Wednesday December 15, 2004

House of Sand and Fog

A dark, haunting, hauntingly beautiful film. Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connelly) is a recovering alcoholic, abandoned by her husband, not really getting by in the house her father left her. Failing to attend to an improper tax bill from the county, her house is auctioned off and purchased by Massoud Amir Behrani (Sir Ben Kingsley), formerly a high-ranking military officer under the Shah of Iran. Behrani isn't really getting by either, working construction by day and clerking at a convenience store by night, as he tries to maintain at least the illusion of the kind of life he and his family enjoyed back in the day, back in Iran. Things are especially difficult for his wife Nadi (Shohreh Aghdashloo), who has not quite adapted to her new life in exile, and for their teenage son Esmail (Jonathan Ahdout). Complicating things: the deputy sheriff (Ron Eldard) sent to evict Kathy is going through a crisis of his own, the sparks of which will ignite the tinder of pride and need surrounding the House.

You can see the end coming long before it happens, like watching a train and a car speed towards the same crossing in the distance; you can feel the vibrations of it in the air. She must get her house back; he cannot possibly give it up. Neither is a bad person, neither one is wrong. Rather, they are both wronged; both suffer as fallen innocents, fate driving them towards a tragic conclusion that cannot be averted or delayed. That they can feel compassion for the other -- there's one scene in the driveway of the house that is as heartbreaking as anything I can ever remember seeing, in any film -- makes the tragedy all the more poignant. And there's more to come before the end.

Kingsley is magnificent (as always); Aghdashloo is pitch perfect. And Jennifer Connelly will positively melt your heart. She is every bit as good here as she was in A Beautiful Mind, for which she won the Oscar in 2002. She should have won another one for this.

You absolutely must

[GET IT]

(2004-12-15 17:47:40.0) Permalink

Tuesday December 14, 2004

Girl with a Pearl Earring

The real canvases in this quiet film, which imagines the story behind Johannes Vermeer's painting of the same name, are the faces of the characters. Maria Thins (Judy Parfitt), the scheming mother-in-law of the Dutch master (Colin Firth), directs the affairs of a family whose welfare is dependent on the continued patronage of Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson), which in turn requires the continued inspiration and productivity of her son-in-law, while it is simultaneously threatened by the continued fecundity of her daughter Catharina (Essie Davis).

Into the picture (no pun intended :) comes Griet (Scarlett Johansson), the new maid, who arouses the lust of the patron, the jealous suspicion of the wife and children, and the watchful eye of the mother-in-law as she apprehends, almost immediately, the impact this girl is having on the painter. There is a bond between them -- not of lust or even romantic love -- but of kindred artistic spirit. She intuits the impact that cleaning the windows of Vermeer's studio will have on the quality of the light; she sees that a chair is crowding the subject of a portrait and rearranges the scene to make the resulting painting better.

Vermeer takes her on as his assistant and also, secretly, as the subject of a new commission for Van Ruijven in which she models his wife's prized earring. The scene in which the artist pierces her virgin ear is as erotic (in the Greek sense of the word) as anything you'll ever see with fully-dressed actors.

Of all the great faces in this picture, Johansson's is by far the most amazing. (Which you'd know if you've seen Lost In Translation.) How extraordinarily vacant and plain it can be at one moment; how rich and alive at the next, as when Griet's boyfriend Pieter (Cillian Murphy) first coaxes a smile from her.

The lovely thing about this movie is that it keeps its quietness, its modesty. Griet does not wind up in bed with Vermeer; jealous Catharina does no one in with a carving knife. The power remains beneath the surface, waiting for the viewer to discover it -- in this way it is much more like a painting than like a movie, which will remain to its eternal credit.

Roger Ebert's review of the film is spot on -- recommended reading.

[GET IT]

(2004-12-14 06:09:30.0) Permalink Comments [1]

Monday December 06, 2004

Paycheck

Another movie based on an old Philip K. Dick short story; others include Blade Runner (based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), Screamers (based on Second Variety), Total Recall (based on We Can Remember It for You Wholesale) and Minority Report (based on... em... The Minority Report).

