I have to commend Gus Van Sant. He managed to make a film about Columbine that was tasteful, objective (enough), and beautifully made. I am thankful that he was the first one to create a film that directly addresses the incident because I think that 98% of directors/writers would have botched it.

Van Sant decided that instead of trying to answer any questions or give meaning to the actions of certain people, he just told the story. He did so in a way that showed how normal the day was and how unaffected the two perpetrators were. My favorite narrative choice was the lack of music and general quietness that filled the movie. Aside from making you pay close attention, it is fairly accurate. When the event really happened there was no music playing in the background and although people were screaming it most likely felt like a blur.

I think that everyone should see this movie. It won't help you understand or come to terms with the event, but that's really the point. No movie is going to help you understand why two young children killed dozens of people in their high school. Please, see this.

When I fell in love with Zoolander, I fell in love with Will Ferrell. So, I was terribly eager to see this film. This was the first movie that really put him as the lone star; I had to see it.*

The movie did not disappoint, insofar as I came to see Will Ferrell be hilarious. He was at the top of his game and his timing was damn near perfect. Unfortunately, the story was not that hot. I thought the writing was a little tired and predictable. Thankfully Ferrell and the rest of the cast were able to make up for the uninspired script. Aside from Will, I thought that Daniel Tay was especially good (he's the young kid, who also played a young Harvey Pekar in American Splendor).

At this point you have likely realized that this movie is only good if you like Will Ferrell or like-minded comedians. He carries the film, as it would have been totally unbearable without him.

*"Only one man would dare give me the rasberry. Lone Star."

All I can say is that I am amazed this movie was created by a 26 year-old director. The characters were captivating, which is impressive, and it had the feel of a European film -- very open-ended and a focus on character interaction.

Still, it was missing something. I can't blame Peter Sallett, the director, since it was likely low budget and definitely his first try, but it still left me slightly unsatisfied. I'm having trouble putting my finger on the problem, but I'll let you know if I figure it out.

In the meantime, this movie is great for people who like vignettes of inner-city life or a good coming-of-age story. It will be completely and totally horrible for anyone else. Honestly, if you don't like either of those two things then you will not be able to sit through this film. Okay, I'm joking. Or am I?

I am.

To preface, I didn't watch this all that carefully. That being said, I enjoyed this movie and saw how it was a precursor to a lot of comic-inspired/related films. I was moderately confused by the dog-people, but that's about it.

I do wish I had seen this before all of its followers came out, but I didn't. So, it didn't really excite me like it should have. I remember there being a lot of excitement when this was released and I missed it. Ah well.

If you want to see the roots of contemporary comic-inspired films, then this is a great place to start.

I watched this a couple weeks ago, but didn't write a review. The acting and the storyline kept me interested the whole time, even though it was over two hours. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball at the end. The ending was one of those wacky, you-love-cinema-and-must-now-interpret-the-greater-meaning-of-this-film endings. Unnecessary. It left a sour taste in my mouth.

That lady from the Sopranos was good though. Yeah.

Holy Wow. I should have been expecting this from Quentin Tarantino, but I just wasn't. I didn't even realize it's been six years since his last movie (Jackie Brown). This movie was an assault on the senses and a blast to watch. On top of that, the story is amazing. I was totally enraptured by Uma Thurman's character.

I really having nothing else to say about this film. It was just fantastic. You need to see this movie. Normally I qualify that by saying that people who like this or that should see a certain movie, but I think everyone needs to see this. It is so freaking cool. The only thing I'm really curious about is why they decided to split up the film, aside from additional cash they'll make. I'm going to have to do some research. In the meantime, go see this movie.

I have been talking about this movie for over six months. Last spring they were filming this movie in my (then) neighborhood, St. George in Staten Island. I head it was with Jack Black and I got very excited. Eagerly, I waited for its release.

This weekend I was able to finally see it. I went with my uncles as we had to share the Staten Island love. Aside from enjoying all of the great views of local hangouts (Cargo Cafe, St. George Theater), the movie was fantastic. It was just plain fun. Jack Black was hilarious and the kids were entertaining. The premise was silly but it didn't matter. Oh, and Sarah Silverman was in it which is always a bonus.

My only complaint is the token gay child. He was just plain offensive. As my uncle pointed out, Jack Black was happy to comfort the chubby black girl when she feared ridicule, but had no problem brushing off the oft-ignored gay boy. Not cool Linklater and White, not cool. This caused the loss of half a letter grade.

