Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Grade: B-

Charlie Kaufman is one of the most original screenwriters working today. Now, if he could just learn hot to write a closing third act. “Being John Malkovich” was brilliantly odd and surreal, yet petered out in the final 20 minutes as though Kaufman ran out of things to say somewhere along the line. This year’s “Adaptation” was thoughtful, quirky, and stunningly conceived, until the last 20 minutes proved a disappointing cop out for a screenwriter who admits he was charged with writing an unwriteable adaptation. Kaufman has a tendency to write amazingly original storylines he can’t quite get himself out of.

Here, Kaufman has adapted Chuck Barris’ absurdist “unauthorized autobiography,” where real life schlock TV auteur Barris (who brought us such classics as “The Dating Game, ”The Newlywed Game,” and “The Gong Show”) meets fantasy Barris, CIA spy. It’s a life story as told by a megalomaniac, and it is at once daring, odd, funny, and thoroughly absurd.

Now, if Kaufman could only write a good closing third act.

First time Director George Clooney has done an effective job utilizing a sort of docudrama knock-off style of filmmaking here, filled with over-exposed and oddly tinted film, creating a convincing and dramatic world amidst a tale of such absolute lunacy. Moments of reality blend nicely and often comically with Barris’ odd assertion that he was, in fact, a CIA operative while simultaneously making a name for himself as the king of crap television. Sam Rockwell is flawless as Barris, a dweebie Casanova wannabe with delusions of importance – it’s Woody Allen as Humphrey Bogart, a weird, fascinating, and highly amusing world to be sure.

Unfortunately, what at first one accepts as all rather tongue in cheek begins taking itself far too seriously, and the final reel becomes heavy-handed, pretentious, and more than a little dull. We’re being asked to question whether it’s all so absurd it might actually be true, which is asking us to take far too long a walk off far too short a pier.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0290538/

The Hours

Grade: B+

Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Ed Harris provide four – count em, four – of the year’s finest performances in this lovingly told, deeply respectful, yet somewhat mannered translation of Michael Cunningham’s astounding novel.

For those who have not read Cunningham’s breathtaking book, “The Hours” tells of the lives of three women of three very different times, on the surface connected through the novel “Mrs. Dalloway” – one is writing it, one is reading it, one is living it – but ultimately more meaningfully connected through language, imagery, sexuality, tormenting sadness, and ultimately, through those that they have loved. To say more would be to give far too much away, but the story delicately builds to a powerful merging of all that binds these women together, yet simultaneously all that separates who they are and how they will live out their lives. It can be argued that, rather than three women, the story is a metaphor for the life of only one woman, living her life depending upon the mores of her time, making choices based on those that are available to her. They are three fascinating, complex, pained journeys.

In certain ways, the film surpasses the novel, using imagery and quick cutting to establish immediate correlations between these women only hinted at within the rotating one chapter per character conceit of the book. Not unlike “Far From Heaven,” the filmmakers have done a beautiful job of capturing the essence of time and place within each of the storylines, from England in 1923 to Los Angeles in 1953 to modern day New York City.

But the strength of the film lies in its performances, and here we have been given the powerhouse of all powerhouse ensembles. Meryl Streep is so good one tends to unfairly overlook her, as it’s been so long since she’s given anything but a pitch perfect performance. Nicole Kidman, underneath an astounding make-up job, is subtle in her quiet anguish – it is a performance played completely in her eyes, and it is perhaps her finest work to date. Ed Harris is utterly heartbreaking as a man equally plagued by his memories as he is with AIDS. There will no doubt be great discussion as to who gives the best performance here, but for me the answer is Julianne Moore, whose constant attempts to swallow her pain and longing is unbelievably heartwrenching. If her make-up job is much less convincing than that of Kidman’s (it’s hard to believe they were designed by the same person), the life of a woman tormented with judgment and condemnation in the face of no other visible option is a powerful one indeed.

This is a film with little in the way of real context – it is driven far less by plot than by raw emotion, amidst dialogue, written by uneven playwright David Hare, that can be somewhat stilted in it’s attempt to bring such emotion to life. As an audience, we are left somewhat distanced from these people’s lives, observers more than active participants. Yet there is something so universal in one’s desperate desire to feel joy, especially when one is blocked from doing so, that cannot help but leave one both moved and haunted.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0274558/

Nicholas Nickleby

Grade: B

Let one among us who has never used Cliffs Notes cast the first stone.

