what would-be New York journalist doesn't research the boss she's going to work for? "The Devil Wears Prada" is basically Hathaway's journey into self-identity, complete with a hot boyfriend on the side and irritable friends to boot- as well as impossible tasks to do for Miranda (the best being to fetch the never-yet published Harry Potter manuscript).

Eight stars out of ten ain't bad considering seven belong to Streep. If Helen Mirren hadn't stolen the Oscar that was meant for Meryl in 2006, we wouldn't be complaining for the academy to hand over a third Oscar for the lighter "Julie & Julia". But Streep embarks a clean technique in the way she handles the character, presents her anthologies, and dresses the body (Streep probably has NEVER looked better on screen, and she's 56).

So please see this comedy-drama, if only to see Streep and Stanley Tucci teach the less talented Anne Hathaway how to have some true respect for the work force, and also engage in a laugh or to.

FINAL GRADE: A- (all for Streep and the costumes)

Movies about stand-up comedians are far and few between, but the ones that work ("Punchline", "The King of Comedy") know they're movies ABOUT stand up, and nothing else. The problem with "Funny People" is that it starts out as a story about people trying to be comics, and goes into a whole new direction that bares no resemblance to funny-anything.

Adam Sandler stars as the Jim Carrey of our day, who is told by his doctor he has a rare disease that is going to kill him shortly. Discouraged, Sandler decides to keep on going on with his stand-up acts by hiring a would-be comic to help write his jokes. Enter Seth Rogen, who has blown to Will Ferrell heights since "Knocked Up" made him a household name. Rogen is a timid, boring sap who struggles to make his personality work on stage, while also living in Los Angeles with his two more successful roommates. The scenes involving him and his two friends are by far the funniest bits in the movie, and a direction the director should have stayed on- along with the sharp screenwriters who obviously HAVE seen what its like to be a stand-up comedian, but try to fit too much "access baggage" on top of the plot. Rogen becomes Sandler's assistant, and in one of the movies funniest scenes, shares a night in his mansion with two chicks who are star hungry. Sandler gets the hot black chick, and Rogen has the Caucasian groupie. She tells him she has a boyfriend and won't sleep with him, but really its because Rogen lacks game and is kind of a loser, so she also has sex with Sandler.

To make a long story short (and the film clocks in at a painful 155 minutes), Sandler teaches Rogen to gain more confidence (I guess- their relationship is a bit passive-aggressive), and Rogen teaches Sandler to respect women better? Honestly, I don't know. All I know is once Sandler finds out he's going to live, we're at the 90 minute mark and have had a VERY successful and funny film.

Unfortunately, this is where the story takes another path and Sandler tries to get back with his ex-wife who is now married to an Australian prick who treats her with no respect. So Rogen follows Sandler to his ex's suburban home to try to get back with her, and 70 minutes later we're still in this pointless triangle. I won't tell you how it ends, but suffice it to say we didn't need this extra stuff that should have been used in the deleted scenes pile.

The movie feels like 2 films in fact- the first one being a up-roaring, FUNNY and well-paced treasure, with one of Sandler's best performances and Rogen getting into his subtle side. But the second "film" is a tiresome bore, with only a few scenes here and there that work (the dinner table scene with the little girls speaking Chinese, and the lawn fight in which for the first time I think ever in the history of comedies the two alpha males actually fight like normal people would, and not how The Hulk and Terminator would on your average Saturday night).

Two stars out of four, because this one really had potential to be the best comedy of the year but fails once we have to sit for nearly three hours to see pretty much nothing change. (R, 155 minutes- **)

"(500) Days of Summer" is cleverly contrived, and at times very funny. The performances by the two leads are believable, concise and motivated. But despite a dependable build up of sharp characterization and witty exchanges, the conclusion is somewhat dishonest in the way it presents Zooey Deschanel's Summer.

She's an independent, subdued woman, very pretty yet her eyes are hollow and almost condescending. She dates Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) but makes it clear to him that she just wants a casual tryst. He understands, but of course starts falling for her. In no time at all he's making complicated reasons why she should be with him. She let's him know numerous occasions that she doesn't believe in true romance.

This is all fine- a profound homage to 1970s romanticism when Diane Keaton and Glenda Jackson could be outspoken role models for their audiences. However, the ending is then a 360 degree mess- when (Spoiler) Summer meets up with Tom months later, only to be a married woman to some guy she met in a coffee shop. What gives? Wasn't she someone not into the love scene? She tells him it just happened, but like him we are confused and tired out from her reasoning.

