Admin: May 2003 Archives

Every family should see this m-a-r-v-e-l-o-u-s movie about the national spelling bee because it is about so much more. It is about the strength of American diversity and the commitment of this country to opportunity -- the eight featured competitors include three children of immigrants (one's father still speaks no English) and a wide range of ethnic and economic backgrounds. It is about ambition, dedication, and courage. It is about finding a dream that speaks to each individual. Most of all, it is about family -- the opportunity to discuss the wide variation in styles of family communication and values is in itself a reason for every family with children to watch this movie together. Plus, it is one of the most genuinely thrilling, touching, and purely enjoyable movies of the year.

This is the true story of the 1999 National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C., and especially of eight regional winners in the competition. They are: Ashley, a black girl who lives with her mother in a housing project in the city where the competition takes place, Harry, the youngest of the group, a slightly hyper kid who impulsively answers one interviewer's question in the voice of a "musical robot," April, whose fond but mildly befuddled parents cannot quite figure out how such a ragingly focused child appeared in their house, Angela, the daughter of an illegal Mexican immigrant who still speaks no English, Ted, a loner from Missouri, Neil, the son of Indian immigrants whose intense focus -- including special spelling tutors and hours-long drills -- has him the second member of the family to be a regional champion, Emily, the child of privilege, who wonders if she should bring her au pair along to the competition, and Nupur, another child of Indian immigrants, whose regional title is saluted by a sign on the local Hooters that reads, "Congradulations Nupur!"

These and 240 other contestants are all 8th grade and younger. They don't quite understand what a heart-breakingly awkward and painful moment that is in their lives, but we do. As we watch these kids, girls towering over boys, more with braces than without, puberty's uneven effects everywhere, many of the kids confessing that they feel all alone in their school, we see them hold on to this mastery of words eclipsing anything an adult can do as a lifeline, or maybe a flashlight, leading them to their adult selves. There were audible gasps in the theater as each new word was given to the contestants, including hellebore, terrene, logorrhea, kirtle, clavecin, heleoplankton, cabotinage, and opsimath. Half of those words are not even recognized by the spellchecker in my word processing program, but these kids, who learned how to read only a little more than half their lives ago, are able to handle an astonishing number of them. Meanwhile, some words recognizable to most college-educated adults turn out to be stumpers for the kids, sharply drawing the line between expertise and experience.

The movie is filled with brilliantly observed moments that illuminate the lives of the individuals but also the lives of all families and all dreamers. These kids, with their slightly old-fashioned area of expertise (this is the era of the spellchecker, after all, and as that list shows, these are not words likely to come up in conversation or even most college textbooks) have an engaging sense of adventure, affection, and wonder about words and language. One shows off her huge dictionary almost as big as she is and about to fall to pieces from use, and says she does not think she will ever part with it. Three boys talk about how they lost to Nupur. Ashley tells us she is a "prayer warrior" who feels like her life is a movie.

And we get to see every kind of family. All the parents assure their children that they are winners no matter what happens at the national bee, but some do so more convincingly than others. Each family has its own idea of what it means to achieve success and what they think success could mean for their future. One father hires special spelling tutors and runs constant drills. Others look on all but speechless at children whose talents seem as exotic to them as though they had sprouted feathers.

Parents should know that there are some tense and sad scenes. Children are upset when they lose (they are escorted onstage to a "comfort room"). One child uses a mildly bad word.

Families who see this movie should talk about how the families in the movie, especially the immigrant families and those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, see the importance of the spelling bee. They should talk about what it takes to be a winner in any category of achievement and how they measure their own successes (and failures).

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Searching for Bobby Fischer, based on a real-life child who became a chess champion.