The book is some 795 pages long. The famous Royal Shakespeare Company production spanned some eight hours over two days. This movie comes in at 132 minutes.

Thus it is not surprising that this version seems more than a little abridged (with many voice-over composite scenes to fill us in on full chapters no doubt), a tad slight, and lacking a feeling of much texture. Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of either melodrama or farce, and this is without question a melodrama sprinkled with farce for good measure. Yet I found myself engrossed and entertained by the story and touched and charmed by the characters. If one is going to make a melodrama, it is fair to conclude using the works of Charles Dickens is a pretty good place to start.

Christopher Plummer and Jamie Bell, no doubt the oldest and youngest of a solid cast, are both terrific here as the most villainous and sympathetic of characters, respectively, and the rest of the cast is filled with a whole bunch of pros like Jim Broadbent, Tom Courtney and, yes, even Nathan Lane and Dame Edna. If Charlie Hunnam in the title role is not the best actor I’ve ever seen, he is nonetheless earnest, sweetly engaging, and so utterly beautiful to look at it doesn’t much matter anyway. The plot is sprawling, filled with dozens of characters and even more twists and turns. In a word, it is all very Dickensian.

Test taking students will be renting this “Nicholas Nickleby” for generations to come.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0309912/

Chicago

Grade: A

I’ve oft complained about some filmmakers who dearly lack real vision when adapting works from other mediums (Let’s all say “Harry Potter,” shall we?).

Director Rob Marshall has vision in spades.

I know from “Chicago.” It was my very first Broadway musical (Directed by Bob Fosse, and starring Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera, and Jerry Orbach), and I wore out my first LP of the show and needed to purchase a second. I attended the revival at “Encores” and have seen it repeatedly during a current incarnation that has surpassed the run of the original. Heck, I even remember all the talk in the 1980’s that a film version starring Liza Minnelli and Goldie Hawn was in the works. Pick a song, any song, and I’ll sing it to you, word for word. I entered the Ziegfeld with an appropriate mix of excitement and trepidation, having seen oh so many musicals destroyed by bad choices made by worse directors.

If this film doesn’t bring Musicals back to the movies nothing will.

Sumptuously filmed, staged and choreographed with the perfect blend of fantasy and reality, performances of pure dynamite -- and then there’s that Kander and Ebb music. Marshall has transformed a great Broadway musical into a slick, biting, jazzy and oh so entertaining satire. Though the choreography may not be that of Bob Fosse, and there is not a white glove or black derby in the piece, the entire film is nonetheless an homage to him – rich in his style, his sensibilities, his absolute class.

While only Catherine Zeta-Jones appears to have the lungs and the gams to truly make it on a Broadway stage eight performances a week, Marshall uses the mutli-talents of Renee Zellweger, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, and John C. Reilly all to great effect -- This is a movie pumped to overflow with adrenaline.

My only complaint is that a decision was made to cut two of the show’s best numbers from the film version, “My Own Best Friend” and “Class” (they damn well better be reinstated for the DVD version!). Otherwise, this is one thoroughly thrilling movie musical.

Marshall has proven himself a master of the form – his co-direction and choreography for the Broadway revival of “Cabaret” is a revelation, his television version of “Annie” convinced even this cynical viewer that a remake really did need to be made, and now he has given us the best Movie Musical in years (don’t even dare to compare this to “Moulin Rouge” folks, pop song rehashes do not count -- period). If I ask him real nice, maybe he would agree to take on my list of those shows sorely in need of film translation, as well as those desperately in need of redo’s – there is no one else around I would trust more to do them proper justice.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0299658/

The Pianist

Grade: A-

The first half of this Holocaust film is certainly powerful - it is well-written, beautifully acted, intricate in detail, piercing in its imagery. It is the Warsaw Ghetto leading up to the mass transport and extermination of virtually the entire population, filled with pained images of humiliation and degradation, incomprehensible evil in human form, families torn apart, hope lost, an explosion of rebellion followed by ultimate silence. This story must and needs to be told from different vantage points over and over again to be sure, yet one cannot escape the feeling that, important and well told though it may be, there isn't much here that we haven't seen in other films that have come before.