"(500) Days of Summer" is a breath of fresh air to film enthusiasts like me who love to see a storyline finally build in realism with people and relationships vs. cheap beer parties and Megan Fox taking her top off. But the screenwriter obviously needs to still give us a little more insight into why Summer's character aloofly refuses Tom, but accepts some minuscule nobody we never even get to see.

Wow I am shocked at how bad this film was! It was a boring, pointless 2 hour pain that I am surprised has gotten so many great reviews. I think many posters on here miss the point when people like me complain about the movie. I thought Winslet was okay, but seemed mannered and annoying. DiCaprio was just flat out annoying in this. He sounded like a 15 year-old boy at his first high school play. Both actors seemed, again, far too young to be playing these characters. The film lacks story arc, structure, and most importantly...CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! One of the first things they teach you in film school (Mr. Mendes) is that you need to have CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT to make your audience care about what's happening to the people on screen. This movie opens up with Kate and Leo fighting. We don't care about the fight, however, because we don't know who the hell these people are. As the movie progresses, we still don't see anything hint about who these people are. He works at a boring job. She's a housewife. Gee, like we never have seen one of these stories be told before. And then- nothing happens! There's no plot! The movie is an excuse for Winslet and DiCaprio to have yelling matches together. It's like watching a VH1 reality show shot in 35mm. What's more, we don't feel or care about the characters. When ever Winslet cried, I cringed. It's being touted as one of her best performances? Really? I thought it was mannered, controlled and whiny. She's done billions times better then this stuff. And DiCaprio is just flat-out BAD. Perhaps I would think they did better jobs if I cared at all about the movie's premise. On top of this, the film is morbidly predictable, and cliché. (SPOILER!) When Kate is "Upset" one morning, and having a fit in the kitchen, Leo asks her what's wrong. It's so blatantly obvious she's pregnant, and having "Morning Cramps". And then of course, she says she wants an abortion. I knew what was going to happen before it did. Mendes, a master of storytelling with American BEAUTY and ROAD TO PERDITION, fails so low here I almost feel bad for him. Every shot of this movie looks like its designed for Academy Awards in the Art Direction and Cinematography department. But there's no substance at all to the storytelling. Every shot is a silhouette or closeup of boring dramatic angles that mean nothing other then to have dumb audiences go "Oooo, now that's a great camera angle." If this movie gets nominations from the Oscars (which it will), I will know its because those voters haven't seen the movie yet, and are voting for it on name bases alone. FINAL GRADE: F

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a gorgeously shot film about a boy who is born old and gray, and ages backwards. While others around him age forward and die before him, he ages the other way- and gains youth. The film, directed by David Fincher (Zodiac), and written by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump), is 167 minutes but seems to fly by as you're taken into a World War I and flown through Benjamin's lifetime of mystery, sex and love.

I think what makes the film work the best is Cate Blanchett, who has never been as luminous, gorgeous or stellar. It's as if she knew her character so well, she melted into it. Blanchett meets Benjamin when she's a little girl, but as their lives intertwine, she realizes his secret, but grows to love him anyways. In some scenes involving breathtaking cinematography, the two form a bond that's stronger then sexual passion- there seems to be a spiritual trust that surges between their souls. Cate plays herself as an old woman too, and in pounds of makeup, confesses to her daughter- Ormond- about her life with Benjamin. I hope Blanchett is nominated for an Oscar for this performance, however with competition being so tight she sadly might miss. I hope she makes it.

Brad Pitt is fine as Button, but I felt a certain element lacking from his performance. Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump" also plays a man with a disability who floats through life in amazing adventures. But Hanks was able to capture a certain depth to Gump that Pitt is overtly lacking. It seems Pitt plays Button with the same dismal note over and over again, only sometimes taking the character to another level. He is still incredible to watch.

Taraja B. Henson (Hustle & Flow) is a nice surprise as Queenie, who takes care of Button once she discovers him on her doorstep. Playing the role with enough sass to put Hattie McDaniel to shame, I often found myself thinking she was playing the role to the stereotype. But she's adorable none the less.

The biggest winners from "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" should be the makeup artists. Not only do they make Blanchett and Pitt appear older, but also YOUNGER! Pitt, in his 40s, at one time looks 25 again. And it's sexy as well as creepy. Blanchett, a ballet dancer in her prime of the film, is shown as a giddy 19 year-old and also a 55 year-old widow. It's brilliant to see how the makeup mixed with the actors can make this film go beyond it's level of greatness.

