Remember the Titans

What's the difference between a Hallmark TV movie and a Disney real-life triumph-over-adversity feel-good movie? Denzel Washington, baby! OK, so I've had a crush on him since college (and still have his (ALA) pin-up on my wall at work), but he is a fine, fine actor. His effort makes this film rise above others of its ilk. He plays the main character in a story of the forced desegregation of Alexandria, Virginia in 1971. In order to comply with the policy, the school board hires a black coach to head the football team, displacing the former white head coach. Even though the black coach has as good a history of winning as the white coach, well, you can imagine the emotions that run rampant. While I didn't feel strongly about Will Patton as the white coach (too restrained), Washington gives nothing but his best. The scene in the Gettysburg cemetery, although underplayed, is enough to send shivers down your spine. And the kids were quite well cast, believable as high school denizens. Most feel-good movies are not complex, so they don't garner my high scores, but that doesn't mean that this film is not worth watching. If nothing else, just watch it for Washington.

year: 2000
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210945/combined

Open Range

Since I don't much like Westerns, I'm not sure why I was inclined to rent this film. Like everyone else, I probably want to give Kevin Costner just one more chance to prove he can act AND can bring in the money. It seems as if he (or his producers) are catching on, since he doesn't headline this film, Robert Duvall does. And yet there's another actor I don't always enjoy (mostly for the giggling-while-talking affectation). But I liked this film just fine. Maybe because it's talking about an issue that really occurred out West (as opposed to the West as a fantasy world, which is mostly why I don't like the genre) -- the point in time when free range cattlemen started to butt heads with ranchers and their barbed wire. Maybe because it also stars Annette Bening, who is one of the few brave women over 45 who will act without gobs and gobs of makeup. Maybe because it's not macho, and while full of cliches, manages to say some pithy things about human relationships. Maybe because Costner is not so bad. At acting or at directing. I like his take-it-slow approach very much. So, I'm willing yet again to give him that one more chance. But I do wish he would choose a comedy next -- he has a fine comedic range (see Dances With Wolves again) that's barely been tapped.

year: 2003
length: 139 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316356/combined

Monsieur Hulot's Holiday

I'm afraid I don't understand the appeal. Yes, Jacques Tati has a funny walk and inadvertently gets himself into numerous scrapes while on vacation at the beach, but the rest of the film is simply boring. I know perfectly well that people regard this as a classic of physical comedy, but frankly, there's very little of it in the film. Aside from his car (which is funnier than he is) and a silly set of tennis games, I barely cracked a smile during the entire viewing. Its saving grace is that it's filmed in black and white, and very capably. The beach scenes are the most beautiful, with the contrast between the sand, the ocean, the rocks and the umbrellas. But, really, why waste your time? It'd be more fun to pick up a film that has actual physical comedy in it, such as Big or even Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, for goodness sake.

original title: Les Vacances de M. Hulot
year: 1953
length: 85 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046487/combined

Last Orders

This film is not just affecting for old(er) people, as much as you may have heard the contrary. The tale of a group of friends who perform the last orders of one of their group who has just died, involving a trek across England, it is populated by every late-middle-aged actor in England who wasn't in Gosford Park (for which they should be thanking their lucky stars). Excepting Helen Mirren, who was in both. My only real complaint with the film is that even with headphones on, it was difficult to understand the Cockney accent, particularly Bob Hoskins'. (Is that really the same guy from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Amazing.) I like what one amateur reviewer said on Netflix: "I had trouble understanding some of the Cockney...but the mumbling made it even worse. For you who would say 'get over it,' I'd say 'bugger off'." It does make it more difficult to understand what's happening, at least in the beginning, but as time progressed I found I wasn't noticing it as much. Perhaps because the film started to pick up speed, or if not speed, at least it resorted to more flashbacks to fill in the parts you didn't understand in the characters' lives. I guess I just didn't love the ending. It felt too sewn up and too easily reconciled. But other than this semi-Hollywood ending, I think it will appeal to many for its sweetness and slowness.

year: 2001
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.0
review written: March 25, 2004
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253200/combined