I haven't seen or read all of these, but like Total Recall and Minority Report, Paycheck has to do with the interplay of time, memory, free will, and the future. In this case, the philosophical question at hand is: does knowing what will happen in the future cause that future to come to pass? In one instance, for example, does knowing a war will happen cause the know-er to strike pre-emptively, thus causing that war to happen?

Interesting question, but wrapped in a goofy enough plot (the evil military-industrialist uses a laser to make a lens perfect enough to see into the future, which is something I would have expected from Dr. Evil but nobody any less campy) with wooden enough acting to take a lot of the fun out of it. Total Recall and Minority Report are alot more engaging because you give a rat's you-know-what about the protagonists. Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman somehow manage to have less chemistry than Ben Affleck and J Lo or Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner. On-screen chemistry, in any case. Kathryn Morris has a bit part, as she did in Minority Report. (Maybe she's a PKD fan?) We need to get her a real role in a real movie; she's tremendous in Cold Case.

Not the worst flick I've seen, but not worth blowing your whole paycheck on it either.

[GET IT]

(2004-12-06 15:05:49.0) Permalink Comments [1]

Friday December 03, 2004

The Last Samurai

Not a bad flick, but nothing to spend a lot of pixels on either. Kind of like Dances with Wolves, except instead of the accidental Civil War hero falling for the Sioux, he falls for the Sushi.

Pass the wasabe, Kemo Sabe...

[GET IT]

(2004-12-03 14:40:03.0) Permalink

Tuesday November 30, 2004

Van Helsing

My wife woke up at the end of Van Helsing, and the first words out of her mouth were "Is it over? Oh, thank God!"

I kid you not.

What a joyless turd of a movie.

Hugh, baby, what were you thinking?

Faramir, baby, how did this happen? Pippin scored Master and Commander. Even Sam got 50 First Dates. Did you lose a bet with an Orc? Is this how you get back at Dad for trying to set you on fire before you were dead? Dude, Eowyn digs you! One more flick like this and she'll go back to Viggo. Puh-lease!

Oy.

[GET IT]

(2004-11-30 18:59:45.0) Permalink

Saturday November 27, 2004

Love Actually

What a sweet movie, with just enough bittersweet to keep it from going totally over the top. Even the porn star lovebirds were... touching. (Sorry! :)

Not really a movie you want to watch with your kids, he says with 20/20 hindsight -- Lizzie was kind enough to yell "DADDY, CLOSE YOUR EYES!!" at all the right moments -- but for all that, it didn't feel trashy. It was tender, actually...

[GET IT]

(2004-11-27 19:32:30.0) Permalink Comments [2]

Friday November 26, 2004

Gothika

This one actually started out okay. Reasonable cast: Halle Berry, Penelope Cruz, Robert Downey Jr., Charles Dutton, and Bernard Hill, who played Theoden, King of Rohan, in Lord of the Rings -- not too shabby. Reasonable plot: prison psychiatrist, dark and stormy night, strange vision, car crash -- wakes up a prisoner/patient in her own institution, charged with axe-murdering her husband. And reasonably cool, Gothic scenery, including a prison straight out of Alfred Hitchcock or Stephen King.

And then it all goes horribly, horribly wrong.

I don't mean for Halle Berry -- I mean for me.

All of a sudden, we've gone from this cool neo-gothic horror flick to... "What Lies Beneath: The Prison Edition". (Perhaps we have Robert Zemeckis to blame for this -- he produced both.) The plot gets positively daffy. Berry basically walks out of jail and escapes in the front desk guard's car: he felt sorry for her and gave her the keys. No alarm bells go off. No one chases her, even to an obvious spot like her own house (and the scene of the crime). And in the end, despite the fact that she obviously did off her husband with great vigor, she's never charged with the crime. (I guess demonic possession doesn't require a plea of temporary insanity to pass legal muster.) Throw in the obligatory secret sex room her husband kept underneath the floor boards at the country cottage, and the local cop with domineering mother issues and a huge tattoo of a flaming woman on his chest -- this is the same guy who dated Mimi on the Drew Carey show, so you know he's a little off -- and you can see how a good movie goes bad right before your eyes.

I hope Halle Berry gets a good role again soon. Monster's Ball was excellent. This felt more like Catwoman.

