The Wire

I resisted, strongly. Pals of mine told me this was a superb show, not to be missed. Eventually, I put it on the list. First episode, hmm. Second episode, huh? Third through sixth episodes, what the...? It wasn't until much later in the season that I eventually recognized what the creators of this show were doing. While it may be obvious that the story is about both the drug dealers and law enforcement agents of Baltimore, it's not at all obvious where that story is going for a long while. I am surprised the show ever got a following when it requires a commitment from the viewer to wait for it to unfold over several episodes (it reminds me of The Sopranos in that respect). It goes without saying that the acting is supreme, especially the drug addict trying to go straight (Andre Royo) and the clever drug boss with ESP (Wood Harris). The show does its best to capture every bit of the grittiness of a big-city project and its inhabitants, and that remains my only issue with it. I am not steeped in street language, so it was frustrating to try and understand the street code at first-- good thing I have rewind capabilities. HBO never makes it easy for you (the only HBO series I can recall that was fluff was Sex and the City), and as long as you realize this, you'll be rewarded. No spoilers-- experience it for yourself. Besides, it has the best theme song ever. I double-dog dare you to disagree.

year: 2002-?
length: seasons 1-3 on DVD, season 4 aired, season 5 picked up
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/combined

Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Who doesn't love the heroic Gromit and the affable, dopey, cheese-loving Wallace? Only in this film, Nick Park's first full- length feature starring his original creations, Wallace may not be as much a cheese lover as you once thought... This time they're in the vegetable piracy deterrent business (called "anti- pesto" -- get it? get it?), on the run after a giant rabbit beast called, naturally, the Were Rabbit. Mixed in is Wallace's usual love interest, Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham-Carter), her gun- loving suitor, Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), and many silly-looking rabbits. Park does his usual genius with the story and his usual skill in mirroring human traits in his clay characters, although this is the first film of his in which I noticed mars in the clay figures. The figures almost seemed hastily created, but perhaps this is simply a factor of having a longer time to look at them than usual. Also weird is a fair number of sexual innuendos -- nothing too bad, mostly (ahem) titty jokes, but odd for a film that is family friendly fare. Do 10-year-olds get these kinds of jokes? Hmm. Regardless, I was, as usual, enchanted. The story flows fast, there are more silly inventions than in the previous short films, and one of the final scenes between Gromit and another dog should make you laugh yourself silly. In the immortal words of Wallace, "it's a veritable vegetable paradise!"

year: 2005
length: 85 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/combined

The Wizard of Oz

Advertising works! See the ad in Premiere, order the DVD the next day, spend the next few days hopping around in anticipation, and race home from work on the appointed day to ooh and aah over the new digital transfer of this beloved 1939 film. I was, as most kids, a huge fan and having to wait to see it once a year on television was downright depressing. Naturally, when it came out on VHS I ran out and got it right away. But the difference between that and the current DVD is like the difference between a Munchkin and Glinda. My husband got completely sick of me saying "that was the true color of the [insert whatever here]?!". It has to be seen to be believed. The DVD extras give you the low-down on how they created the new transfer, plus many mini- documentaries hosted by the charming Angela Lansbury that illumine and enlighten the process of putting this treasure on screen. What a hoot to see Liza Minelli in better days with her brother and sister (Judy Garland had three kids; yeah, I didn't know either). And Jack Haley and Ray Bolger reminiscing on how much they complained during filming about their makeup and the heat. Not to be missed is an extended scene of the first meeting between Dorothy and the Scarecrow that showcases Ray Bolger's dancing. What, was he made out of rubber?! I don't know many who don't love this film, so go buy the DVD and smile, smile, smile.

year: 1939
length: 101 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/combined