It is the second half of this film where we find its true strength, as we move from a family among many families to the story of one individual's struggle for self preservation. He is neither heroic nor noble. Nor is he uncompassionate, intentionally self-serving or intrinsically bad. Rather, he is a character filled with basic human frailty, fear, and the most fundamental desperate need to survive. As portrayed by the searingly brilliant Adrian Brody, we come to know a decent yet ordinary man, elevated somewhat perhaps in his own mind and the minds of those around him by his singularly virtuoso gift. As opposed to his brother who is strident and defiant in thought toward the Nazi siege, the pianist is far more willing to accept what is - stay out of shops were Jews are not permitted, work wherever he can, use his meager connections to try and save his own family. Within the chaos, evil and insanity, the pianist represents the essence of how most of us would behave given a similar situation. We cannot help but justify his meek actions in our own minds, lest we feel our own shame in acknowledging we too would behave precisely the same way. In this way, the film brings us personally closer inside the event than many films on the Holocaust have before. Our protagonist, contrasted against acts of astonishing bravery and compassion toward him by others, makes those acts even more heroic and moving. One can only assume that, if the situations were reversed, the pianist would never have found the inner strength to display similar courage. This makes his one act of personal defiance - a moment where he plays his instrument with all the passion and bravado his weakened body will permit - quietly overwhelming.

Director Roman Polanski has filmed a work of stark power, creating imagery that reaches nuclear war proportions in its devastation. He can be forgiven for filming too many shots from our protagonist's perspective, peering through drawn curtains and broken windows to observe the actions surrounding him - our character is far more likely to cower in a corner and block the world out than to risk being discovered by the enemy.

"What will you do when this is all over?" he is asked. "Return to what I did before - play the piano on Polish radio." he responds. Given all that Jews playing music during this period of history has come to represent, playing for their lives while others are marched off to the showers in concentration camps, it is but one of many honest, humble, human, small moments that add up to a very meaningful work.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0253474/

Catch Me If You Can

Grade: B+

This is one first-rate, feel good, old fashioned, crowd pleasing entertainment. It is also surprisingly sweet and moving. Leonardo DiCaprio is as good here as he was bad in “Gangs of New York” – charming, smart, vulnerable, he carries the film squarely on his shoulders and demonstrates he has movie star charisma to burn. He is thoroughly engaging and quite believable in the based-on-fact role of a teenager turned swindler. Despite some criticism that anyone could have played the “copster” role, Tom Hanks brings great humor, depth and nuance as an FBI agent on a long trail to DiCaprio’s capture – not many could bring such richness to an underwritten part. Christopher Walken is perhaps the film’s biggest surprise, playing a father with wit, pride, and just the right touch of despair – he is a hell of a good character actor.

From the moment the titles begin, there is no question we are being returned to a simpler time in Americana, where “To Tell the Truth” was pop culture and kids thought their parents were just this side of heroic. Our protagonist’s poignant adoration for his father and mother, and his subsequent sense of betrayal when their relationship unravels and he is left right smack in the middle, provides a context for both his romanticist notion of his crimes as well as his intriguingly tender relationship with the man who hunts him. There is something oddly idealistic about our anti-establishment hero, and we cannot help but cheer at his bravado, feel for his isolation and confusion, and long ourselves for a somehow simpler time.

It’s all a bit hokey and simplistic to be sure, but it also really makes one smile – a lot. Steven Spielberg has delivered a big time charmer.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0264464/

Gangs of New York

Grade: F

Memo to Martin Scorsese: Repeating Michael Cimino’s experience on “Heaven’s Gate” in not something a director should aspire to.

God only knows how much money was wasted on this melodramatic crap (the estimate is something in the range of $125 million in production and marketing). Lord knows, the film is sumptuous in its recreation of New York in the 1860’s – the set design and costuming must have cost an absolute fortune. It all looks just perfect, except for the fact that everything else about this movie is just plain wrong wrong wrong.

Memo to Martin Scorsese: Stained teeth, make-up scars and bad dialect coaches do not authentic performances make.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz are just plain bloody awful in this thing. Daniel Day-Lewis doesn’t merely chew the scenery, he devours it, but at least he’s an interesting charicature.

Memo to Martin Scorsese: Never hire an authentic Irish actor to open your film (Liam Neeson), if you then plan to fill the next 2 hours and 40 minutes with American actors with atrocious Irish accents – it’s just makes it all much more painful.

