UnclePaul Reviews

Girlfight (2000)

Best movie I've seen this year

[9/10 · 8 October 2000]

"Girlfight" was the talk of the 2000 Sundance film festival, winning the Director's Award AND the Grand Jury Prize. Finally it has come to a theater near you, and not a moment too soon. In an age where movies with young actors seem to fall into 3 categories (slasher films, gross-out comedies, or sappy 'boy gets the girl' romances), "Girlfight" is a refreshing change. And it's the best movie I've seen this year.

First off, this is not a movie about a female boxer ("The Next Karate Kid" meets "Rocky"). It's a wonderful character study about a young girl struggling to find her place--who happens to end up as a boxer. The film reminds me of "Boyz N the Hood"--a gritty portrayal of urban teens trying to survive in difficult circumstances. And it's refreshing to see well-written (not one-dimensional stereotypical) roles for minorities. Thankfully, there are amazingly talented independent filmmakers to create these films (first time writer-director Karyn Kusama for "Girlfight")--because the major studios fail miserably. Note for film buffs: Kusama 'cut her teeth' under director John Sayles ("Limbo", "Lone Star", "The Secret of Roan Inish", "Eight Men Out"), who appears in a cameo as a science teacher.

This film succeeds due to the great performances of the actors more than brilliant writing--this isn't a Cameron Crowe film where the young characters speak in beautifully crafted phrases. And the cast is uniformly excellent. Michelle Rodriguez makes an amazing film debut. Diana is a very complex character, and Rodriguez covers all the bases. Also, you never think you're watching an actress--you are watching a boxer. The hard work and boxing training are evident throughout the film. Calderon and Santiago do fine work as Diana's father and brother, and Douglas is great as a tough boxer with big dreams. Douglas and Rodriguez have some great interactions ("Life with you is war." "Maybe life's just war..period.") But Tirelli really shines as the kind-hearted Panamanian boxing trainer who's hesitant to train a girl at first, but ends up as a father figure. The interactions between he and Rodriguez are the best moments of the film.

While this isn't a movie about boxing, there are plenty of fight scenes. And they are technically impressive. I really liked some of the camera work during the bouts--especially the 'point of view' camera where you see the punches coming at you. And like I mentioned earlier--you're not watching a stunt double. Rodriguez does all the boxing scenes, and she's the real deal. The world of amateur boxing isn't glamorous, and this movie doesn't pull any punches (pardon the pun). But this is the world Diana chooses, for it's the only place she truly fits in. The physical nature of the sport helps release her pain and anger (though not all of it, as we see later in the film), and it gives her a sense of self-worth that's sadly been lacking.

With a small cast and a an even smaller budget, "Girlfight" lacks the polish and gloss of the other films I've seen this year. And it's still a better movie than all of them. Be warned: the dialogue is realistic, and it definitely earns the R rating for language.

Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)

Murphy is amazing, but film suffers from overdose of Klump

[7/10 · 28 July 2000]

When a TV show has a popular supporting character, the networks will attempt to create an entire show based around this character. These 'spinoffs' are often disappointing, perhaps due to the 'less is more' concept. In 1996's "The Nutty Professor", the main character's family members stole every scene they were in. So, the studio decided to make them the focus of the sequel. Unfortunately, I liked the Klump family better as supporting characters. "The Klumps" is funny and enjoyable, but not as much as it could have been.

As if the plot is at all important, I'll give a quick synopsis. Professor Sherman Klump (Eddie Murphy) is on the verge of an amazing scientific discovery--a youth serum. But his life is complicated by recurring moments when alter-ego Buddy Love (Murphy) takes control of his body. This is especially damaging to his relationship with lovely Professor Denise Gains (Janet Jackson). Sherman regains control of his body, but ends up releasing Buddy. He also begins to suffer some very dangerous side effects. Buddy wants to sell the formula and make a fortune, and Sherman wants to stop the side effects, marry Denise, and retain the formula. Through it all, the Klump family (Murphy x4) attempts to help him.