War of the Worlds

I don't think Steven Spielberg's heart is in it anymore. Each and every one of his films from recent memory has the same exact theme. All together now -- families don't communicate, get ripped apart by external forces, only to discover that what they wanted all along was each other. There are more plots in this world than that one! And it's particularly weird that he seems to be able to take any kind of film, sci-fi or otherwise, and ground it in the relationships among family members. I shouldn't diss this approach so heavily, but like I said, it gets old. For those unfamiliar with H.G. Wells' book, the original text has aliens from Mars attacking Earth and attempting to wipe out all of mankind. And this is the premise of the film, except that the aliens aren't necessarily from Mars and while they come from outer space to do their attacking, there's an important component of their attack hiding out beneath our feet. Creepy, you betcha. And absolutely, utterly and completely implausible. You mean to say that when we drilled for oil, built a tunnel for a subway line or, heck, mined for salt, we never ran across these things?! The ridiculousness of this grabs you from the get-go and never leaves you, giving the film a stoooopid taint that is unfortunate. Because the special effects rock -- those long-legged machines wiping out each and every human are exactly as terrifying as they should be. And the acting, for the most part, is excellent. Tom Cruise plays a deadbeat dad saddled with his two kids as the horror begins, and only mis-steps (mis-acts) a couple of times. There is also an interesting sub-theme running through the picture, that of the difficulty of allowing a child to go fight a war that seems to be a lost cause. Spielberg doesn't take this far, as it isn't the thrust of the film, but I think any comparisons you might draw with the war in Iraq are justified. I hated the voiceovers at the beginning and end (and I adore Morgan Freeman's voice). Totally unnecessary -- does he think we need an explanation for the terrors we're about to see? And the ending sucked eggs. So, I liked it and I dis-liked it. If I were to rent it, I'd fast forward to all the scenes of Cruise emoting and buildings being torn to shreds and ignore the rest of it.

year: 2005
length: 116 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/combined

Wedding Crashers

You can now label me officially a Vince Vaughn fan. First, he was the only decent thing about Dodgeball, then he does that comic genius thing again, only in a radical 360-degree kind of way. Usually, these kind of films bore me silly -- two dopey guys only interested in sex find the girl(s) of their dreams. Yawn. Been done thousands and thousands and thousands... Ten minutes in I was sure this would be an eye-roller. But once they finish showing us how Vaughn and Owen Wilson have perfected the dastardly art of wedding crashing, and the film gets down to business, it's pretty freakin' funny. (I'll admit, right off the bat, that the first dinner table scene made me laugh so hard I had to make an effort to keep my eyes open. I don't quite know what it was that made it so funny -- it's the oldest joke in the book. Context, I guess.) Naturally, the plot is ridiculous, but all romance movies have ridiculous plots. Assume this before you go or there'll be no viewing pleasure for you. Still, I can't give it more than a 3.0, if only because of the evil boyfriend (but he looks so nice!) and the homosexual brother (but he's a sensitive artist!). Back to my original point... Wilson is terrific (you just want to pinch his cheeks he's so sweet) and Rachel McAdams as the love interest is as engaging as she was in The Notebook (I'd like to see her do something other than romance now; she clearly has the chops for it), but Vaughn simply sparkles. He's kooky, clever, completely twisted, and loving every second of it. Just what you need in a sidekick. Isn't it time he got a headliner, though?

year: 2005
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396269/combined

Wonderfalls

This is the kind of television that should be made. And may I go so far as to say that only this kind of television should be made. Take a Parker Posey doppelgänger, a popular tourist attraction, a gimmick to keep things interesting (oh, and don't forget the lesbian sibling), smush all that together with witty repartees and you have Wonderfalls. I've only watched 1.3 episodes so far, but I started adoring it after the first 15 minutes. Which means that once again, you'll get my diatribe on why the hell networks can't recognize good shows and give them a decent time to be discovered so they're not cancelled without being given a chance. Or (all together now) why is the viewing public such a bunch of dolts? Enough of that, it's so pointless. This sitcom's mostly about how people handle relationships, which when it comes down to it, is probably what all sitcoms are about. Still, is has a quirky misanthropic viewpoint that makes you feel uncomfortable and not alone at the same time. Might not be everyone's cup of tea (might appeal to twenty-somethings most), but I guarantee you'll see something of yourself in each episode.