If I were you, I would not not...

[GET IT]

(2004-11-26 13:37:02.0) Permalink

Tuesday November 23, 2004

Elf

Will Ferrell is Buddy the Elf.

Raised by Bob Newhart (Papa Elf) under the watchful eye of Edward Asner (Santa), he journeys from the North Pole to New York City, in search of his father, James Caan (Sonny Corle... erm, Walter).

What's not to love about this movie? You'd have to have a heart of stone. Or coal.

[GET IT]

(2004-11-23 20:08:26.0) Permalink Comments [2]

Sunday November 21, 2004

21 Grams

Life doesn't unfold in a straight line.

You can prove this in your own life, I'm sure. To illustrate, here are two non-sequiturish examples from mine.

The first Bonnie Raitt song I ever took notice of was "I Can't Make You Love Me", from her 1991 disc Luck of the Draw. I bought it when it first came out, and then moved backwards in time, listening to the work she'd done in the 70's and 80's -- and then, throughout the 90's, bought each of her newer releases as they came out. I started in the middle, moved backwards, then forwards.

Another example. My grandparents came to this country in the early part of the 20th century, mostly from Eastern Europe. You'd have to go back to Lucy to find even a speck of DNA I share with anybody who'd set foot in North America prior to 1900. And yet I look back to the Civil War and the Revolutionary War as part of my history; I think of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as two of my presidents; my town, North Andover, founded in 1646, gives me a personal sense of antiquity that dates back over 350 years. And yet I just showed up on the scene some 44 years ago. I popped into the story most of the way through it, and that story, my history -- my perception of everything that has happened prior to this moment -- is woven together from a series of threads that only come together for and in me: my story is not sequential but, literally, random access.

This is how life works. And this is how 21 Grams unfolds, starting in the middle, slipping backwards, surging forwards -- a random access story. And yet, a story that draws you inexorably, irresistably, towards a tragic climax. You see it coming -- in fact, you see scenes from the very end of the movie at the very beginning. But you have to watch the whole thing to be able to put those scenes into context, into a timeline, into a coherent history. It helps to watch it twice or three times; more and more pieces fall into place each time.

Sean Penn is hypnotic as Paul Rivers, a dying mathematician in desperate need of a new heart. Benicio Del Toro is white hot as Jack Jordan, a born-again ex con who, in a perverse trick of predestination, provides him with a donor. And Naomi Watts is unforgettable, heartbreaking and haunting as Christina Peck, once-and-future drug addict, and widow of the aforementioned donor. Three stories, three lives, that seemingly intersect at only one point, a fatal hit-and-run accident, circle each other in ever eroding orbits as Rivers pursues Peck, his new heart calling out to its old mate, and as, together, they seek vengeance and closure and release in killing Jordan.

You can see the end coming like a car crash, unfolding in slow motion. In fact, you have seen it coming, from the first moments of the movie. And yet you can't take your eyes off the fragments of the story as they flash across the screen, pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered in front of you, slowly rearranging themselves as you watch. You know what the final picture will look like, and yet your mind struggles, literally, to put the pieces together, to look for any outcome other than the only possible one. It's maddening and magnetic all at the same time. And definitely worth watching.

More than once.

[GET IT]

(2004-11-21 13:46:20.0) Permalink

Sunday September 12, 2004

Lost In Translation

I put off watching this movie for as long as I could. And now I cannot get it out of my mind.

Recall that many months ago, February 29 to be exact, Lost In Translation was up against Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for Best Picture, and Sophia Coppola was threatening to rob Peter Jackson of the Directing statue he had deserved since Fellowship of the Ring.

I was not going to give aid and comfort to the enemy -- and besides, Coppola was downright irritating in Godfather III, and I had no interest in seeing more of her work. It was off my radar.

Last week, flipping through the free On Demand movies on Comcast Digital, with nothing better to do (and with LOTR's Oscars safely in Peter Jackson's hairy hobbit hands), I started watching. I watched it again two nights later. And again last night.

I cannot get this movie out of my mind. I cannot get Bob and Charlotte out of my heart. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson should be canonized for this flick, not just Oscared.