I plead guilty to being a sucker for heist films. It's such a reliable plot structure -- we see the problem (usually an elaborate security system, as in Mission Impossible), we see how they plan to solve it, and then we see how they respond when things don't go according to plan. I am happy to have my heart stolen as long the characters are charming and clever. They also have to meet at least one of the three key requirements for movie thieves: they have to be stealing for a good reason (How to Steal a Million), stealing from someone genuinely hateful (see The Sting), or -- I'd better keep that last category a secret, to avoid spoiling the ending of some wonderful movies.*

This movie fits into the second category. It begins with the theft of $35 million in gold bars (not just tricky to steal, but almost impossible to transport). But then there is a second theft as one of the team double-crosses the others and, thinking he has killed them all, he takes the gold for himself. The rest of the movie is about how the team gets back the gold.

The team is led by Charlie (Mark Wahlberg), and includes genius tech whiz Lyle (Seth Green), genius demolition whiz Left Ear (Mos Def), genius getaway driver Handsome Rob (Jason Statham, essentially reprising his role from the underrated The Transporter), and the latest addition to the group, genius safecracker Stella (Charlize Theron), the daughter of Charlie's great mentor -- and genius safecracker John (Donald Sutherland). They want to get the gold back from colleague-turned-enemy Steve (Edward Norton), who killed John. Stella just wants revenge. And if a little romance enters into the picture, no one should be too surprised.

Charlie keeps telling Steve that he has no imagination, an unfortunate reminder that the movie, a remake of a Michael Caine caper film (also featuring both Noel Coward and Benny Hill!) doesn't have much, either. But it has enough panache and charm to make it an enjoyable genre film. Def, Green, Statham, and Sutherland deliver their usual top-notch performances, even when the script gets formulaic. Norton, who reportedly was not happy about being contractually obligated to do the film, at least acts as if he was not happy about being contractually obligated to do the film. The film's biggest waste of time is a running Napster joke that is two years out of date and tired the first time it is used, excruciating by the 10th. Apparently, they were stuck with it because of the appearance in the film of real-life Napter creator Shawn Fanning in the film, a joke maybe one percent of the audience will get and one tenth of one percent will care about.

Parents should know that the movie has a lot of tense scenes. Characters are shot and killed and there are implications of other painful murders. Characters punch someone as a way to satisfy feelings of betrayal and revenge. The main characters are all thieves, charming or not, and while they show loyalty and are committed to crime without violence, they are hardly role models. There is some strong language and characters drink alcohol.

Families who see this movie should talk about why we are able to identify with characters in a movie that in real life we probably would not want to cheer for. Why are these people theives? Will they stop?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy some of the other classics of the genre, including Topkapi, The Thomas Crown Affair, To Catch a Thief, The First Great Train Robbery and How to Steal a Million.

* Say, for example, The Lavender Hill Mob or Topkapi.

Pixar Studios may have the most advanced animation technology in the world, but they never forget what matters most in a movie: story, characters, imagination, and heart. "Finding Nemo" has it all.

It is an epic journey filled with adventure and discovery encompassing the grandest sweep of ocean vastness and the smallest longing of the heart.

Marlin (Albert Brooks) is a fond but nervous and overprotective clown fish. A predator ate his wife and all but one of their eggs. The surviving egg becomes his son Nemo (Alexander Gould), and when it is time to start school, Nemo is excited, but Marlin is very fearful.

Nemo has an under-developed fin. Marlin has done a good job of making Nemo feel confident and unselfconscious. They call it his "lucky fin." But it still makes Marlin a little more anxious about protecting Nemo, and it still makes Nemo a little more anxious about proving that he can take care of himself.

On his first day of school, Nemo swims too far from the others and is captured by a deep sea diver, a dentist who keeps fish in his office aquarium. Marlin must go literally to the end of the ocean to find his son and bring him home.

And so, in the tradition and spirit of stories from the Odyssey to "The Wizard of Oz," Marlin takes a journey that will introduce him to extraordinary characters and teach him a great deal about the world and even more about himself. He meets up with Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful blue tang who has a problem with short-term memory loss. They search for Nemo together, despite stinging jellyfish, exploding mines, and creatures with many, many, many, many teeth.

Meanwhile, Nemo has made some very good friends in the dentist's aquarium, including a tough Tiger Fish (Willem Dafoe) who helps him plan an escape before the dentist can give Nemo to his careless eight-year-old niece, whose record with fish portends a short lifespan.