First off, Eddie Murphy deserves to be nominated for an Oscar. The Academy rarely recognizes comedic performances, and probably won't this time. But Murphy plays 6 major characters in the film, and no other actor will have such a difficult task this year. The amazing part is that you forget it's the same guy and stay focused on the 6 distinct characters. You will be amazed at how they interact with each other in the group scenes when you stop and think that they were filmed one character at a time! He certainly deserves major recognition. And makeup guru Rick Baker deserves another nomination (he won the Oscar in 1996). Jackson does fine (and looks great), though she's really not given too much to do. Then again, staying in character alongside Murphy's various characters was probably difficult. And she's accustomed to thankless roles--remember her work as Willis' girlfriend Charlene on "Different Strokes"? Comedian Larry Miller returns as scheming Dean Richmond, and has a few funny moments. But let's face it--this movie is all about Eddie. And I can't say anything negative about his performances.

There are many funny scenes, and the film is certainly entertaining summer moviegoing fare. But I thought it suffered under the weight (no pun intended) of the Klump family. Their increased role meant that Sherman and Buddy took a back seat, and they were characters I wanted to see more of, not less. Similar to the first film, there are some poignant scenes: especially between Sherman and Denise or Mr. and Mrs. Klump. But these few scenes are refreshing moments in the midst of too much juvenile humor. Maybe it's a sign of getting older, but there are only so many fart jokes and bathroom humor (literally, at one point) that I can take in one film. And "The Klumps" exceeds my limit. There are also many off-color sexual references, but their impact is softened by the fact that 99% of them come from Grandma Klump. She is an amazing combination of horny and ornery, but I would have enjoyed more of the ornery (her verbal battles with Mr. Klump are hysterical) and less of the horny.

I was definitely entertained by this movie, and I should be thankful for that. Most of the other comedies I've seen so far this year ("Scary Movie", "Road Trip", "Me, Myself, and Irene") have been very disappointing. Eddie Murphy's incredible work makes it worth seeing, especially if you enjoyed the first film. But I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have. Limiting the family scenes in the first film increased their impact, but expanding (once again, no pun intended) their role in this film made me yearn for less. OK, I admit it: that pun was intended.

Road Trip (2000)

"Porky's" of the new millenium

[3/10 · 27 May 2000]

After enjoying some 'juvenile/stupid/questionable taste' comedies like "Ace Ventura", "There's Something About Mary", and "American Pie", I decided to give "Road Trip" a chance.

AWFUL is the only word I can use to describe it. 1 star out of 4, due to the only laughs coming from Tom Green--and he's only in the film for 20 minutes or so.

It's like "Porky's"--a stupid story built for one excuse after another to see naked girls. There are plenty of movies with naked girls, why waste your time on a film with stupid characters who you don't care to watch?

Waste of a group of usually-watchable young actors. If you want an 'on the road' movie that delivers more than one big laugh, go rent "National Lampoon's Vacation".

Shanghai Noon (2000)

thankfully, more like "High Noon" than "Shanghai Surprise"

[7/10 · 26 May 2000]

Going into "Shanghai Noon", I was a little worried. I'm a big Jackie Chan fan, but would this film be more like "High Noon" (the classic Western with Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly) or "Shanghai Surprise" (the awful film with Madonna and Sean Penn)? Thankfully, it's funnier than one and a lot better than the other. (I'll let you figure that one out.) This certainly isn't Jackie's best film (rent "Supercop" if you've never seen it), but it's an awful lot of fun. It lives up to the poster: The Classic Western Gets a Kick in the Pants. The film covers all the Jackie standards--corny jokes, great physical comedy, and wonderfully inventive fight sequences. Throw in a great sidekick, and you've got a good time at the movies.