My mom had recommended this film to me when it was released in theaters. It always looked a little enticing, but not enough to make me spend ten bucks on it. I stand by my initial reaction.

The movie was good, especially Frances McDormand's acting. She led the way in creating four good main characters. In fact, it was the strength of these characters that kept this movie afloat. The cinematography and editing were both incredibly average, but I think that the director, Lisa Cholodenko, wanted to put the emphasis on the script. So, I can forgive it.

When it all comes down to it this movie is forgettable, but it is without a doubt entertaining and worth seeing if you're into music, a McDormand fan or like hot young people who like to swim naked and have threesomes.

Johnny Depp is amazing. Otherwise, this movie was kinda boring. The music was fun and the story was mildly interesting, but for the most part it was just there. It worked fine for the kind of movie I was looking to see, but I would not recommend it if you're looking to enjoy the fruits of cinema.

Also, Salma Hayek is not really in this movie. She exists only in flashbacks. You should know this.

It's now been nearly a week since I've seen this film. It was getting an A- when I left the theater, then a B+ after talking to my roommate, and now an A again after talking to my friend Stevie. I'll explain.

When I left the theater I knew that it was a very good movie. The photography was brilliant, the relationships were very realistic, and Bill Murray was Bill Murray. Still, it seemed like it was either trying too hard to be different or just trying too hard. Also, the narrative structure is a clear homage to the French New Wave, and I thought that lessened its originality. Despite all that I recognized all its brilliant points and knew it was a cut above the average picture.

Then I spoke to my roommate, Louis. He talked to me about how he didn't think it had the originality or spark of Virgin Suicides, which I initially agreed with. There is something very unique about that film that this movie doesn't have. So, I dropped the grade a bit.

Then, while talking to Stevie, I thought about the movie as a whole without comparing it to other directors or to Sofia's other film and I realized that it really is a brilliant film. Every movie is derivative in some way and I would much rather have someone sampling the French New Wave than Bruckheimerian cinema. And so, I can wholeheartedly, unabashedly give this film a solid A as it is in the highest class of films I have seen in my days.

Oh, and the movie is funny without trying to hard, which is always a wonderful thing.

Oh, Jack Black. You can make just about any movie. Apparently this last weekend was a time to watch bad movies with good performances (this and Run Ronnie Run!). As you can guess, this movie was pretty stupid and the love interest seemed forced, even though it ended up being a huge focus in the movie.

I think it's just that I won't put with crappy movies anymore. My roommate Louis and I discussed this last night. As a result, I gave this movie a C+ because it is completely forgettable. Jack Black was its saving grace.

There is definitely a reason this was not released in theaters. It was sluggish and without a good story. To be honest, I didn't even finish the film. The saving grace is the presence of David Cross and Bob Odenkirk. There were some pretty funny individual scenes because of them, but the movie as a whole was kinda worthless.

This movie is only for the biggest of Mr. Show, Bob, or David fans. Obviously I am one because I gave the film a C+ for only a few really good scenes.

*I should note that even Bob and David themselves have washed their hands of the movie (See the righthand column).

Alright Adam. When I was in high school I loved your shtick. It was funny and you were a goofball. Now you're growing older and trying to adapt and be both mature and a goof at the same time. I can relate with this identity crisis you're having, but my life isn't a movie. In other words, there is no room for a bonafide romance in your comedies. The kind of love you showed for the teacher in Billy Madison was both cute and ridiculous, just the way I like it. Please go back to that.

If not, that's fine. I thought you were excellent in Punch Drunk Love. You are not that versatile, but you can definitely handle a dramatic role with ease. My point is that you must choose. No more of this mish-mash that occurs when producers and directors and actors all have different visions. Let's pick one thing and do it well.

I still like you, really I do, but this was a big setback in our relationship. I want one of three things from you: flowers, a back rub, or a good movie with a unified vision. I don't think that's too much to ask.

This movie brought a tear to my eye, which guarantees it at least a B. The plus is for the stellar acting of Dustin Hoffman. It made me want to see all of his movies in one sitting. Well done Dusty, well done.

Something I learned while looking at a documentary about the movie was that Dustin had just gone through a divorce himself. So the pre-production process consisted of him, the director and producer taking 15-hour days to rewrite the script to make it as real as possible. It seemed to be a fairly accurate portrayal. I am fortunate in that I've never dealt with divorce personally, but this definitely hit some of the major difficulties and questions on the head.