The movie is a visual feast. The play of light on the water is breathtaking. The characters imagined by Pixar in "Monsters, Inc." were fabulously inventive, but they have nothing on the even more fabulously inventive Mother Nature. This movie will make an ichthyologist out of anyone, because all of the characters are based on real-life ocean species, each one more marvelous than the one before. While preserving their essential "fishy-ness," Pixar and the talented people providing the voices have also made them each wonderfully expressive, and it seems only fair to say that they create performances as full and varied as have ever been on screen.

There are some scary moments in this movie, including the off-screen death of Marlin's wife and future children. It is handled very discreetly, but still might possibly be upsetting to some viewers. There are terrifying-looking creatures, but one of the movie's best jokes is that even the sharks are so friendly that in an AA-style program, they keep reminding each other that "we don't eat our friends." There really are no bad guys in this movie -- the danger comes from a child's thoughtlessness and from natural perils. The movie has no angry, jealous, greedy, or murderous villains as in most traditional Disney animated films.

Another strength of the movie is the way it handles Nemo's disability, frankly but matter-of-factly. But best of all is the way it addresses questions that are literally at the heart of the parent-child relationship, giving everyone in the audience something to relate to and learn from.

And there is another special treat -- the chance to see Pixar's first-ever short feature, "Knick-Knack," shown before the feature. It shows how far the technology has advanced, but it also shows that Pixar's sense of fun was there right at the beginning.

Parents should know that even though there are no traditional bad guys in this movie, there are still some very scary moments, including creatures with zillions of sharp teeth, an apparent death of a major character, and many tense scenes with characters in peril. At the beginning of the movie, Marlin's wife and all but one of their eggs are eaten by a predator. It is offscreen, but might upset some viewers. There is a little potty humor. The issue of Nemo's stunted fin is handled exceptionally well.

Families who see this movie should talk about how parents have to balance their wish to protect their children from being hurt (physically or emotionally) with the need to let them grow up and learn how to take care of themselves. They should talk about Nemo's disability and about everyone has different abilities that make some things easier for each of us to do than for most people and some things harder. How do you know what your abilities are, and what do you do to make the most of them?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the other Pixar films, "A Bug's Life," the "Toy Story" movies, and "Monsters Inc." They will appreciate other movies with underwater scenes, including Disney's "The Little Mermaid," "Pinocchio," and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks," and "Yellow Submarine," with innovative animation, a witty and touching script, and, of course, glorious music from the Beatles. Families with younger children will enjoy reading "The Runaway Bunny," and families with older children will enjoy "Amazing Fish" from the outstanding Eyewitness series.

You could not ask for a better showcase for what Jim Carrey does best than this comedy about a man who is given all of God's powers and has no compunction about using them for cheap thrills and petty payback. Director Tom Shadyac, who worked with Carrey on his biggest hits, "Ace Ventura" and "Liar, Liar," once again gives us Carrey in a role designed to get the most out of his talent for wildly elastic physical comedy.

There's a strong sense of art imitating life here, at least the life of Carrey the performer, if not Carrey the person. Carrey the performer has not had the success he hoped for in more serious roles, particularly in "The Majestic" and "The Man in the Moon." So when his character is told throughout this movie that there is nothing wrong with being funny (and when God, played by Morgan Freeman, says "All-righty then!" Ace Ventura's favorite catch phrase), and when he plays a character with God's powers (which must feel pretty close to the omnipotent power our society gives to celebrities) and yet he ends up being satisfied with what makes people laugh, it is hard not to think that there is something more than resonance here for Carrey. It is almost as though he is saying "All-righty then! If this is what you want to see, here it is!" to the audience.

Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a television news reporter who resents being assigned to silly stories like the world's biggest cookie and the anniversary of the Niagara Falls boat tour. He wants to do serious stories and he thinks he should be the anchor. He lives with his girlfriend, Grace (Jennifer Anniston), whose name is an indication of the script's idea of a theological reference.