The Way Things Go

Here's a film I can't be erudite about. It's just too much fun to watch! (And you'll probably want to watch it over and over and over...) I know that it was made by performance and video artists, and that should make it worthy of analysis. Instead, I just like to enjoy what they created. OK, enough suspense! The plot...there is no plot. Swiss artists Peter Fischli and David Weiss took the contents of their studio and created a Rube Goldberg device out of them. Y'know, this thing knocks over that thing, which causes this thing to boil over, which makes this thing ring a bell. (See the beginning of Back to the Future for a simplistic Goldberg apparatus.) If you listen with headphones, you can tell their studio is situated near an airport and that there's a drippy faucet in the background, but it doesn't take away from the sheer amazement of their creation And, if you want to see what they're doing now, view the new Honda commercial. Sleeker, slicker and made only of Honda parts.

original title: Der Lauf der Dinge
year: 1987
length: 30 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094300/combined

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

With the arguable failure of the second film in the trilogy, the filmmakers felt they had to fall back onto tried-and-true methods. And, the first 15 minutes falls along exactly the same plot lines as the first film -- thrilling chase, back at the university, Marcus Brody and he at a house, flying to their destination, more exciting chases. But, hey, tried-and-true can be comforting sometimes. And, in this case, things get a kick in the pants when Sean Connery shows up. I've always been somewhat iffy on both leading men (they seem fairly stuck up), but in this film at least Connery gets to show his chops. Not that Harrison Ford is any slouch, but we're used to him from the other two films, so he's nothing new. A distant, equally driven, foreboding father -- now that's something interesting. And Connery plays it straight, which makes the character much funnier than the filmmakers perhaps intended him to be. The plot follows the usual Terry and the Pirates type plot of the other two -- high adventure in exotic places, in this case fighting Nazis (again) to recover The Holy Grail (instead of the Ark of the Covenant). Unfortunately, the DVDs come as a trilogy set, but the second one isn't so bad on later viewing. Now I just have to get around to writing those reviews...

year: 1989
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/combined

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I can't believe it. Charlie Kaufman actually made a date film. After the fiasco that was Adaptation (yes, my own opinion, not necessarily others), I was wary of watching another of his scripts. Well, this one is, um, spotless. The film has impeccable acting, direction, special effects and editing. I'll start with the latter. The film jumps around quite a bit in its timeline (a la Memento or 21 Grams), but it has some of the tightest editing I've seen. Not at all difficult to figure out when you are, which is also a testament to the direction (amusing as both Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet have stated that they never understood a word the director was telling them). Carrey and Winslet do some of their best, if not absolutely their best, acting ever. And unbelievably, Winslet gets to do the crazy stuff while Carrey plays it serious. I'm not going to say anything about the special effects, because it would give far too much away. In fact, I'm not sure I want to say anything about the plot for the same reason. You should go into the film knowing almost nothing about it (that's probably a good idea with all Kaufman scripts), but you definitely, absolutely should see it. With a loved one, if at all possible.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/combined

Painted Fire

I don't have a good way to describe this type of film. While it is considered an art film, or an independent film depending on your outlook, and therefore has a unique style of storytelling and cinematography, the deeper meaning it purports to have never strikes a chord in the viewer, namely me. I suppose you could call films like this "smart art with no heart," or something like that. It's not true that this film has no heart -- the tale of a famous Korean painter from the late 1800s, who learned from the masters, but never fit into their world -- because you empathize with the painter as he struggles to gain an understanding of art and produce something unique, but you're not sure you believe in him all the time. He was, apparently, something of a boor, needing (essentially) wine, women and song to create his art. This is told unflinchingly, and it's an important part of the difference between the painter and his masters, and yet we remain confused because we see him alternately meek and subservient in front of his masters or famous people, and rowdy and obnoxious in front of the very same. If nothing else, we understand how tormented his life was, and we are educated in the creation of Korean (and Asian in general) painting from that period.

original title: Chihwaseon
year: 2002
length: 117 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317234/combined