Oh, and the kid's acting was actually really good. I'm always impressed by kid actors who can do anything more than cry or jump around in the background.

Man, this movie was boring. Although the character that Nicholas Cage played was theoretically entertaining and worth watching, it instead became about watching him try to pull it off. His character has OCD and Cage seems to struggle with it. There were probably 25 potentially humorous moments and the audience laughed at maybe five (except for this horribly annoying lady behind me, who laughed at everything). Because of this, I didn't really feel for his character, which made the movie boring. Oh, Alison Lohman was also overacting. Sam Rockwell was easily the best of the lead cast but you didn't see much of him.

The story was fairly derivative, but most films are these days. The cinematography had its moments, but was nothing special. In other words, this movie was just there. It didn't really do anything new or special. Even the twist ending was not at all surprising. It's just been done before. Again, the only real bright spot in this movie is Sam Rockwell.

There is no need to see this movie.

Arr Matey! How did ye know this movie would be so good? Arrr! Wow, I was so impressed by the quality of this film. Johnny Depp completely stole the show and made this a movie to remember. The idea of seeing pirates on the big screen was enough to get me to the theater but Depp was just fabulous. He was funny, evil, smart, caring, everything. His character may be one of my favorites of all time.

The acting and storyline of Orlando Bloom's character was fine, but alone it would not have been enough. Without Depp the film would have had a plot as devoloped as Maid in Manhattan. Of course, the booty here is dabloons and not cellulite, but I digress. I'll be honest and say I didn't notice much about the special effects or the filmmaking itself, which is a testament to the story and the quality of the film. When you don't notice any problems it usually means they are doing things right.

This movie is the best summer movie I have seen. I'll be that guy and say, "If there's only one movie you see this summer, Pirates of the Carribean should be it!"

Generally I dislike period pieces. Truthfully that means any kind of period war or politics piece set before the 20th Century, but it's more fun to make crass generalizations rather than slightly honed generalizations. This movie is an exception to my rule. It brought me to a time in my country's history that I haven't really had the opportunity to explore. I am familiar with the big events but I never took the time to process how they all effected each other. Gangs of New York was able to take care of that for me.

It was interesting to notice what mattered most to men of that time and how they responded to those ideals. Despite this being a movie about gangs and bloodshed, not that much time was devoted to actual battle. We were mostly watching the development of Leonardo Dicaprio's character and how he worked to avenge the death of his father and the pride of the Irishmen living in New York. Although I couldn't relate to the lengths at which they went to achieve their goals, I can understand perfectly how a person wants to put his name and the name of his people in good standing. So I jived with this movie on a philosophical level.

The acting and cinematography in this film was nothing short of amazing. I loved Daniel Day Lewis. He was spectacular. I also thought that Cameron Diaz did a really good job. This and Any Given Sunday are her best performances. I think this movie is an amazing technical achievement. This should come as no surprise as Martin Scorcese is an undeniable genius.

I'm going to stop with all of the critical talk now and just say that this movie was engaging and fun. If you're looking for a non-stop action movie then you should keep looking. If you want a love story, then there is one here but it is not the main portion of the movie. If you don't care what makes up the movie and you just want to see something good, this is for you.

Wow, this movie is fun. When it was in the theaters I couldn't drag anyone to see it with me. It was mostly because I had few friends in New York at the time, but the ones who were here refused to see it on the grounds of its supposed stupidity. I will admit this movie is far from smart but that shouldn't stop you from seeing it. Stupid is often really funny.

Will Ferrell is easily the best part about this movie. He is a comic genius and he plays his character perfectly. He was the main reason I saw the movie and he didn't disappoint. Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson were both good, but they've both been better. This is the kind of movie you need to see with a group of friends in the basement at a pool party while you are all passing out. That's how I saw it and it was perfect.

You're my boy Blue.

I had no desire to see this when it came out. It's always hard to decipher what is a good comedy movie and what is going to be utter shit. I was wrong about this one. For a while I noticed people referencing the movie and claiming it was funny. After about the fifth reference I decided to give it a go. I made a good decision.

The movie's from a comedy crew called Broken Lizard. They are a talented bunch of guys and know how to keep a movie funny. This movie seems like it could be a precursor to something bigger. It is funny, but unfortunately there is nothing special about it. It's just there.

So it's worth seeing, but it won't renew your love for the comedic arts.

Pixar can do no wrong. It's funny because when this movie came out I knew I would see it and I knew it would be excellent. I want to know if they are drinking some magic potion or if it's just their diet because what they're doing is amazing.