Jackie stars as Chon, an Imperial Guardsman in China's Forbidden City. When Princess Pei Pei (Lucy Liu) is kidnapped and taken to Nevada, the 3 best guards are sent after her. And Chon goes along to carry the interpreter's bags. Once in Nevada, Chon meets up with Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson), and gets separated from the rest of his party. Chon wanders through the West before finally arriving in Carson City. Along the way, he and Roy form an unlikely partnership and team up to rescue the Princess. With sadistic Marshall Van Cleef (Xander Berkeley) chasing them and roadroad tycoon slaver Lo Fong (Roger Yuan) holding the Princess, it won't be easy.

The martial arts scenes are as good as expected: Jackie makes great use of any object he can lay his hands on, and always manages to use the surrounding environment to his benefit. We've all seen Indians chasing down a cowboy, but you've never seen it end this way. You'll also see a new spin on the 'unarmed man surrounded by 3 gunmen on a city street' scenario. And the final battle is much more inventive than a simple shoot-out. Being a Western, of course there's a shoot-out: they just add a little something extra.

There's also a high level of comedy throughout the film--fight scenes included. That's where the chemistry between Jackie and Owen Wilson comes in. Jackie hit paydirt using 'fish out of water' scenes with Chris Tucker in "Rush Hour", and you see the same things in "Shanghai Noon". Wilson's Zen/Hippie/Surfer cowboy (who talks a great game as a gunfighter, but doesn't quite have the skills to back it up) plays nicely off Jackie's duty/honor/country warrior. Their interactions are always easy to watch (unlike so many movies that try to force the 'buddy thing'). Wilson (who had many great lines in "Armageddon") and Jackie obviously had a lot of fun, and it's evident in their performances. Liu ("Ally McBeal", the upcoming "Charlie's Angels") and Berkeley do good things with their limited parts, but I'd watch Liu in just about anything! One problem: I was never really interested in Yuan's character. I expected more out of the main bad guy--call it "Gladiator" syndrome.

Other than that, I had a few other problems with the film. In this day and age, I just don't see the point of drug and alcohol used as humor. "Look, I'm high" and "Look, I'm drunk" just don't do it for me. There were enough funny moments in this film to carry the humor--they didn't need to take the easy way out as often as they did. I also thought the use of modern slang coming from the Indians was funny at first, but they really overdid it.

One thing I have to mention: play close attention to the names in the film. Jackie is given names by the Indians, the makers of Wanted posters, and by Roy. Marshall Van Cleef's name pays homage to Spaghetti Western star Lee Van Cleef ("The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" and "For A Few Dollars More"). And Roy's real name is clever indeed.

"Shanghai Noon" is an excellent Summer Movie, worthy of 3 stars (out of 4). Good action, lots of laughs, and actors/characters that you enjoy watching. And make sure you stay around for the outtakes during the closing credits (another Jackie standard).

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

The film that the original "Mission Impossible" should have been

[8/10 · 26 May 2000]

Director John Woo is the epitome of an action film director. His action scenes are choreographed like dances--Bullet Ballet, if you will. He's also known for effective use of slow-motion photography, and all of his films have a very stylish look. His best films were made in Hong Kong--rent "Hard Boiled", "The Killer", or "A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2" to see what I mean. None of his Hollywood films have lived up to that standard, but "MI:2" stands alongside "Face/Off" as his best American work to date.

The original "Mission Impossible" made a ton of money, but the plot also made a ton of people say "huh?". The nearly incomprehensible story took the steam out of the action, the cool score, and the even cooler gadgets. (Although I did find the 'chopper in the tunnel' finale a little too ludicrous.) Thankfully, "MI:2" has simplified the story, and improved upon the score and the gadgets. And the action sequences are visually more impressive and much more exciting. In "MI:2", a fast-acting, lethal virus has fallen into the hands of villain Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), and Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) needs the help of a beautiful thief (Thandie Newton) and his computer genius buddy (Ving Rhames) to get it back. That's it--that's the plot. Not 25 lines. Just one sentence!! Perfect for an action film. In fact, rumor has it that the story was finished only after they decided on the action sequences. I'd believe it--this isn't exactly an epic story a la "Doctor Zhivago" or "Ben Hur".