This film claims to represent some semblance of real history, yet virtually the entire film is cliché ridden melodrama, from bibles being dramatically flung into the watery depths below, to physical aggression turning into passionate lovemaking, to blood red filmed against white snow, to a friend’s betrayal over the love a woman, to a deseased father’s precious momento returned years later to a son planning his retribution. There are even some impressive musical rip-offs – Diaz’ pickpocket character is straight out of Nancy in “Oliver” (did I hear strains of “As Long As He Needs Me” creeping in?), boxing matches made legal by moving them just outside the city limits is right out of the prom devise in “Footloose,” and there’s even a Jet vs. Sharks “West Side Story” moment when the gangs agree on weapons for tomorrow’s big fight – fists, stones, knifes, guns….I half expected some ballet moves.

Memo to Martin Scorsese: Never lead an audience to believe they’re seeing a “real” story when it’s like telling them that Hi C is made from real fruit juice.

What may actually be an accurate account of corrupt politics and riots that forever changed the fabric of New York is so utterly confusing and convoluted as to be pointless.

Memo to Martin Scorsese: If your main character needs to explain absolutely e- v-e-r-y-t-h-I-n-g in a-g-o-n-I-z-I-n-g voice over, then you have a big screenplay problem.

And just when one thinks it can’t possibly get any worse, Scorsese ends the film with an image that attempts to connect this story in some supremely offensive way to September 11th.

If you’re going to tell us an epic fable, then just tell us an epic fable.

Throughout this drippy dreck, characters repeatedly spit massive volumes of multi-colored saliva on the ground to express their utter contempt for someone or something (subtle, Marty, subtle).

Memo to Martin Scorsese: Consider your film spat on.

[Final memo to Film Critics: I am so so so over you people – get a grip already!]

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0217505/

Antwone Fisher

Grade: D+

The time has come for the New York Times to fire film critic Stephen Holden. No notice. No severance pay. They shouldn’t even wait until after the holidays. Mr. Holden has apparently seen the second coming anyway, based on how he exalts this melodramatic treacle in his recent review. If all of us who spent good money based on his review joined forces, I think we could file a really good class action lawsuit. Lord, how I miss Janet Maslin.

Not for a moment should this film be compared to either “Ordinary People” or “Good Will Hunting,” two exquisitely written and executed dramas, except for the blatant rip-offs that take place throughout (Let’s wait several sessions for the patient to begin speaking, shall we, just like Matt and Robin did in GWH. Or, no wait, let’s have a shot of Denzel Washington and his wife distantly sitting from one another at the dinner table to represent their emotional distance, exactly like Robert Redford had Donald, Mary, and Timothy do in OP.)

Every moment of genuine emotion is undercut with cliched circumstances or stilted dialogue, from the tormented young sailor who: 1) Was tied up and beaten by his adopted mother, making him prone to violent outbreaks as an adult; 2) Was sexually assaulted by his adopted sister, making it impossible for him to have normal sexual relations as an adult; 3) Watched his best friend get shot to death while trying to rob a small grocery, complete with splattered blood on his face, making it impossible for him to trust people who are always leaving him when he needs them the most; 4) Has dreams of big, home cooked meals amid his big, smiling extended family, making him awake in a burst of sweat and panic (Re “Ordinary People” again). When therapist Denzel informs his young charge that all the childhood abuse was the ultimate result of slavery in this country, well, one questions who really needs some therapy. Did anyone on this movie even bother to consult a therapist before making a film involving one? Emotional triggers come from left field, as does much of the good doctor’s psychological advice – it’s downright laughable that he would tell this young man to seek out his natural family. If all the missteps this doctor takes actually occurred in real life, it is indeed a wonder that the real Antwone Fisher – who apparently wrote the screenplay himself -- survived.

And, of course, since this is a military movie after all, where would we be without someone calling Antwone a “faggot” in a nice moment of homophobia?

But never fear, because dreams literally do come true (either that or Antwone’s dreams are remarkably prescient), doctors can cure their patients with a few invites for Thanksgiving and a couple of good, old fashioned “I love yous,” and patients can even help heal their doctors (The film ends with the good doctor thanking Antwone for effectively saving his marriage. You really can’t make this stuff up.)