Despite his love for Grace, Bruce is shallow and self-centered. When he loses the anchor job to a rival (Comedy Central "Daily Report's" Steve Carell), he furiously explodes on the air and is fired. He tries to help a homeless man, and is beat up by thugs. Bruce thinks that life is very unfair, so he complains to God. God challenges him to try out His powers, as long as he does not tell anyone or interfere with free will.

Bruce spends the first week using the powers for cheap thrills (he parts the red soup instead of the Red Sea and makes the cars blocking him in a traffic jam move out of the way) and petty payback. This part of the movie is fun -- who would not like to be able to do anything without any guilt or accountability -- and it is very funny, especially when Bruce makes his rival mess up on camera. The best physical comedians, like Carrey, perfectly enact the id out of control, the mean little imp that lives in each of our hot little hearts. That is ideal for embodying Bruce's juvenile uses of his new power.

But then Bruce has to realize that power and responsibility go together and that he cannot be happy until he understands that other people's happiness has to come first. That part of the movie does not work because it is pretty clear that Bruce never cares about anyone but himself. There is a hollow, hypocritical, and faintly creepy sense that the people behind the movie don't really understand the message themselves.

Bruce's carelessness in lassooing the moon (a reference to "It's a Wonderful Life" that is hammered home later on when we get a glimpse of that scene on television), unleashing an asteroid, and making hundreds of lottery winners, is portrayed as humorous. Even though we get glimpses of the disasters he causes, Bruce never does and never has to clean up the mess.

When Bruce tells God that he wants to solve the problems of world hunger and peace, God tells him that is a "Miss America answer" and His goal seems to be to get Bruce to think about what would make him happy with no regard for anyone but himself and the woman he loves. And life and art come together as it becomes clear that Carrey the performer is no more generous than Bruce the anchorman; Bruce's failure to appreciate the sweet and ever-forgiving Grace is less of a, well, sin, than Carrey's failure to make use of the considerable comic talents of the woman who plays her. It's a shame to see Anniston in essentially an arm candy role. The result is a movie that, despite some very funny moments, makes the same mistake as its main character without learning any lessons about maturity or responsibility. It teeters between deranged comedy and sentimental fable, and is unsatisfying in both categories. What Bruce should have used his powers for was a better script.

Parents should know that the movie has very mature material for a PG-13, including very strong language and crude humor after a thug makes a rhetorical reference to a monkey coming out of his butt. Bruce gives "pleasure" to Grace as they prepare for a sexual encounter. There is an extended joke about a dog who is not house-trained. Characters drink alcohol and Bruce uses his powers to plant bags of marijuana on rival broadcasters.

Families who see this movie should talk about what they would do if they had God's powers. How would they decide the best way to respond to prayers? Most of the prayers in this movie are "petitionary," meaning that they are asking for something, usually love, money, or status-related. What other kinds of prayers are there? Some families will want to discuss their own ideas about God and prayer.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy "Oh God," with George Burns and John Denver. They might like to see a different portrayal of God that also discusses the importance of free will in the wonderfully imaginative "Time Bandits." And every family should watch and discuss "It's a Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed.

"Down With Love" can't make up its mind whether it is a salute to the Doris Day-Rock Hudson/James Garner/Cary Grant movies of the 1960's or a parody of them. Perhaps surprisingly, it works better as a salute, and never quite reaches the heights of the movies that inspired it.

The original movies were glossy fantasies that seemed to exist in that same 1960's ring-a-ding-ding fantasyland Stephen Spielberg brought us in Catch Me if You Can. They may have seemed instantly irrelevant in the era of Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the sexual revolution, and yet they were as indispensible and -- surprisingly -- as inimitable and enduringly appealing as some of that decade's other cultural touchstones.