I think my favorite character was the cleaner fish-guy in the dentist's tank. I always like fake-French characters. The accent is so much fun to mock.

The only reason this got a minus is because the story wasn't quite as strong as previous Pixar titles, and compared to the mastery of Monsters Inc. this couldn't possibly be given an A as well. Nonetheless, well worth the $10 to see it on the big screen.

Last weekend I was hanging out with my uncles and cousins when The Secret Life of Walter Mitty came on. We entered at a hilarious point, when Mitty was daydreaming about being an entertainer for soldiers. So, my 7 year old cousin and I were hooked. The movie turned out to be about a man who daydreams constantly and happened to have something fantastical happen to him in real life. He and others had to decipher whether or not it was real.

The acting in the movie was fantastic and the concept was a lot of fun. Danny Kaye, who played Walter Mitty, was wonderful. He was funny, smart and emotional without trying too hard. He is an excellent actor.

I recommend you see this movie before it is remade in 2005 by Steven Spielberg with Jim Carrey playing the lead. It could be very good, but if you see the original now, you'll still be cool.

I waited a while before I wrote this review. I knew I couldn't review it right after it ended, as I needed to let it percolate a bit. Now that it's been a week, I have a better sense of what I thought.

The one thing I definitely know is that my final thoughts on this movie won't be finalized until I see the third film. Matrix: Revolutions managed to open as many doors as it closed and, as another person put it, this is the middle act of a three act movie. With that said, I really enjoyed the film. It was much better than most movies out there right now and lived up to my own hype.

The fight scenes were all amazing. A lot of people have complained that you could see that Neo had been digitized, but I didn't notice this nor would I have cared. This is the one movie--one that is partially set within a computer program--where this shouldn't be a problem. I especially enjoyed the fight scene in the entryway of the mansion. Cinematographically, it was beautiful. Woo-ping Yuen, the fight choreographer, is certainly one of the best in the world as the fights were fluid and realistic enough to be believable.

The plot, another terribly contentious portion of the movie, was just fine with me. [Warning: some spoilers are coming up] Like I said earlier, not every question was answered and some new ones were posed, but the plot stayed within the reality of the film. The biggest question mark comes when Neo is able to stop the creatures that look like mechanical squids while in the real world. So if he can do that outside of the Matrix, what does that say about Zion and the "real world?" Some have thought that the Matrix is inside another Matrix, which to me seems unrealistic, mostly because I have more faith in the Wachowski brothers. It's like ending a short story with, "and then I woke up." Also, there is the question of the version of Agent Smith who made it out of the Matrix into the real world via Bane, a man living in Zion (the one who tried to kill Neo while in Zion). How did Agent Smith leave the Matrix and what does that mean? The answer could either be completely amazing or utterly disappointing.

That is where my grade comes in. The film itself is really something wonderful but there is a chance it could be ruined by a bad end to the story in Matrix: Revolutions. And so, my grade could easily go up to an A or down to a C depending on how the next film ends. So, in six months I will change the grade accordingly.

In the meantime, if you're interested in figuring out more of the plot for yourself, I recommend wading through this Kottke thread or browse critical reviews at MetaCritic if that's your preference. Either way, let me know what you thought.

This is the story of 8 kids and their pursuit of the National Spelling Bee title. It is completely and totally excellent. The storyline is terribly compelling and I laughed my ass off throughout the movie. At this point I would go into details about the director's craftsmanship, but I wasn't paying attention as I was completely engrossed in the story.

I saw this last night at 10pm, three weeks after it opened, and it was sold out. Everyone is in love with this movie. Also, it is an excellent date film.

If it's near you, see it!

Wong Kar-Wai is a brilliant filmmaker. The juxtaposition of sound, narrative and visuals was like a finely tuned ballet, just amazing to watch. The plot was not terribly intriguing, which ends up emphasizing some of the faults in Hollywood cinema. There is no need for a plot with twists and turns, unexpected developments and an explosive ending. The relationship in In the Mood for Love ends the same way it would in real life, which is fine. The good guy doesn't always have to win. There doesn't always have to be a good guy.

In my opinion, this will likely be regarded as a classic piece of cinema. Definitely see it if you're into "artsy," non-Hollywood film.

Unfortunately, I did not watch this film carefully enough to give it an accurate grade, but I will tell you what I thought based on what I did catch. This movie must have been amazing when it first came out. It feels fresh today and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a remake sometime in the next 10 years. I loved Harrison Ford's character and the "girl" he loved. The action scenes were great.