Personally, I think Antwone should dump his new girlfriend, and hook up with the kid from “White Oleander.” Now that would make for an interesting story.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0168786/

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Grade: A

The crowd gathers around a roaring fire. A teller of tales begins his story of the Trojan war, of King Agamemnon, of Helen of Troy, and of a great warrior named Achilles. It is a story filled with battles and bloodshed, passion and epic romance, of heroism and sacrifice. The audience sits and listens, transfixed and transported to another place and time.

The crowd enters the theatre on the south bank of the river Thames. “Groundlings” mass together around the inner courtyard, amid conversations, pickpockets and orange peels. An actor, simply named the “Chorus” takes center stage, and transports his audience to the time of Prince Hal now King, and of a battle known as Agincourt. It is a story filled with battles and bloodshed, passion and romance, sacrifice and great bravery. Some of the audience sits, the majority stand, and all are transfixed with “a little touch of Harry in the night.”

The crowd enters a huge movie theater, amid bags of popcorn, crinkling packages of Twizzlers, and gargantuan containers filled with soda. They are regaled with advertisements for cars, for the Army, for video games, and for upcoming movies, until finally the lights go fully dark, the huge screen begins to glow with projected light, and sound can be heard emanating from speakers throughout the theater. We are told of the battle of Helms Deep, of Hobbits, and Elves, and Dwarfs, of Frodo and Sam, of Aragorn, of Gimli and Legolas, of Merry and Pippin, of the dark wizard Sarumon and of the return of Gandalf the White. It is a story filled with battles and bloodshed, passion and romance, cowardice, comradeship and great bravery. It is the beginning of the battle for Middle Earth….

Occasionally a film embodies such an awesome achievement one is left with little available comparison, except perhaps to the lore of great storytelling through the ages. In the second installment of director Peter Jackson's masterwork, Tolkien meets not only the literary scope, but the storytelling legacy of such works as “The Iliad” and “Henry V,” and it is a thing to behold indeed.

It is not sufficient to suggest that this film is darker and more ominous than its predecessor. The camerawork seems bolder, the close-ups more vibrant and piercing, the entire work weightier with import. The jovial Shire from which the Hobbits come is all but driven from memory, and Jackson has created a sense of damp, cold, heavy dread that permeates one's skin, even as the relationships between members of the fellowship often feel lighter and filled with a gentle camaraderie richly developed since "The Fellowship.” For amidst epic battles of survival and struggles to accomplish the unimaginable, it would be difficult to find another film that more poetically captures the essence of loyalty and kinship. Once one steps away from the visually stunning accouterments - and it must be said this spectacle contains some of the most breathtaking moments ever captured on celluloid - what one is left with is an incredibly poignant tale of the true bonds of friendship. We come to care about these characters with a depth of feeling that is somehow unexpected, and are inexplicable haunted (literally for days) by the shadows of things to come. This is a film that combines the intimacy and imagery of great cinema with the grandness and drama of great theater.

A most difficult task, as the fellowship has been split into three separate directions, and we must follow three distinct and rather complex storylines. While they are neither equally successful nor given equal weight, and (unlike the first film) occasionally do falter under some computer generated effects that don't quite make it (Merry and Pippin’s adventure is perhaps the least successful of the bunch, although there is little one can do with two Hobbits stuck in a tree for nearly three hours), they nonetheless paint a sweeping landscape of life on Middle Earth. From a love and deep respect of nature that bonds two races previously ignorant of the other’s existence, to races long ago divided now reunited in heroic cause, to a connection so intimate it is understood by two alone who have struggled to survive the burden of an evil ring of power.

Ian McKellen's Gandalf is a true hero from the days of old, and every moment he is on screen one is most certainly in the presence of greatness and grandeur. McKellan can do more with a wink or a shrug than most actors can convey with several soliloquies. Viggo Mortenson is ever the tormented soldier who has matured into a leader of men, and his ascension to the throne seems nothing less than destiny (one awaits someone smart enough to put this guy on a stage in a Shakespearean history or tragedy -- any producers listening out there?). And at the film's heart, Elijah Wood gives yet another of the year's best and most underrated performances - he infuses the piece with much of its sincerity and humanity. In fact, the entire cast deserves similar recognition, as this is an ensemble whose passion for the work feels unmatched in recent memory, apparent in the many riches displayed on the screen.