Over-all the film has excellent music, beautiful costumes, and riveting messages about death and being happy to be alive. Tilda Swinton also turns out a brief but powerful turn as a rich woman who shows Benjamin true passion for the first time. Bravo again- to Ms. Blanchett!

Here it is at long last. The one thing SEX AND THE CITY fans wanted after the series finale in late 2003 was a movie continuing the relationships we had grown to love. We also wanted to know if Mr. Big really was the guy for Carrie Bradshaw. Now, after almost five years, the big screen adaptation is out in the open. And is it big! At over two hours long, we're almost spoiled with vibrant cinematography, breathtaking costumes, elaborate and witty dialogue, and some interesting twists along the way. Most likely this review will only be enjoyable if you already were a fan of the show. Likewise, this is why most stubborn critics are panning the film- they never tuned into HBO to watch the damn thing! I will attest again that before you read the rest of this review, proceed with caution- I do give away a lot of secrets. Perhaps come back and read it once you've viewed the film.

We're also spoiled that Michael Patrick King wrote and directed it, considering he was the main writer/director for many of the key episodes of SEX AND THE CITY. The movie takes us right where we left off. Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker), has now made it official- she's with John (Chris Noth) aka Mr. Big, for good. This is not to say that we're at all surprised- during the entire series she was in and out of bed with him for many an outing (including an affair she struck up with him while in a serious relationship with someone else). He asks her what she wants from him- she says "a really big closet." Her wish is his financial command. And then they decide to get married.

Meanwhile, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), is busy taking in the fact that Steve has cheated on her- only once. It's an excuse to get some "Drama" going once the girls sit down for their daily coffee shop talks. Samantha (Kim Cattrall- looking amazing at 52), has moved to Los Angeles with her live-in movie star boyfriend Smith, who has seen her through a lot of things, including Cancer. They seem just fine. And Charlotte (Kristin Davis), decides once and for all that besides having an adopted Chinese daughter, she will also get pregnant- which she does, this time successfully.

All of these story lines intertwine just as they did in the show, with one big dramatic moment audience members may not expect. Carrie is given huge publicity (and stunning wedding gowns), for her upcoming marriage to Big. But apparently he's not ready for a third wedding to be so glamorous and big. So events happen that cause Carrie to go into a mental state of depression, and also an excuse for the four women to vacation to Mexico, where Charlotte has an incident that provides on of the movie's biggest laughs.

Jennifer Hudson, who I feared would ruin the movie considering she's no actress in my book, makes brief appearances as Carrie's assistant- to undergo tasks such as uploading her personal files, and unpacking her personal shoe collection. Her presence is neither necessary nor irritating.

Over-all SEX AND THE CITY is an entertaining romp back into the lives of women over 40 who are successful, sexy and vulnerable. All three of these descriptions have caused many sexist critics to diss the movie (and show) as pure fantasy and not realistic. These are the same critics who claim SPIDER-MAN 2 and BATMAN BEGINS are revolutionary for these "fantasy themes and use of imagination". But in their terms, the same can't be said for female heroines.

I loved SEX AND THE CITY up until the final fourth, where two incidents caused me to roll my eyes in the theater, and cramp my fists together. (Please, again, stop reading if you have not yet seen the movie or don't wish to know). The worst is Samantha's subplot. She has a sexy neighbor who always is having flings with women and has a body good enough to "taste", in her words. Because she's in a committed relationship to Smith, she eats her way into weight gain to stop from succumbing to her urges. Oh, and she's peeved he bought her an expensive ring that she wanted to independently purchase. So she dumps him. At first we think it's a hoax- but no, Michael Patrick King actually thinks we're going to believe that the same woman who saw her man fly all the way from CANADA just to tell her he loved her AND survive Kemo therapy, will drop him like a one-night stand because she wants to do the next-door neighbor so bad she's gained 10 pounds. Was this added for shock value or an excuse for another sequel? The Samantha I knew would never have done such a thing. Not in the place she was when we left her four years ago. Despite the small talks about her claiming he's always first, and how she wishes he would be home more- this all makes no literal sense if we remember earlier in the movie how she brags that he's always making love to her. But perhaps in a new movie, she'll come back- or not.

The other incident is more personal. The events that led to Carrie's depression involve Big and the wedding. And the ending caused me to believe that Carrie the character will never grow because she keeps falling back into old traps. Neither will Big.

But over-all, SEX AND THE CITY is everything you need if you're a die-hard fan of the show. There's plenty of sex, puns, men and clothes for you to feast on for a few.