I am going to see this movie again at some point, but I am going to try and see the original cut as I rented the director's cut. It wasn't bad but I would like to see it the way everyone else saw it when it was released. So, you'll get another review then.

I was really pissed that I missed this in the theaters. I was dying to see it and didn't want to wait any longer. The anticipation continued to build until I finally saw it this last weekend. It lived up to all of my expectations and possibly even a little more.

The documentary was telling the story of Wilco's tumultuous creation of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and the surrounding drama. It did a great job with that and I feel like I understand what went on. By telling the story well, that makes this movie worthwhile. Way to go. My only concern was the way Sam Jones, the director, tried to give meaning to certain segments through editing. It felt forced and that's the last thing you want in a movie, especially a doc. This is why I gave it a B.

One thing that was absolutely and completely perfect, was the DVD menus. There was no silly animation or vocal track keeping me from seeing the movie right away. Having a cool menu is important for most commercial films but it shouldn't be confusing and it shouldn't keep me from being in control. So, the film's menus get an A+.

Completely and totally excellent. I loved the story, I loved the effects, I loved everything about this. The writers and artists of Marvel Comics have spent decades crafting an amazing story and the X2 team did the right thing by not straying too far from the original story (or so I'm told). Point is, everything was spot on.

The X-Men series is shaping up to be the next Batman series. I'm just hoping they can correct the mistakes made by not putting out a shitty third, fourth and fifth movie. In fact, while watching the preview for Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde, I realized that sequels should be used only when they are truly warranted. The X-Men will be fine because they have a story that can be stretched out over multiple films without a problem.

And so, I bless this movie with my complete and total recommendation for anyone who has ever enjoyed an action movie.

Last night Thirteen had back-to-back Hitchcock movies followed by That's Entertainment, which was totally addictive. The only one I watched all the way through was Spellbound and it was fantastic. I don't know how Hitchcock was able to illicit such brilliant performances, but that's what made this movie. The plot, an amnesiac man accused of murder, was only mildly interesting.

So, chalk up another one for our friend Alfred. Well done my pudgy friend.

I'm not sure how faithful this movie was, but it seemed word for word at times. That was a good thing. When Vince Vaughn came on the screen as Norman Bates I was concerned, but it worked out fine. It took about ten minutes to get over his idiosyncracies, but once I did it was smooth sailing. In fact, the whole cast was fairly interesting. I'm impressed that the studio took the high road instead of having this conversation:

Studio Dude 1: Let's remake Psycho. People love Hitchcock...and naked chicks in the shower.
Studio Dude 2: Yeah, naked chicks. How about this, Psycho mixed with Scary Movie.
Studio Dude 1: Only if Jackie Chan stars.
Studio Dude 2: Done.

I swear that must happen all the time. Anyway, they obviously made the right choice.

I didn't think I would give it this low of a grade, but something was lost in translation. The original is supposed to better, right? Well, I was much more interested in The Ring and I was almost scared a couple times. I'm glad they redid it, and I'm also glad they stayed incredibly faithful to the original.

Going into this movie, I was skeptical. I knew it was a remake and I knew the original, Ringu, is supposed to be amazing (I'll find out soon as I just rented it). It turns out that, despite the pressure, the movie is quite good. I was definitely a little scared and completely felt for the characters. I think this is one of the better horror movies to come out in a while. It doesn't completely rely on shock horror, where they scare you with cheap movie tricks, and it has an interesting narrative. I happily recommend this one.

Knowing that Roman Polanski had made a whopper of a film in The Pianist, I wanted to head to his back catalogue and see this timeless classic. After a viewing, I can see why he is seen as a brilliant director (I was going to say respected, but due to his raping of a 13 year old girl, I didn't think it was the best choice of words). Everything about this movie is right, and I could see how it would be completely terrifying in 1968. I especially liked Mia Farrow's performance. I also liked that she was really hot.

This is good for any fans of horror and all fans of cinema.

The story of Linux. I had never really known the story from start to finish and this documentary filled in the gaps for me.

It is worth noting that there are some serious nerds in this movie. I mean, I myself am a complete dork, but these guys are exactly what you envision when someone says "geek." Don't get me wrong, they are very smart and I totally respect them, but their ability to be a stereotype is astounding.