Can there be any doubt that, once the curtain falls on next year's "The Return of the King," Peter Jackson will have created one of the most important works of our time? Bravo! Bravo!

More movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0167261/

About Schmidt

Grade: B+

This could so easily be about many of our fathers, our brothers, or even the man we nod to on the elevator as we make our way to work every morning yet never get to know. This is truly an everyman story, a simple slice of life, that works because of its uncanny ability to capture some of life's real moments, even in the midst of some shticky and longwinded storytelling. Jack Nicholson, while not quite the "revelation" people have been talking about (some have suggested it takes several moments to even realize it's him on screen -- these people are prone to extreme exaggeration), is indeed subtle, unselfconscious, and natural - one of his richest works in quite a few years. This is a man who has gone to work every day of his life, paid the bills, seen many years of marriage pass. He loves his wife whose "endearing" traits irritate the hell out of him as we all irritate our partners, taking the blessings of his life for granted as we all take the blessings of our lives for granted. He is undistinguished, as unnotable as the many Willy Lomans of the world. And then forced change occurs, and he must use his somewhat limited emotional skills to reevaluate the meaning/purpose of his life. There are no revelations here, only honest, amusing, sad, and very real moments of a man's life.The piece travels down some unnecessarily long and winding paths (it's about twenty minutes too long, most of it in a Winnebago), and occasionally goes for slapstick (waterbeds are always a danger sign) or the overly sentimental (ditto shooting stars) which feel forced and removed from the film's genuine heart, but an often spot on screenplay and a wonderfully human Nicholson make his journey very moving indeed. Schmidt is one of those people we so often acknowledge in others, yet hope no one acknowledges in us.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0257360/

Adaptation

Grade: C+/DWR

In honor of this and other recent film-going experiences, any film with the code DWR alongside its alphabetical grade (short for “Danger, Will Robinson”) will represent pretentious and self-important films that have received rave reviews from critics attempting to feel pretentious and self-important themselves. I had considered naming this code MD for “Mulholland Drive,” but felt it was unfair to make one specific film take all the blame for a major Hollywood ill.

It should be said that there is much that is indeed very very good about this film. Nicholas Cage (of whom I have never been a fan – he freaks me out a little) is terrific here in the double role of twin screenwriting brothers. It is to his credit and some extraordinary camera technique that we soon forget one actor is simultaneously playing two distinctly different people. Meryl Streep is also, well, Meryl Streep, but one can’t help but question her decision to take a supporting role that provides very little meat or meaning in the scheme of the film.

It is as an internal dialogue that this film is at its best, and we hear a superb voice over throughout the film (a technique we are told good screenwriters never use, in what is one of many funny moments of film commentary) that explores the neurosis, panic, self-doubt and insecurities of our protagonist. The film also often does a nice job of satirizing the screenwriting/Hollywood process in general, and develops some disparate storylines that intrigue us as we wait to discover how they will somehow intertwine and find meaning in the end.

Alas, they never do. The plot takes a very, very wrong turn in the film’s final reel, and what is meant to connect several stories is utterly forced, laughable, and downright irritating for a film with such promise. Critics have argued that we are meant to observe a thoughtful and delicate film turn suddenly into a Hollywood-ized contrivance, as though we have left the mind of one screenwriting brother and fallen under the control of his far less-talented but more mass-appealing sibling. This falls into the “let’s read into what’s not on the screen so we can feel oh so smart and superior” category of film criticism – there’s simply no there there. There have also been those who have attempted to explain away inconsistencies and poor storytelling technique by telling us that much of the story is based on the true experiences of a screenwriter struggling to adapt an unadaptable book. This falls into the “so what?” category of film criticism – a film either stands on its own merits or it does not. Characters and plotlines that interest and intrigue us in the first reel completely fail us in the second, making all that has come before seem like so much less than we had originally longed for.

The filmmakers go to great ego-inflated extremes to repeatedly remind us that their previous film was the wonderfully original “Being John Malkovich.” I would suggest that it is far too early for anyone to be resting on their filmmaking laurels. For a movie about screenwriting, this is one self-indulgent, occasionally brilliant, yet overall muddled and maddening cop-out of a screenplay indeed.

More Movie Info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0268126/