Iris

Some folks I asked about this film were either unaware that it dealt with Alzheimer's or thought that if it was primarily about Alzheimer's they should have used a non-famous person in the title role. I have to respectfully disagree. This film is incredibly moving precisely because a famous author, renowned for her ability with words, declines due to the disease. And I'd also have to disagree that the film is primarily about Alzheimer's. Not true -- the film is really about love. While the main characters, Iris Murdoch and her husband John Bayley, love each other it doesn't seem like the same kind of love. Iris' is secretive; John's is full-on devotion. And that makes a world of difference when the disease captures her. While the film is based on his memoirs, so events and feelings are filtered through his eyes, not hers, it seems like an accurate portrayal of Iris and the disease. We see all the saddest characteristics of the disease (the one that sticks out in my mind is when she decides the living room is the bathroom), yet it's told with great tenderness and, well, love. Both Judi Dench and Kate Winslet bring Iris alive for us, but the award definitely goes to (and did go to) Jim Broadbent for his portrayal of the husband. What a chameleon this actor is -- he's great at playing a sad sack (e.g., Bridget Jones' Diary), but then he explodes on the scene as in Moulin Rouge! and we have to modify our opinion one more time.

year: 2001
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280778/combined

Bruce Almighty

The trailer for this film was hysterically funny. I must have made more than a few people watch it with me. But I worried. Were those all the funny bits? Was it one of those trailers that gives too much away, so that when you finally watch the film, it's a major letdown? I suppose I shouldn't have watched the trailer over and over again, because well, uh, yeah, it was. I like Jim Carrey even though sometimes he makes me want to bite my fingernails to the quick. And I admire that he's been quite successful in not-necessarily-comedic roles. But this poor film is trying too hard to blend slapstick comedy and philosophy. It most definitely doesn't succeed. Meeting God, disbelieving in God, getting excited about being God, learning that those powers aren't what he wants, that he just wants to be happy and have the people around him be happy, ho hum. I could have written this myself. Still, it's amusing for the parts in which he's trying out God's powers. Jennifer Aniston surprised me as well (though she moved down a notch from The Good Girl), not for her role, which was your typical boring girlfriend role, but for a scene in which she cries over losing Carrey. She really isn't a bad dramatic actress, and I hope she stops hesitating and jumps into those roles again.

year: 2003
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/combined

Blue Car

Others might consider this a slight film, in that everything seems to happen inside the characters' heads and there isn't a "large" plot or even a great deal of action. Kinda like Pieces of April and films like that. But what the film ends up saying, or actually shouting out loud, is worth the rental. It may be that I was so moved by the film because it's about a girl in high school, and hey, I've been there before. In her case, though, her family has been torn apart. Her sister won't eat and her mother is too busy to take care of them, so she takes out her frustrations in poetry. Her English teacher sees her talent and encourages her to enter a poetry contest. This all sounds benign, but feelings run very close to the surface, and those erupt during the course of the film. The under-rated David Strathairn plays the teacher and the perfectly cast Agnes Bruckner plays the girl. Strathairn is a veteran of John Sayles films, so he's familiar with subtle acting. He helps create an atmosphere in which although you know what's going to happen, and you can see it coming a mile away, it doesn't make it less abhorrent when it does. When Bruckner finally reads her poetry at the contest, you can't help but be moved by this lost child who attempts to hold her life together while everyone in her life is failing her, and not only holds her head above water but triumphs. Every young girl should watch this film (although I imagine many parents might be wary of that advice), if only because it's a wonderful example of overcoming adversity.

year: 2002
length: 96 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290145/combined

Something's Gotta Give

Somebody in the movie theater was tsk-ing through all the scenes of Diane Keaton sobbing over her broken heart, but in fact that's mostly what I liked about this film. Keaton's brilliance as an actor is in giving us something that looks very real; something we could do or could have done at some point in our lives. Unbelievably, I used to avoid films she was in because she irritated or annoyed me, but now I realize that she acts directly from the heart, and that's a gift. Nancy Meyers, though, must be kicking herself for not titling this film what she titled her previous film, What Women Want, since that's really what this film is about. Or at least, it's about what older women want...from men. Which makes this ultimately a date movie -- boys and girls of various ages falling into and out of love. Jack Nicholson, as the main man, is very good as is, believe it or not, Keanu Reeves (as the younger man who immediately sees Keaton's charms). The writing has its high points, but we unfortunately are tossed a typical Hollywood ending with babies and smiles, as if that's what life is all about. So, in the long run, even with Keaton's talents, the film leaves you wondering what you just saw and whether it actually meant anything.