What it is about them that so touched me is hard to put my finger on. They are pure souls, literally innocents abroad. They are suffering, having failed to find meaning in that which should have given them meaning -- and yet given so many opportunities to give up and do the wrong thing, for the most part (remember that lounge singer!) they do not. They discover a friendship that transcends the difference in their ages and situations, a friendship that proves that blood is not always thicker than water, a friendship that shows the English language less well served by its one word for love than Greek is by its three.

There's a lot to chuckle at in this movie. Bill Murray was born for this role, and his "Suntory Time" video and photo shoots, his wrestling match with the "premium fantasy woman", even his workout with the demon-possessed elliptical cross-trainer, are comedy for the ages. But it is his care for Johansson, carrying her to her room and tucking her in as she's -- finally -- able to fall asleep, and his farewell to her, in the last seconds of the movie, that shine. As for Johansson, she's 19 years old. Till November. Must have been 17 or 18 when they made the movie. How can this be?! She is at once childlike in her innocence (karaoking Chrissie Hynde's "Brass in Pocket" in a pink wig; wandering from shrine to shrine, gazing -- the complete foreigner -- at the Japanese wedding) and mature in her kindness to her equally lost companion, watching over him, almost maternally, as he sleeps -- finally -- in the back seat of a cab. When he falls from grace, she forgives. She is hurt, but she does not judge.

Lots of people will hate this movie, I'm sure. Nothing much happens. The slapstick is lightly done, and really just for seasoning. (If you were expecting Stripes or Ghostbusters, you will be sorely disappointed.) Even the ending -- which I have rewound and rewatched over and over again -- doesn't answer the question which so begs an answer. If you need a clear answer, it will infuriate you. Turn up the volume all you want, freeze frames, read lips -- there is no answer. But there are true hearts, and there is true friendship, both of which transcend the need for translation.

Go see this flick. As many times as you can.

[GET IT]

(2004-09-12 16:16:10.0) Permalink Comments [7]

Monday September 06, 2004

The Bourne Supremacy

Eh.

I had high hopes for this one. I remember reading the first two Ludlum books, The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy -- and from the plot summary on Amazon.com, I think I read the third one, The Bourne Ultimatum, as well. (It was a long time ago.)

The first movie was really good. I wouldn't have picked Matt Damon for an action hero, but he did a fine job, and Franka Potente was radiant as Marie. The supporting cast was great, Chris Cooper and Brian Cox in particular. The one disappointment for me was that they gave Julia Stiles such a small role. Waste of real talent, there. The plot, however, was excellent; not completely true to the novel, but close enough for government work, if you'll forgive the pun. :)

This movie, the sequel, was, to quote a PR colleague of mine, "pretty thin beer." Damon was fine again, as was Potente (for as long as she was on screen), as was Cox. I loved the addition of Joan Allen, one of my favorite actresses, and I believe, one of the most underrated. (Go see The Contender if you haven't -- she rocks!) But they should have done more with her. And there they go again, wasting Julia Stiles. There were so many possibilities for her this time around! Turning her into a simpering, whimpering captive -- and on screen for such a short time: unforgiveable. How could they not make more of her past (working) relationship with Bourne? There's a one-line reference and then silence. Boo.

Plot-wise, I was expecting a lot more -- especially having heard good reviews, and given the richness of the book. (The plot of the second movie is less like the plot of second book than was the case the first time around, by a significant margin.) In hindsight, it seems like one of those movies which is built around a chase scene, with only enough plot to sustain the chase. It was a great chase, or rather, series of chases, no doubt; but that was the only tension, the only driving force behind the movie. It was hardly about the people. And given what those people had done to Bourne in the past -- and in the opening moments of this movie -- it could have been so much more. With Allen and Stiles on hand, it should have been so much more. It could have been a Contender... if you'll forgive the pun.

Given that there's a third book, and Hollywood's unimaginative sequel-mania these days, I suppose we can count on a third movie. I hope they get it right next time. In the mean time, go read the books!

[GET IT]

(2004-09-06 15:01:13.0) Permalink Comments [2]

Thursday July 08, 2004

King Arthur

Another rainy summer day in Boston, another movie. (It feels like maybe I caught the wrong connection out of O'Hare and wound up in Seattle by mistake.) This time, King Arthur, "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend", or so boasts the official website.