year: 2004
length: 13 45-min. episodes
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361256/combined

Withnail & I

A few of the featurettes included on this DVD looked intriguing, so I flipped through some of them. But when I reached the one describing how the producers wanted to pull the plug on the film a week in and the director is bemusedly explaining this is because they thought the film wasn't funny, I snorted and turned it off. Damn straight this film isn't funny. The word I would use is excruciating. There is maximum one very funny scene (the one with the bull), but the rest of the film is unintelligible, and that has nothing to do with the British accents. Ostensibly the story of two friends in the 1960s who decide they need a vacation from their daily grind, consisting of desperately trying out for theatrical productions, the film meanders from one boring soliloquy to the next, interspersed with dialogue that has nothing to do with the plot (what plot?). It's also offensive to gay people, in its assumption that gays are natural predators. If you make it to the end, I'd be happy if you'd let me know what it was all about (like I said, what plot?). The only reason it gets that extra 1/2 point rating is because I adore watching Richard E. Grant do his stuff. Who cares if he's impossible to understand? It's his attitude and aura that are entrancing.

year: 1987
length: 107 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094336/combined

Wimbledon

Without a doubt, Working Title Films has cornered the market on British romantic films. Unfortunately, at least half these films do not live up to early standards (e.g., Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones' Diary, Elizabeth) and become dull echoes (e.g., Love Actually, Notting Hill). They've discovered their niche, and are now at the stage whereby they figure they don't need to work too hard to attract their audience. They got me to go! Even with middling reviews and the inclusion of a middling actress, Kirsten Dunst (the best thing going for her is that she's as tiny as actresses are supposed to be nowadays). Paul Bettany struggles to do something, anything, with his role, a hopeless task when he's given nothing to work with. It's the basic romance tale, with the addition of tennis, which is all anyone ever talks about when it comes to this film -- how intensely the actors trained to look like real tennis players (although those balls must be digitally included). If you like tennis, go ahead. That part's well done. (And one of the funnier things to notice is how hushed the movie-going audience gets when the tennis audience in the film is silent for the next play.) The rest of us can give it a miss. If only because the funny lines are sparse, the chemistry between the two stars is nil, and the obviousness of the ending is only for the very young and those who never, ever want their films to end with the smallest deviation from the standard plot.

year: 2004
length: 98 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/combined

Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself

A friend of mine has a pet peeve, which is being manipulated in films. He abhors knowing that his emotions are being played with while he's being entertained. I've been secretly amused by this (what film doesn't manipulate your emotions to some degree?) but when I watched this film, I was right there in his shoes. It starts off quite nicely -- British-ly clever, darkly comic, definitely offbeat. Wilbur tries to commit suicide on a regular basis and his brother consistently bails him out at the last minute. You learn about some of the motivation for this behavior, and it seems as if the film will delve into an exploration of the reasons behind Wilbur's guilt feelings and his inability to start a loving relationship. And then, blammo! He falls for his brother's new wife. And something horribly tragic happens to his brother. So, you're contentedly watching this macabre film and it turns into a heavy-duty drama, but without any of the underpinnings of real drama. Instead of reflection on these incredible plot twists, you are treated to scenes between brother and wife that are so sexually charged they leave the sparse number of reflective scenes in the dust. And you wonder what happened to the comedy. Why are the filmmakers making such an effort to merely titillate (a kind word for manipulate)? Result being one very unbelievable film with one very lame ending. I didn't dislike the actors (you'll at least recognize the wife as one of the girlfriends of Bridget Jones), and the male lead is certainly working towards becoming the Scottish equivalent of Colin Farrell (whether that's good or bad is up to you), but they didn't save the picture for me. It ultimately made no sense.

year: 2002
length: 109 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329767/combined