Let's start with the action sequences. They're amazing. Woo is certainly the master of creating action scenes with the added benefit of great style. His use of slow-motion enhances the frenetic fights and chases, and there are many fights and chases. To me, the original "MI" lacked the full-out action that I expected from the Impossible Mission Force. "MI:2" did not leave me wanting. It's certainly the most exciting film I've seen this year. Many bullets fly, cars and motorcycles chase each other, there is hand-to-hand combat, and several different objects find ways to explode. The motorcycle chase finale is on par with the boat chase in "Face/Off", and the final fight seems to take up the last 25 minutes of the film as it transitions from one locale to another. An extra bonus: you'll recognize Cruise in most of the scenes--he did a large amount of his own stuntwork. An early climbing sequence (you've seen some of it in the theatrical trailer) is especially impressive in this regard.

Cruise is an underrated actor, but maybe that's changing since his well-deserved Oscar nomination for "Magnolia". I count this as Cruise's first all-out action film, so it didn't require too many of those skills. But I'm sure it was quite a workout. Several of his films have had action sequences, but he's not flying a jet ("Top Gun") or driving a race car ("Days of Thunder") in "MI:2". And he's really quite good. His role in "MI" was more dramatic than aerobic, playing the cold and impersonal Agent Hunt. Cruise actually gets to show emotions this time, making Hunt a much more enjoyable character. He also does the main thing I wanted to see him do in "MI"--kick a lot of butt. He's like an American James Bond: charming, intelligent, and ruthlessly lethal when necessary. Newton's character is similar to the best of the Bond girls: she's sexy, has attitude, and brings something to the table other than just screaming "help me". Newton debuted to great reviews in 1991's "Flirting", but this should be the film that gets her widely known (except for the 25 people who saw "Beloved" in 1998). Unfortunately, I really didn't sense a lot of chemistry between her and Cruise, and her role pretty much disappeared in the final quarter of the film. Rhames is excellent as always. He's been good every time I've seen him--a filmography that includes "Bringing out the Dead", "Entrapment", "Out of Sight", "Con Air", "Rosewood", and "Pulp Fiction". This movie also has some humor, with most of the good lines going to Rhames and a helicopter pilot who might remind you of Murdock on "The A-Team". One thing I'll say for Woo's American films--he's always had a showy role for the villain. (Lance Henrikson in "Hard Target", John Travolta in "Broken Arrow", and Nicolas Cage/Travolta in "Face/Off"). And "MI:2" is no exception--Scott (probably best known as Drew Barrymore's Prince in "Ever After") really chews the scenery as the villanous Ambrose.

I've made a few James Bond references because this film has all the elements of a good Bond film. Dastardly villain threatens the world, and it's up to the daring secret agent to save the day and the girl who's in the clutches of said villain. He must defeat the 'bad guys' through fights and chases in exotic locales, helped by numerous gadgets and a few trusty allies. In fact, "MI:2" reminds me of "Thunderball" (1965), one of my favorite Bond films.

With all that praise, why does it get 3.25 stars instead of 3.5 or 4? For a few (fairly minor) reasons. I've already mentioned the lack of chemistry between Cruise and Newton--they're certainly easy on the eyes, but the relationship wasn't really believable. They 'met cute', and their interactions never grew more interesting after the first 15 minutes. Also, the first 45 minutes were plagued with way too many slow-motion shots of people walking. That's it--just walking. I can understand it for action sequences, but just watching Cruise or Newton walk through a room or down the street? It actually got a bit annoying. Anthony Hopkins appears very briefly as Hunt's boss, but their interaction didn't interest me as much as the usual "M sending 007 off on the mission" scene at the beginning of the Bond films. The first 45 minutes are worth 2.5 stars, but it ends big--raising the overall film to 3.25 stars.

Buy your popcorn and prepare for a real thrill ride, and I don't think you'll be disappointed by "MI:2". Note: make sure you see it in a theater with a huge screen and high-tech sound so you get the most of the impressive sounds and visuals.