We think of them as irretrievably retro and sometimes they were (as, for example, in The Thrill of it All, when Day's doctor husband is profoundly threatened because she gets a job, which she quits after seeing him deliver a baby, reminding her what a woman's true purpose is supposed to be). But most often, Day played supremely capable and confident working women, and it was the plot contrivances, not prudishness, that kept her characters from sexual encounters outside of marriage. Those movies also had some genuinely wicked commentary on the same conformist consumer culture that was the trigger for a lot of the political protest. Feminist critics like Molly Haskell now recognize that in their own way, these movies were very much a reflection and a part of the revolutions of the 1960's.

In this movie, Barbara Novak (Renee Zellwegger) is the author of a book called Down With Love, that tells women to be strong and independent, to find fulfillment in work and to use men for sex but not become emotionally attached. Magazine writer and man-about-town Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) decides to expose her as a hypcrite by making her fall in love with him. He pretends to be a shy astronaut who does not want to have sex unless he is in love. But Barbara -- and Cupid -- have a few surprises in store for him.

The movie begins by saying that "the time is now -- 1962" and the period details are, well, swell, including flip hairdos, Tang, martinis, the twist, "Camelot" and clothes and furniture that are the kickiest! Catch is wearing a dinner jacket when he returns from a luau with the astronauts at Cocoa Beach. When Barbara's book becomes a worldwide sensation, she receives the ultimate badge of fame -- an Alfred E. Newman parody on the cover of Mad Magazine. But the best of the movie's in-jokes is Tony Randall, who often played Hudson's best friend, a neurotic rich guy who hopelessly envied Hudson's confidence and success with the ladies in the original series of movies. In "Down With Love," that role is exquisitely played by David Hyde Pierce, but Randall appears as the head of the publishing firm, demonstrating his impeccable timing and delivery. Indeed, the supporting players, sets, and costumes are so vivid that they make the main characters seem a little bland.

Parents should know that this movie has a good deal of sexual innuendo and double entendres, including an extended split-screen sequence that makes it appear that the characters are engaging in a number of sexual acts. There is brief strong language. Characters drink and smoke as evidence of sophistication. Equality of women is a humorous theme of the movie. As in the 1960's movies it salutes, all characters are white.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether a similar plot could work in a movie set in 2003.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the movies that inspired it, especially Pillow Talk and Lover Come Back (both about a battle of the sexes in which the man pretends to be someone else to romance the woman) with Day and Hudson, The Thrill of it All with Day and Garner, That Touch of Mink with Day and Grant, Sex and the Single Girl (about a woman who writes a book promoting women's sexual freedom) with Natalie Wood and Tony Curtis, If a Man Answers with then-married Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin, Come September with Hudson and Gina Lollobrigida, and Man's Favorite Sport with Hudson and Paula Prentiss. They might also enjoy similar themes in earlier movies like Theodora Goes Wild (another story about a woman author of a notorious book) and Take a Letter Darling (man gets a job as secretary to a woman executive). And they might like to see more of the pre-"Odd Couple" Tony Randall in the fantasy The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao and the wild satire Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

And the answer is -- Yes! This is the movie the fans of the original "Matrix" were hoping it would be. This movie has electrifying fight scenes, an audaciously dystopic vision, zillions of explosions and car crashes, a steamy love...

It's hard to blow a premise like this one -- color-in-the-lines, belt-and-suspenders risk averse man meets his daughter's prospective free spirit father-in-law just before the wedding. It worked pretty well in the 1973 original starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk....

Each of the previous Pokemon movies has seemed slightly better to me than the one before, but this lackluster fifth in the series is at least two steps back. Pokemon master Ash and pals Brock and Misty visit the Venice-like...

Bookworm, you know who you are, you glorified loafer, you word-nerd. You, at times, have shunned humans, shirked work, stayed up too late, skipped showers, spent beautiful days inside, hiked mountains with hardbacks, haunted bookstores for hours (not buying a...

This is the sort of movie that Hollywood can churn out in its collective sleep and audiences can watch without really waking up. It is as bland and predicable as a package of Kraft Macaroni and cheese, but likely to...

This documentary-style film about teenagers in a mental hospital has enough sincerity to make up for whatever it lacks in professionalism or originality. It is well worth watching with the teenagers in your life. The story is traditional,following the classic...