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Gosh, I really think I'm getting dumber. There must be a reason I watch all these classic old films and they leave me feeling I missed something crucial. (I could name at least a dozen other classic film reviews here that have sent readers around the bend.) There's nothing wrong with the two lead actresses in this film -- well, let me rephrase that. Bette Davis is superb, as always, as the frumpy, psychotic, definitely-not-60s-housewife-material sister. Joan Crawford is fine, but her over-developed sense of melodrama became embarrassing to watch. She's the "good" sister, the "good" actress-of-yore, the one we're supposed to root for. And you can't not empathize with her to some extent, as Davis does all sorts of horrible things to Crawford in the course of the film. (Yuck, rats. Yuck.) And if the dénouement is not exactly surprising, still, you end up feeling that Crawford was being too much of a weakling scaredy-pants by not telling her sister earlier (I kept wanting to shake her out of fear and into anger). I am only sometimes of the mindset that watching a film that has excellent performances even if the story plods along, goes on too long, or is poorly produced is worth it. Too often, it's simply irritating that I'm not watching a complete picture. (So, as much as I'd like to see, say, Colin Firth in all of his films, I just know I'll hate 3/4 of them for the reasons above.) Davis is much more compelling (because the film is better) in All About Eve, so rent that instead of this one. And that weird young man who gets roped into becoming Davis' accompanist -- that's the evil King Tut from the old Batman TV series, believe it or not.

year: 1962
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056687/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

Waking Life

IMDB sometimes pulls an Amazon and recommends a film similar to the one you've pulled up information about. In the case of Waking Life, it recommends Mulholland Dr. Yes, that's a trippy movie as well, but I think a more fitting recommendation would be My Dinner with Andre. Both these films have little to no plot and contain almost nothing but philosophical ramblings and musings. The big difference is that Waking Life tries to merge the images with the discussions the characters are having. He does this by painting on the film. Yup, you read that right -- he animates the characters by painting over what he's shot (i.e., rotoscoping). So, you know there are real, live human beings behind what you're seeing on screen. It's a very odd effect. Instead of seeing humans engaged in discussions, we essentially see the discussions themselves. The animation becomes the discussion -- that which we can never see that exists outside but attached to our lives, e.g., the afterlife, society, language, dreams, and (not too surprising) cinema. It's a fascinating concept, and the film gets high marks for this approach. I don't think it's for everyone, though. There are some funny parts, but few and far between, and the heavy intellectual content may strike some people as grandstanding. I personally think it's a film that needs to be watched every 5 years or so...just like My Dinner with Andre.

year: 2001
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/combined

The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl

You can't come away from this film without conflicting emotions. On the one hand, you believe Frau Riefenstahl when she (adamantly) scoffs at any notion that she was involved in the party politics of the Nazis. On the other hand, you see pictures of her laughing and smiling with Hitler, letters she wrote him after his Blitzkrieg successes, and the obvious propaganda nature of her famous film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will) about Hitler and his Nazi parades. But you cannot ignore her talent. This woman knew how to direct and how to edit. Her description of how she put together one of her earlier films after someone butchered it and what she learned from that process, and her thoughts on how to create an aesthetically pleasing film, show that she was as skilled a film auteur as any you can name today. Her technological innovations for filming her documentary of the 1936 Berlin Olympic games alone are astounding -- digging pits for the cameras so that they could film up at the runners, creating a balloon camera that would float above the stadium, placing a camera along the sides of the track that moved at the speed of the race. Several of her innovations are commonplace today. If she had been allowed to continue her career, without the allegations of her instrumental part in Hitler's reign, she would have been among the most famous German directors ever. Of that, I have no doubt. But, of course, there were allegations and her career was destroyed before it started. The genius of this documentary is that it lets you decide on your own whom you want to believe. By the way, the translation of the German "die Macht der Bilder" is "the power of pictures," which seems much more apt a title.

original title: Die Macht der Bilder: Leni Riefenstahl
year: 1993
length: 180 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107472/combined