I had the Tivo record this because it had Robert Deniro and Ed Norton in it. I now realized why the movie was able to slip past my radar despite having two of my favorite actors. In other words, this was pretty boring. It was Spy Games but not as good. You can skip this one.

After watching Joe Carnahan's (the director) short film at BMW Films, I was hooked. I immediately rented one of his earlier films and waited for the release of this film. I was not disappointed.

Above all else, Carnahan was able to illicit an amazing performance out of Ray Liotta. He is a talented actor on his own, but I think this was his best work yet. Unlike the performances, you can attribute the interesting and thoughtful visual style to Joe. I didn't take notes, but he does things with the camera and editing that really keep your attention, even if you're seeing this film at 10pm on Sunday after a long weekend.

While watching the film, I thought about 25th Hour a lot because of the way themes were dealt with in the movies. Although 25th Hour was better, Narc was truly excellent.

I have a way of telling how interesting a film is. The more attention I pay to the production, the lower the quailty of the film. I paid a lot of attention to the production here. But, there is a definite but, I thought it was good for what it was. The Recruit is a CIA thriller with a crazy bos and a young trainee with love and friendship thrown into the mix. This is a tried and true format, but it was done well. Also, I think Colin Farrell is an entertaining personality.

There's not much more to say about this film. If you're in the mood for a thriller about the CIA that has a twist ending, then this is good. If you want some mental stimulation, look elsewhere.

I loved this movie. I also love Spike Lee, but this is the least Spike Lee-ish film of all of Spike Lee's career. Unlike his other films, the pace is not quick and punchy and the characters are not caricatures. So throw out any preconceived notions right now.

The story is of a man's last day before heading to jail for 7 years. He is a good guy who chose the wrong path and he's trying to make it through the day without completely losing it. There is no moral, there is no happy ending. The movie beautifully conveys everything that he experiences and all that goes through his head on this final day.

Edward Norton played the lead role and was brilliant as usual. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper. who play Norton's character's best friends, were also wonderful. One of the cool things about this movie is that it would have been equally interesting to see a feature length film about either of the friends. The cinematography was beautiful, as you'd expect, and a lot of Lee's routine techniques were used. Still, I can't get over the totally different style that Lee manages to evoke. I'm going to have to see this one again to get my head around it.

Final Verdict: Amazing. Should have been on my Top 10 of 2002.

This movie could have been a hell of a lot better, if it hadn't been directed by the Farrelly bros. The premise is that this guy is completely shallow and will only date the hottest women. He gets hypnotized and sees internal beauty on the outside. In this film, the result is a mish-mash of follies and morals. Even the Farrelly bros. can't flat out mock fat people for an entire movie, and they really aren't very good with the whole morals thing, which is why this movie blows. Even Jack Black was subpar in this movie. Too bad, really.

Oh my. This movie was really boring. A genuine stinker.

It is so obvious to see this movie is by the same mind that created 12 Monkeys. That is a good thing, for me at least. I really liked the film and it completely reminded me of Delicatessen. In fact, if I had seen Brazil first, it probably would have the same profound effect that Delicatessen had.* Moving on, the story here is great and is unbelievably pertinent. It is about a society that is run by a ridiculously bureaucratic government and one man's attempt to both survive and track down a woman he falls for. It is most certainly a comedy, but the similarities to our real lives is a bit eerie. Another recommended film.

*Delicatessen was one of the first movies to really open my eyes to the world of film. I had always enjoyed movies, but after this one I started to fall in love.

This movie made me cry. It was not little baby tears, welling up in the corner of my eyes. No, it was genuine tears rolling down my cheeks. This is the first time a movie has done this in at least five years. So, with that alone, I know there was something good about it. Mainly, it was Sean Penn's acting. Wow, he really brought me into the film and I completely believed the character. In addition, it is a very moving story about a mentally retarded man and the custody of his 7 year old daughter.

This would be a great date movie because it has an interesting an important topic, but appeals to both sexes without being a chick flick or an action movie. I definitely recommend it.

I was told that the "one thing" in the film is happiness. So going into the film I was looking forward to an interesting portrayal of our relationship with happiness. I didn't account for the fact that the movie might be completely depressing. Man, that was a blow upside the head, and especially tough for someone who is getting a little depressed by the job market, people and life in general (i.e. me). Once I was able to get past the shock, I paid attention to the characters and story a bit. It is definitely an interesting movie and discusses an important topic, how to deal with/without happiness and what really drives us in life (faith?), but it is something you must prepare for. Think Happiness, but with less flair and more brain.