year: 2003
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337741/combined

28 Days Later...

I was kinda afraid to watch this film. I mean, it's ostensibly billed as a horror film, and I only just realized I can watch horror films without having nightmares three nights running (probably an effect of that horrible Space:1999 episode from when I was a child). But my favorite critic was using phrases like "this is a punk rock zombie movie" and trying to prove that it really was a horror film, as opposed to what other critics might be saying, so I knew I had to give it a go. It is definitely a punk- rock flick. A bicycle messenger wakes up from a coma in London and discovers, well, no one. Everyone seems to be gone (and how they filmed London with no people in it proves that those in charge in London are cooler than, say, those in New York). And then the mad zombies start to attack. It's got its funny and poignant bits, no doubt, but I was yelping in some scenes. I was also too interested in the final outcome to look away for too long. Acted well by a cast of what I considered unknowns, it doesn't make me want to rent Dawn of the Dead or, for goodness sake, Friday the 13th, but it gave me an appreciation of horror films and it was entertaining, in the end.

year: 2002
length: 113 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/combined

Duplex

Another film watched on the transatlantic flight back from Copenhagen. See, it's difficult for someone who watches so much film to have this cool little video unit in your seat, and have watched 98% of the films listed. You end up watching dopey ones you would never pay money for, in the theater or on DVD. I really like Ben Stiller; I think he's one of our best comedic actors (I have a special fondness for Keeping the Faith, albeit for more reasons than that), but he gets involved in some fairly silly projects (Starsky and Hutch, anyone?). Alongside Drew Barrymore the potential for a quality project sinks even lower. You can guess what it's about -- two young yuppie types buy a home in NYC but are terrorized by the sweet old lady upstairs. In the process, they nearly destroy the house. There are funny scenes, e.g., installing the clapper, the raisin / mouse turd (yup, you betcha), but it's just, well, dumb. I would recommend skipping this film and renting the much funnier Tom Hanks / Shelley Long film The Money Pit (or The 'burbs, for that matter).

year: 2003
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266489/combined

A Mighty Wind

Christopher Guest, the man behind Spinal Tap and Best in Show, and who played the six-fingered man in the now-classic Princess Bride, has brought us yet another improvisational ensemble film. And it's too bad this one doesn't work as well as Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman because...we want more of these types of films! Or, at least I do. The group he brings together -- Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, Parker Posey, Eugene Levy -- know the art of deadpan improvisation. For background, they're all supposed to be old-time folk singers, with the Puritan-like character that goes with the territory, and they're staging a concert to commemorate the death of a beloved producer. But the songs they sing are in broad contrast to their lives, e.g.,"A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow", "Old Joe's Place", "Potato's in the Paddy Wagon." And yet, it doesn't have as many clearly funny moments as previous films (although the scene in which Balaban is worrying about the props, lights and flowers for the show is priceless). A decent rental, but I'd re-rent Best in Show instead, if I were you.

year: 2003
length: 91 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310281/combined

Rosemary's Baby

So, I ran right out and rented another horror film. Although this one isn't really horror. More of a suspense thriller. There are points where you expect nasty demons to pop out of the woodwork but that's only because you're a product of your times. In 1968, there wasn't a need to film things like that, particularly when you had the young, talented, still tragedy-free Roman Polanski on the project. Mia Farrow plays a young wife in a beautiful new apartment who just can't wait to get pregnant. She does, but she gradually starts to wonder if there's something all wrong about her conception and the cloying neighbors in her apartment building. The film builds gradually, the same way disbelief grows gradually, with no glitz or glamour, until the final scene which truly is horrific. Do you ever root for the main character! When she "escapes" and tries to find another doctor, you start smiling and release long pent-up breath. Farrow is not my favorite actor, but she works hard here, providing an illusion of a loving wife who can't quite figure out what's gone wrong. Major kudos to Ruth Gordon as the nosy neighbor. (Remember her from Harold and Maude?) Without her, the film would have lost a lot of its spark.