Fight Club (1999)

severely disappointed in Seattle

[3 May 2000]

I had high hopes for this movie, but I was SEVERELY disappointed. 1.5 stars out of 4. And those 1.5 stars are for some impressive visuals and the great acting by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. The first 90 minutes were OK, but the last 45 minutes were truly hard to bear due to a ludicrous plot twist that completely made me lose interest. An overly long film about self-destructive people with no redeeming qualities doing self-destructive, irresponsible things. Many people loved this film because it 'spoke to their generation'. God help us all if that's the case. Being anti-consumerism and anti-materialism is fine. Being pro-assault, pro-vandalism, pro-fatalism, pro-self-mutilation, and pro-anarchy strikes me as a bit "out there". The film isn't entertaining or enlightening, and the last 45 minutes kept it from being thought-provoking. Director David Fincher succeeded with another gritty, edgy film in "Seven" (1995). See that one instead of "Fight Club".

Frequency (2000)

the characters make the difference in surprising "Frequency"

[1 May 2000]

Several films have deal with changing the past and the ensuing effects on the future. "Back to the Future", "Timecop", and "The Final Countdown" come immediately to mind. Director Gregory Hoblit (his "Fallen" (1998)and "Primal Fear" (1996) were both excellent) explores that theme again in "Frequency". But writer Toby Emmerich (in his first writing credit), puts a different spin on the theme. In most 'changing the past' films, a character goes back in time. In "Frequency", one main character lives in 1999 while another lives in 1969--and you see the actions in 1969 immediately affecting 1999. Sounds confusing, huh? Well, it is. But it works.

The movie opens with the introduction of the Sullivan family. Frank (Dennis Quaid) is a heroic New York firefighter, and escapes a harrowing situation to return home to his wife and his 6-year-old son John. It's an exciting time in New York, as the 'Miracle Mets' have made the World Series. Frank is a ham radio user, and a strange disturbance in the sky (solar flares, I believe. I never took astronomy) in the sky has really increased the range of his radio. "I'm reaching people I've never reached before", he says. Flash forward to 1999, when young John has grown up into a 36-year-old NY homicide detective (James Caviezel) with relational problems (and possibly a drinking problem as well). We learn his father died several years earlier in a warehouse fire, and it's obvious that John has never really gotten over it. He ends up setting up the old ham radio (did I mention that the solar flares are back?), and contacts a fellow New Yorker named Frank. It certainly won't ruin any big surprise when I tell you that it's his father Frank--in 1969. After recovering from his astonishment and convincing his father who he really is (his knowledge of the 1969 World Series proves quite helpful), they begin a series of nightly conversations. Unfortunately, their conversations change the past--and the future--in very dangerous ways. A serial killer who should only have 3 victims suddenly has more, and John must use his knowledge of the crimes (30 years old to him) to guide his dad in a 1969 pursuit of the killer. And the chase is on. Will they stop the killer? Will the solar flares last long enough for them to finish their plan? Will anyone in 1999 or 1969 believe them?

That lengthy 'plot summary' really didn't ruin any of the suspense--or come close to explaining the whole story. So, it goes without saying that the story is pretty convoluted and involved. But it's not hard to follow, and the movie grabbed me and kept me interested throughout. Granted, you will need to use a serious amount of 'suspension of disbelief'. If you get hung up on "there's no way they could be talking to each other" or "changes in the past wouldn't immediately appear in the future--they would have already happened and would have been there all along", you'll do 2 things: (1) you'll give yourself a headache, and (2) you'll miss out on a very entertaining film. The reason I gave this more stars than last week's "U-571"? I cared about the characters, and I found "Frequency" much more entertaining. Also, the story was quite original--with great use of the Miracle Mets and the 1969 World Series throughout.