I think they're claiming it's the true story because it would be hard to prove either way. While it is not hard at all to prove that this is a pretty lame-o flick.

First, to the plot. Now, I'm a big fan of the Arthurian Legend in all its many forms. I have been for 30 years. New twists don't bother me; in fact, once you've read up on it a bit, you realize that you're dealing with a thousand year-old series of variations on a theme, rather than a "canonical" version with "heretical" offshoots, to borrow some church lingo. (Personal favorite: Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon.) So imagination and improvisation are fine by me. But where they came up with the legend of the Sarmatian Knights, I will never know. Perhaps the Mandingo Warriors were busy and and these guys were the B-Team.

Chronology-wise, I'm fine with the Dark Ages setting of the movie, and the idea of an alliance between Arthur and the Wolds (pagan tribesmen from the north of Britain). But other than one fleeting remark from Merlin -- who is, I swear, the spitting image of Saddam Hussein with his prison haircut -- there is no explanation of why these tribes are taking Arthur, until moments ago, their archenemy, as their war leader, much less their king. And somehow, unbeknownst to... anybody..., they've worked out this intricate co-op battle plan to whomp the Saxons, who are being led by some guy doing a very bad Nick-Nolte-imitating-Marlon-Brando-playing-Vito-Corleone accent.

I don't know when they could have had time to work it out. The only tribesperson Arthur converses with, apart from Merlin and one rather testy captive, is Keira Knightley. (I think it's because she's the only one of the actors he's ever heard of, and he wants to get her autograph or something.) And most of their talk is pillow talk, or whatever passed for a pillow back there in the dark ages. There is no hint of the tragic Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle that plays such a pivotal role in later versions of the legend. Lance checks her out through an open bathroom window, that's all. She doesn't even notice.

Second, to the battle sceneszzzzZZZ.... I'm sorry. After Braveheart, and the battles of Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, watching this baker's dozen of Sarmatian Knights join forces with a pack of Wild Wolds (who look like the Blue Man Group after a pop-up rainstorm) to drive Hagar the Horrible and his butt-ugly kid out of Dodge City just doesn't cut it. I've seen hockey fights on a grander scale. (Between opposing parents, of course!)

Third, to the cast. Who are these people? I'm serious -- here's a list of them: Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Hugh Dancy (Galahad) -- have you heard of any of 'em? Keira Knightley is it, and she's either working under some old (unfortunate) contract she signed, looking for her big break, or she lost a bet. Actually, once you see her going into battle -- painted blue and wearing what looks like a pair of strategically-placed leather belts and not much more -- you'll go for the lost-a-bet angle. She doesn't even look good. How'd they screw that up?

I would have expected more from Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean and Black Hawk Down; he knows how to make fun movies and action movies, and in Armageddon, both. I'm not sure I would have from Antoine Fuqua, the director of Training Day. I hated that movie.

This one, I didn't hate -- I just didn't find it anywhere near as good most of the other ones out there.

[GET IT]

(2004-07-08 11:47:36.0) Permalink Comments [4]

Tuesday July 06, 2004

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Let's get the fine print out of the way first. Same caveats as before: no, it's not really in my DVD player, and yes, I'm pretty Scroogy when it comes to giving five stars to a flick. I'm a softer touch when it comes to music and books, or perhaps, since I spend so much more time with them (over the long run) than I do with a movie, the only ones I keep -- and bother to comment on -- are the really good ones. Movies, on the other hand, are as likely to rot as not, and so their marks fall on a more normal distribution: the five star ones are way up the end of the bell curve.

This one came close to five stars. Mighty close.

The first really good thing about it is that the treacle of the first two movies is gone. I appreciated Chris Columbus's loving attention to the details of the books, and he gets great credit for bringing them to the screen almost word for word. But for movies about magic, they were -- to me -- surprisingly unmagical. I would sit through them appreciating them, respecting them even, but not enjoying them.