year: 1968
length: 136 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/combined

Intolerable Cruelty

In the interest of full disclosure, I watched this film on the plane to Geneva, Switzerland last month. (Yes, yes, this is how far behind I've gotten. It's actually worse than that. I have films back to *gasp* December that I haven't reviewed yet.) I'm sure this film was cut for the plane ride, but I have doubts that more of what I saw would have made it a better experience for me. Although my viewing of the film was almost definitely also colored by the woman next to me upchucking not once but three times (count 'em, three times) during the flight. So! While the impossibly handsome George Clooney and the scrumptiously voluptuous Catherine Zeta-Jones are, naturally, fun to watch there's little in the plot of this film that's appealing. Hard to believe it's a Coen brothers flick. Meant to be a comedy it follows the "travails" of Zeta-Jones and her lawyer, Clooney, in extricating her from the bonds of holy matrimony. Clooney, of course, is against marriage, while Zeta-Jones is all for it, but for the wrong reasons. In the long run, the film gives us no one to root for, and the conclusion is ridiculous, to put it mildly. The best part of the film is the beginning in which Geoffrey Rush, of all people, gets to show flamboyant acting chops while getting cuckolded.

year: 2003
length: 100 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138524/combined

Girl With a Pearl Earring

This so rarely happens -- I like a film better because I originally read the book. Usually, I'm disappointed in a director's vision because I had my own vision while reading. (Lord of the Rings is another exception to the rule.) In this case, I enjoyed the film better because someone (read: art director) cared enough to make every scene look like a Vermeer painting. And since one of the intents of the book is to enhance your appreciation of Vermeer's masterpieces, this is manifested as subtext in the film. I found nearly every image breath-taking, and I don't have qualms with the story -- a young Dutch maid secretly becomes a model for a famous artist -- as some seem to. Since it mirrors Tracy Chevalier's novel, perhaps it's the book people should take issue with. Scarlett Johansson is perfect. When she finally turns her head to the camera with the pearl in her ear and the blue and yellow wraps on her head, you think "how lucky were they, finding an actress who can do subtle and who looks the part?" Colin Firth is better here than in recent films, if only because he gets a chance to use those chaste smoldering glances he became famous for in Pride and Prejudice. And, in one of my more surreal movie-going moments, I watched 28 Days Later... several hours after seeing this film. Yes, that is Cillian Murphy in both films (starring in the former, while only window-dressing in the latter), and I never even noticed until the rolling credits. But, that's a review for another day...

year: 2003
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/combined

The Last Samurai

Sometimes films come along that fall between my ratings categories. In this case, my inkling is to give the film a 3.25. It's certainly slickly produced and very well acted, with scenes that alternate between deeply moving and thrilling. This is usually good enough to merit a 3.5 in my book, however, it falls short of a true 3.5 by not giving us enough to hang the scenes on. There's an interesting story line -- Tom Cruise plays a deadbeat American Army officer hired by the Japanese to train their troops to fight the samurai, but is captured by the samurai and learns their way of life -- and while it's affecting on several levels (the destruction of the samurai, how a foreigner views a radically different culture) it seems to have been made to showcase some brilliant battle scenes. The best way to describe this is that the film has no soul, and for a film about the samurai way of life, with its philosophy of honor, that's a grave error. I was impressed, as many were, by Ken Watanabe who brilliantly understates his role as the samurai leader, and it's possible that this rubbed off on Cruise, not known for understating anything. Here he did a good job of not making his character a passionate convert, which would never have fit with the cynical, bitter man who first came to Japan. So, I give the film the higher mark if only to recommend it to those interested in the subject matter who might otherwise discount it.

year: 2003
length: 154 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/combined