The West Wing

Who's my favorite character on this TV series? That's so hard because they're all excellent. I suppose it comes down to two, Toby and C.J., because Richard Schiff and Allison Janney are so good at making characters out of their characters. I mean, they've fleshed them out better than the others have. And they're funnier, to boot. I could see how some folks might be offended at the idea of a wise-cracking White House staff, however Aaron Sorkin blends that with issues in a way that makes it fun to learn about politics and the process of politics. The first season is out on DVD, which I immediately purchased (the only TV series I'm probably ever bound to buy), and 95% of the episodes are fantastic. (There's one -- The Crackpots and These Women -- that seemed phoned-in and is offensive as well.) Moira Kelly is the only original series character not to be included in the following seasons, and it becomes rather obvious why she was "replaced" by Janel Moloney. Hands down this is my fave TV show and I wish it hadn't taken them so long to release it on DVD. Those of us without television, who've watched episodes here and there, were champing at the bit.

year: 1999-?
length: season 1 on DVD, season 5 in play
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/combined

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Maybe this should be classified as a horror film. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor play a university professor and his wife who are constantly at each other's throats. They invite two others home from a faculty party at 2am, they all get drunk, and the truth starts to come out. Except that you can't tell what's truth and what's just a game. Up until the end and possibly after it's over. Definitely don't watch this film if you're depressed about your marriage or your partnership. You might end up seeing elements of your interaction in the performances. Although I doubt many wives are as braying as Taylor makes hers. She won an Oscar for her performance, and it's deserved, but I think Burton should have won a parallel Oscar as well. Where would one be without the other?

year: 1966
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061184/combined

Wings of Desire

This was my first Wim Wenders film, and I wasn't aware of his process for creating film. There was no script, just dialogue written by a scriptwriter friend that he received each day of filming. Perhaps that was his method for just this film? 'Cause I would consider that fairly scary for all involved! The film concerns angels watching over Berlin (the translated German title is Heaven over Berlin), and the need for one of them to fall to Earth and become human in order to touch, taste, see and feel for himself. As my hubby says, it's lyrical, and at times I'm afraid that the lack of script made it a bit too lyrical, i.e., lengthy and ponderous when it didn't need to be (remember, I have trouble with poetry). And yet it's one of those films that will be etched in memory for a long, long time. I, unfortunately, watched the "remake" of this -- City of Angels -- before seeing the original. Could have been a very bad mistake, but in fact it was an exercise in contrasts and similarities. While the remake is in the final analysis banal, the director did use the same library scenes, and I remember enjoying the equating of libraries with peace, quiet and spirituality, as well as a place where the angels seem to get their reading done. And Peter Falk! I didn't know he played himself, and so enchantingly. I'm a bit too young to have gotten into Colombo, but I was aware when I lived in Germany that they thought the world of that series, so it's no surprise that Wenders asked Falk to be in the film. In the end, what struck me most were the shots of the Wall (this was filmed before it fell) and the grittiness of Berlin and that entire 1980s punk-pop era that was at its heyday when I lived in Germany. And the idea that angels watch over Berlin, that sad, proud city.

original title: Der Himmel über Berlin
year: 1987
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093191/combined

Winged Migration

I'm a former birder, so I'm bound to love this film. But I think that there will be few people who won't thoroughly enjoy it. You'd think you'd be bored watching birds flying for 98 minutes with very little commentary to accompany them. You'll be surprised! These birds fly incredibly long distances twice a year in order to feed (e.g., the Arctic Tern flies pole to pole twice a year, that's 12,500 miles each way). It seems incredible to me that they'd store energy for half a year just so they can expend all of that to get somewhere and start over. Wouldn't it be easier just to hibernate for a few months?! Anyway, it doesn't matter why they do it, it's incredible to watch the process. The filmmakers spent 4 years making this film (so, yes, that is the WTC in the background as the birds fly past NYC) using ultralight aircraft and, apparently, some specially trained birds. Most of the film is from the viewpoint of a bird in the flock looking at the bird next to him. You can even hear the birds breathing and the feathers ruffling. Perhaps this feels so special because it seems as if you're flying with the birds, and who hasn't dreamed of being able to fly? I hope there's a meta-documentary on how they made this film because I think they should be given a medal just for developing a method of filming birds in flight that's so breathtaking.