This one, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, I loved. The plot was a cut above the first two (obviously J. K. Rowling gets the credit here), the new actors -- Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, David Thewlis as Professor Lupin, and (one of my all-time favorites) Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney -- were spectacular, and the feel of the movie was much more interesting, much richer (if, again, less sweet) than that of the first two. Case in point: the mercifully brief Quidditch scene takes place in a driving rain, and there's no mention whatsoever of the House Cup. The three main actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, have grown in both stature and talent. Robbie Coltrane is and has always been pitch perfect as Hagrid, as are Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman as Professors McGonagall and Snape; and Michael Gambon, having even bigger shoes to fill than Hagrid's, does so admirably, though I miss the late Richard Harris's Dumbledore dearly.

The Marauder's Map is my favorite magical object to date, though I wish they'd spent just a few minutes tracing its history, and that of its creators, "Messrs. Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs", as I believe it would have enriched the plot of this movie, and (one would think) the next one. And I would have enjoyed a more lingering tour of Hogsmead. Me, I intend to visit the bar, the candy store, and the joke shop, my next trip across the pond.

In other words, even though the movie weighed in at 2 hours and 21 minutes as is, I would have gladly spent another 40 minutes with it. Perhaps, like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings, they'll release an extended version on DVD.

That one, I guarantee you, would be in my DVD player.

[GET IT]

(2004-07-06 18:35:21.0) Permalink

Monday July 05, 2004

Spider-Man 2

Well, I went to the theater to see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban this afternoon (I try to be a man of my word), but the 2:45 show was completely sold out, so Joe and I caught the 3:00 screening of Spider-Man 2. (Yes, the punctuation is correct. Perhaps he's English.)

It was spectacular. As good as, if not better than the original.

Of all the comic books-turned-movies, of which there are suddenly so many, I've only liked the X-Men (they must be English too) and the Spider-Man series. I never much liked the Batman franchise (no silly hyphen for him!), the Superman ones were pretty corny, and Daredevil was like Gigli in tights. Awesome soundtrack, though.

Spider-Man 2, however, like the original, was a real movie. Had a great plot, well-written characters, and really fine acting, if you can get past the spandex. Actually, the spandex adds a challenge that Tobey Maguire meets and wins; his elevator scene is brilliant, and there's not an inch of his face showing. He does it all with his posture, the tilt of his head, the discomfort in his stance. Kirsten Dunst is world-class yet again -- she and Julia Stiles are the Meryl Streep and Glenn Close of their generation (I'm not sure which is which). And Alfred Molina is spectacular as the villain, so much better than Willem Dafoe in the last one. James Franco is fun to watch, as any fan of Freeks and Geeks could tell you. (Speaking of, when is Linda Cardellini going to play in a real movie? She was fantastic in ER this year...)

There's a great review in Newsweek if you can dig up the June 28 issue; in fact, it was the cover story. Good call. Great flick.

By the way, if you're wondering why I didn't give it five stars, I save that for over-the-top brilliant, work of art movies. The English Patient. Lord of the Rings. The Godfather. That sort. Spider-Man 2 earned a solid four, and is well worth your time and ticket money.

And to answer your other question, of course it's not in my DVD player. Yet. You never want to take me all that literally unless I warn you up front that I mean it that way.

[GET IT]

(2004-07-05 15:46:22.0) Permalink

Wednesday June 30, 2004

Freaky Friday

Well, actually, it was on cable last night. But being that "The Network is the Computer" and all, I figure it was in somebody's DVD player.

What a cute movie! Better than you'd expect, for a remake of a 28 year-old flick. (The 1976 original starred Barbara Harris and a 14 year-old Jodie Foster.) Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan are superlative; so good at inhabiting each other's bodies, in fact, that at the end of the movie, when they switch back to their own, it seems wrong. You got used to Lohan as the up-tight mom, Curtis as the rebellious teenager. And trust me, they nailed the roles. When Curtis, in Lohan's body (so I guess it was actually Lohan, not Curtis -- see what I mean?), looks at herself in the mirror and discovers that her daughter had gone off and secretly gotten her belly button pierced, it hit... em... very close to home. In the end, of course, love conquers all, in a finale that got me all choked up. I just love a happy ending.

Go see it. It was fun!

[GET IT]

(2004-06-30 07:19:16.0) Permalink