Speaking of the characters--Quaid and Caviezel both do great work. Their conversations via radio are very touching and authentic (once you accept the general premise, of course). Although Quaid is a 'movie star', don't let that fool you--he's a very good (and probably underrated) actor. Just watch him as Doc Holliday in "Wyatt Earp" (1994), Remy McSwain in "The Big Easy" (1987), or Gordo Cooper in "The Right Stuff" (1983) if you don't believe me. And Caviezel's a real up-and-comer (1998's "The Thin Red Line"). He does a great job as a grieving son who is reunited (in a way) with his father, but watches his joy dissipate in the face of the mess he's created. He also believably portrays a character who has memories of the way things were, but is now bombarded with 'new' memories of the way things have become. The other characters are definitely secondary, but Elizabeth Mitchell as wife/mom Julia, and Andre Braugher (TV's "Homicide", 1998's "City of Angels", and 1989's "Glory") as Frank's policeman friend Satch are both solid.

This film has some decent action/suspense scenes, and 1999 John's radio conversation with his buddy Gordo (in 1969) is very funny. There have certainly been better action/suspense/serial killer movies (the action scenes weren't amazing, the story has some holes, and I thought the ending was a little cheesy), but the heart of the film is the relationship between Frank and John. I bought into that relationship fully, and that's why I liked this film as much as I did. And that's why I definitely recommend seeing "Frequency".

U-571 (2000)

decent movie, but it's all been done before.....better!

[1 May 2000]

I would never want to serve on a submarine. The claustrophobia combined with the fact that you're in a metal tube submerged beneath the ocean would be too disconcerting. Add combat conditions, and I'd really be inclined to stay on dry land. Maybe that's why many good movies have been set in submarines. No personal space, no way to see the surrounding dangers, nowhere to escape, and constantly fearful of a torpedo, a depth charge, or a mechanical breakdown. Perfect opportunities for good film-making. See "Das Boot" (1981), "The Hunt for Red October" (1990), "Crimson Tide" (1995), or "The Enemy Below" (1957) to prove my point. Those are all excellent films that I personally recommend.

Now Writer/Director Jonathan Mostow (1997's "Breakdown") brings us "U-571", but unfortunately it's not in the league of those films. It's a pretty good movie, but nothing more than that. It has intensity, drama, and action, but I found myself constantly thinking that each of the above-mentioned films had already done it......better. Most of the characters were poorly developed, so I ended up as a detached observer rather than really caring for the men onboard U-571. As a result, I was interesting in the dramatic scenes, but not in a 'white knuckle' sort of way. And that's what makes a great action film--submarine or no submarine.

McConaughey and Keitel are very solid in the two best-written roles. McConaughey has cooled off since his big hot streak in 1996 and 1997 ("Lone Star", "A Time To Kill", "Contact", and "Amistad"), but he's in good form here. Keitel's Klough reminds me of Sean Connery's role in "The Untouchables"--the grizzled veteran instructing/teaching the higher-ranking but much younger and less experienced Tyler. Their conversations are the highlights of the non-action scenes. The other roles are quite thankless--a character will shine for a moment, then you won't see him for a long time. Or he'll die. Suffering the most is well-known actor Bill Paxton ("A Simple Plan", "Twister", "Apollo 13"). His lines are so cheesy and stereotypical that I found myself knowing what he was going to say before he opened his mouth!

I don't mind suspending disbelief for 2 hours and accepting that these men (and this ship) could do these things. But most of the characters are paper thin, and I knew within the first few minutes whether each one would live or die. No surprises at all! The action scenes are fairly well-done, but nothing I hadn't seen before. The depth charge scenes are very intense, but by the third time they lose most of their drama. The "we're in a sub we've never seen before....how do we operate it?" was done better in "The Hunt for Red October". The "we're sinking and the hull is about to be crushed" was done better in "Crimson Tide". And the overall "we're trapped in a leaky WW2 U-boat with enemies all around us" was done MUCH better in "Das Boot".

If you're looking to grab some popcorn and be entertained for 2 hours, you could do MUCH worse than "U-571". It will entertain you, but you'll come away wishing that it had delivered more bang for your bucks.