original title: Le Peuple Migrateur
year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301727/combined

Whale Rider

The emotions ride very close to the surface in this film, so you can expect to get very weepy watching it. It's nearly like watching melodrama (which usually is too sticky for me), except that it is saved by being rooted in legend. A young girl, born of a line of chiefs of the Maori people of New Zealand, is passed up for training to become the next chief because of her gender. It becomes apparent that she is "the one" (much more clearly than Neo in The Matrix) as she develops what can only be called powers that only she possesses. While the film's overt theme is discrimination, this is not its only feature. In the end, the film is as much about gender as it is about the nearly- forgotten mysticism of the Maori, and their hopes and dreams. Quite a difficult balance to achieve, and it's done beautifully. The girl chosen to play the main character is a marvel. She is able to play stubborn but not petulant, sad but not weepy (except in one very well-done scene), a tomboy but also plainly a girl. Weirdly, she looks like a very young Jennifer Beals (which is distracting for those who remember Flashdance). The scenery is not as extra-special gorgeous as in The Lord of the Rings series. You see how the Maori people live, and it's quite similar to the reservations here in America.

year: 2002
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298228/combined

Wild Strawberries

Sometimes I wish I could give a film a 5.0. For the ones that seem head over heels better than films that are really very good and usually rate a 3.5 on my scale. This film is about...well, it's about death. And guilt, and choices made in life, and emotions, and family. I'm guessing most Ingmar Bergman films are like this. I was completely entranced. Even with these heavy-duty themes, I never noticed the time passing. The film is a study in contrasts -- death vs. life, young vs. old, caring vs. cold as ice, guilt-ridden vs. free to do whatever you want. An old man travels with his daughter-in-law from his hometown to be honored in a special ceremony for his lifetime achievements. Everything is a symbol: the journey itself, the discussions with his daughter-in-law, the people they meet along the way. So, why wasn't I bored? There aren't many jump cuts or strange camera angles or other types of camera techniques, but I felt compelete empathy with this normal man reviewing his life towards its end. What could be more universal than this type of reflection? And I appreciate the plain, clear film direction. I kept worrying that something surreal would happen that would jolt me out of the film's reality, but this never happens. (For instance, when he's standing above the baby carriage, I wondered whether he would tumble headlong into it, like the coffin scene in Brazil! I'm my own enemy, sometimes.) I can't imagine a filmmaker who hasn't seen this film dozens of time, in order to pick it apart to discover its genius. Because I'm sure that if I saw it five more times I still would only have scratched its surface. To complete the package, Criterion has released it on DVD in GBW (glorious black and white) and although the film is nearly 50 years old, it looks like it was made yesterday.

original title: Smultronstället
year: 1957
length: 91 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/combined

Wit

It's very possible that I didn't understand everything there was to understand in this film. There are lots of overtones and undertones that would be difficult for your average film viewer and were doublefold difficult for me because of the amount of serious British poetry that's read onscreen. Whenever poetry is read (unless it's e e cummings, Emily Dickinson or Robert Frost) it's as if my mind shuts off and can't compute what the ears are hearing. A sad state of affairs, yes, I agree. This is not to imply that the film isn't moving, interesting, and ultimately uplifting. Emma Thompson plays a professor of 17th century poetry, specifically the John Dunne variety, who has been diagnosed with cancer. She's not a sentimental person and the film follows her course of extreme chemotherapy and how she copes with it, at first through logic and gradually with questions and doubts. At first I thought the title of the film reflected only her sense of humor, but realized as the film progressed that it encompasses all the definitions of wit -- reasoning power, mental soundness, astuteness, and "an imaginatively perceptive and articulate individual especially skilled in banter" (as defined by Merriam-Webster Online). What more perfect actor for this role than Thompson, then?

year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243664/combined