Upstairs, Downstairs

I can safely assume that the rest of this series will be as promising as the part that I've seen to date (almost half). Granted, there is one major character change which seems hastily arranged but, in toto, this is one of the more thoroughly enjoyable BBC series ever produced (and yes, The Forsyte Saga takes a second seat to this one). Set in Victorian England, it is the story of the gentry, their downstairs servants, and how their lives intertwine and remain separate at the same time. If nothing else, you learn the mores and ideas of the time (e.g., feminism, divorce, that pesky merchant class). For instance, in one episode the lady of the house must let a servant go who is too old to perform her duties anymore. How she told her was something I'll always remember. Even though the language of that time may sound like everyone is walking on eggshells all the time, there are take-away lessons for our times. In this case, the lesson is that there is always a kind way to do a normally repulsive task. The acting is uniformly perfect, with everyone inhabiting their characters to a T. In fact, I saw Gordon Jackson in another production at some point and found him not at all believable, not due to his acting skills but to the fact that he was the butler on this series, and in my mind, will always be the butler.

year: 1971-1975
length: 68 50-min. episodes
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066722/combined

Freaky Friday

Like, y'know, like, this is so word, dude. (OK, that's my lame attempt at invoking the flavor of this film.) Since it's a remake of the 1976 film starring Jodie Foster, it involves a mother and daughter switching bodies, but that's about all it has in common with the original. This one is updated for this day and age, and not just because it has Lindsay Lohan in it (new teen sensation!) but because instead of the mom being a homemaker, this mom is a psychiatrist. Instead of braces ruining your life, you wear the wrong style of shirt to school. Instead of the dad, you have the boyfriend (and a cute one at that -- Mark Harmon). So, it's hip with the times, but better than that Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis rule. Curtis has a blast acting like a teenager, and is brave enough to look old on film. Lohan is a marvel. I'd never seen her in anything before, but, yes, she is very talented. I completely believed her channeling her mom's personality. And that made for a way fun time, so, like, kick back, enjoy, okay?

year: 2003
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322330/combined

Kundun

Watching this film reminded me of watching films like Waking Life. While visually and emotionally stunning, the pieces have to work extra hard to make up a whole. Martin Scorsese is yet again in his element, describing a cultural phenomenon in pictures, this time the life story of the Dalai Lama. And with non-actors to boot! The feel you get for life as a Tibetan monk and for the conflict between Tibet and China is unparalleled -- the making-of and tearing-down shots of mandala sand paintings, costumed religious dances, the swearing-in ceremony. Even on a tiny screen, the impact of these scenes is visceral. The "confrontation" between the Dalai Lama and Chairman Mao is almost funny, which sounds sacrilegious (and probably is). But, why do I give it a low-ish rating? Because Scorsese works so hard to present all the facts that you are left a bit adrift in how to put all the facts together. For instance, you understand the Dalai Lama's principle of non-violence, but aren't completely sure how it benefited the people of Tibet. And that's probably my main complaint about the film, that it shows us so much of the life of the Dalai Lama that we lose sight of the life of his beloved people. But, if you're up for a spectacle (although not a spectacular spectacular as in Moulin Rouge), this should not disappoint.

year: 1997
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119485/combined

The Triplets of Belleville

Sheesh, I suppose Finding Nemo should have won for Best Animated Film, but only because while this film stuns with its images, it doesn't have a normal run-of-the-mill narrative (essentially the story of a biker stolen from the Tour de France and the grandmother who tries to find him). The same could be said about Hayao Miyazaki's work, though, and his films are beyond amazing. This minor quibble shouldn't keep you away from the film because how often will you see art-deco-ish cruise ships, a slow-mo of a dog barking at a train and its occupants, and the pièce de résistance, how one of the triplets catches frogs. Besides, the film relies nearly solely on its images. There are a few spoken words (French? English? I actually couldn't tell), but other than that everything is telegraphed by action, expressions, Stomp-like music, and whistle-blowing (yes, you'll have to see it to believe it). It is a bit violent, which might mean that you don't let your kids see it...yet. But I guarantee you will laugh out loud at least a few times, if not constantly.

original title: Les Triplettes de Belleville
year: 2003
length: 80 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286244/combined