Return to Me (2000)

supporting characters shine in touching, funny "Return to Me"

[1 May 2000]

A few things about "Return to Me": (a) it's a sappy romantic comedy (b) the story is extremely far-fetched (c) it's not a ground-breaking, highly original film. Oh, one other thing....... (d) I LOVED IT!!

I'll admit right off the bat that I enjoy a good sappy romantic comedy. Unfortunately, they make plenty of bad romantic comedies and very few that I really enjoy. So I was very pleasantly surprised with "Return to Me". It is touching and funny, and doesn't feel forced or (too) cheesy.

Bob Rueland (David Duchovny from "The X-Files") has a good job, a nice house, a faithful dog, and a great wife. Grace Briggs (Minnie Driver) is lying in a hospital bed needing a heart transplant to stay alive. Flash forward; Bob is a widower and Grace has a new heart. Bob's best friend Charlie (David Alan Grier) tries to cheer him up by setting him up. Grace has many people trying the 'cheer up by setting up' method: her grandfather (Carroll O'Connor) and his elderly buddies (Robert Loggia, Eddie Jones, William Bronder, & Marianne Muellerleile), her best friend Megan (Bonnie Hunt), and Megan's husband Joe (James Belushi). Bob isn't ready to move on, and Grace is afraid to tell people about the transplant ("they treat me like I'm broken", she complains). But one day Bob finds himself at O'Reilly's Italian restaurant, run by Grace and her grandpa. It won't ruin the movie to reveal that they begin a relationship. But questions remain: Is Bob ready to love again? Can Grace trust a man to know her secret and love her as she is? That's where the sappy part comes in..........

This film is the writing and directorial debut of Bonnie Hunt (best know as Tom Hanks' wife in "The Green Mile" and Tom Cruise's sister-in-law in "Jerry Maguire"), and she's hit a home run the first time at bat. "Return to Me" is close in tone to "Sleepless in Seattle". Widowed man, sweet woman, etc. But "Sleepless" only featured 1 scene with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. "RtM" has several scenes with Bob and Grace, but they also give a lot of screen time to the excellent supporting characters (a real flaw in the "Sleepless" follow-up "You've Got Mail"). The scenes of the 'old folks' at the restaurant are excellent, as are the scenes at Megan and Joe's house. And the film contains one of the best on-screen first date 'goodnights'.

Duchovny's film career hasn't been stellar ("Beethoven 2" and "Playing God" didn't move him to the A-List of leading men), but he's good in this film. Any "X-File" fans know that he has a flair for comedy--he just doesn't get to show it too often as FBI Agent Fox Mulder. But he definitely gets to display it here. Hopefully he'll find continued success in non-Mulder roles and not suffer from 'David Caruso Syndrome'. (He left "NYPD Blue" to be a movie star--have you heard of him recently? Neither have I.) Here's where I stop being objective for a second: I am a BIG Minnie Driver fan. I've loved her in good films ("Good Will Hunting", "Big Night", "An Ideal Husband", "Grosse Pointe Blank") and bad ("Hard Rain"). The only real downside to her performance in "RtM" is that she doesn't get to use her glorious accent. While both the leads are good, the supporting cast is excellent. Grier (the second-funniest guy on "In Living Color" behind Jim Carrey), Hunt (good as always), Belushi (has many of the funniest lines--and also all the PG language), O'Connor (best know as Archie Bunker, he hadn't done a film in 20 years but loved this script), Loggia (best know from "Independence Day" and "Big"), Jones (Clark Kent's dad on the TV series "Lois & Clark"), Bronder, and Muellerleile are all excellent.

Don't get me wrong--this film is not going to win Best Picture at next year's Oscars. It only seeks to be a sweet romantic comedy with an admittedly far-fetched story. And it succeeds on all levels. An added bonus: I promise you'll be surprised by the powerful first 20 minutes--the sappiness doesn't start until much later. With the exception of some profanity from Belushi, there is no reason for me not to recommend this film to everyone. You will laugh a lot, you will hear some great music (thumbs up for the soundtrack), and you will watch a sweet romance between 2 characters (with lots of help from family and friends) that you want to root for.