Can you imagine what the perception of RKO was at the time they made this decision? Let's see, how about we give complete control of a major film to a twenty five year old radio voice with zero film experience (whose claim to fame was scaring the life out of the public with a fake story about aliens landing on earth) and even better, let him staff the movie with actors who have little to no screen experience. On top of that, we'll let it become one of the most controversial pictures of its time because it mirrors the life of one of the biggest names in America today. Why, it may never be able to be released because of the lawsuits-- Great idea!

I have just described Citizen Kane. All of the above is true, which makes the fact that it is possibly the greatest film in American Film History even more amazing. Everything is perfect. The script (which Welles co-wrote), the actors (all relative unknowns except Welles and Joseph Cotton), the special effects (listen to Roger Ebert's Commentary on this special edition for details) and finally, the makeup-- You won't believe how great a job they do making 25 year old Welles look 60.

As for the story, it's done in a most interesting fashion. Charles Foster Kane (Welles) dies at the very beginning of the movie and utters his famous last word "Rosebud". A reporter is given the task of finding out just what that one word meant. So he goes and interviews all the people who knew Kane to try to learn the meaning of the word. In the process, we are shown Kane through the eyes of those who knew him. We never see Kane through his own eyes, always what his former associates saw.

This is interesting, because Kane is a tragic figure as seen by just about everyone. He is unhappy and lonely. We as an audience eventually learn the meaning of Rosebud. I have read reviews that complain that the movie is about this one thing (I won't reveal what it is). But long before we learn the identity of Rosebud, the film has made its point. What is the point? My opinion is that the film shows us basically the worthlessness and despair of materialism. Loving "stuff" or money will ultimately lead to unhappiness.

By the way, this movie almost was never seen. The man I spoke of at the beginning of the review is William Randolph Hearst, former newspaper magnate. He saw too much of himself in the film and sued to squash it. Fortunately he lost. The second disc in the set is a two hour documentary on this topic. It is also excellent and well worth a viewing.

One last thing. Although this movie has been ranked on the AFI list as number one American movie of all time, it did NOT win Best Picture in 1941. That film? "How Green was my Valley"

John Grisham's The King of Torts focuses on a lawyer named Clay Carter. He's a small time attorney in the public defender's office who is handed an unwinable murder case. A young man has shot someone in cold blood and Clay has to defend him. Just as he is about to get his way out of the case, a man approaches him and gives him the opportunity to make a lot of money by dropping the case, quitting his job with the PD, and opening his own firm. He learns that the young man who he was defending may not have been completely responsible for the murder and a drug company wants things swept under the rug.

This starts a chain of events that leads him to the top of the legal profession by doing mass class action suits, settling the cases, raking a third off the top, and paying his clients the pittance they had been promised. He wants more than anything to get back his girlfriend, who dumped him when he had no foreseeable future. Now he has a new life, new woman, new friends, and even his own jet.

But things are not all well. He is blind to things happening right in front of his face. I mentioned in my title that this book is like Citizen Kane. The main character in that film, Charles Foster Kane, is only concerned with money and power, and he achieves it at the cost of all human personal relationships. Clay Carter is also power hungry, but in a different way. His wealth is more tenuous and he eventually succumbs to his desires.

This book is very well written, interesting, fast paced, and fun. I read it in one evening, without putting it down. The message is a good one and it is something different from Grisham. Not a second of this book is in a courtroom. The legal proceedings take place in the form of settlements. After the many books he has written, Grisham still has the ability to weave interesting stories around great characters. I loved this book.

When Akira Kurasawa released this film in 1950, it was not expected to do well. When it won various awards around the world, including the Academy award for best foreign film, the reaction was one of some surprise. Now, over 50 years later, Rashomon stands as a benchmark in cinema, a film that has been copied and ripped off countless times, but never duplicated. The camera work, storytelling, script, and setting are flawless, giving us the proper mood right from the start.

The start is a torrential rainstorm, where several men sit around discussing a trial they have either witnessed, or taken part in. The trial concerns the murder of a samurai and the rape of his wife, apparantly at the hands of a famous bandit (played by Toshiro Mifune, a Kurasawa favorite). The story of what actually happened is told through the point of view of the bandit, the woman, the dead man (through a spriritual medium) and a woodcutter who was there and now is standing with these men at the beginning of the film.

The interesting thing is that we as the audience are left to assume what really happened, as the film gives no definitive solution. The subject is really the nature of man, and how point of view will change the perception of a scenario to favor or in some cases, cast a negative light on events that transpire.

This was the first film to shoot directly at the sun. In fact, the beginning shot of the woodcutter traveling into the woods to cut lumber is breathtaking, the camera weaves in and out, up and down, through branches and leaves, showing just how far out of the way these things will be happening. The excellent DVD has a feature on the camera work, which you will find interesting and will help you when you go back to the film for a second viewing.

Also included with the disc is a booklet with the two short stories Kurasawa used as the premise for the film (most notably "In the Grove")along with an excerpt from Kurasawa's book about the shooting of the film and the apprehension of the Japanese film companies about the fact that the story seemed to have no good ending. Kurasawa explained that the story was not about the solution of the murder as it was about the nature of man.

Film fans need to see this movie. So many movies made in the last few years (Snake Eyes, The Usual Suspects) owe themselves to Rashomon, movies which show us points of view that are not necessarily the truth. The fact is that four people can see a situation but report it four completely different ways. What's the truth? The truth is--that's just human nature.

This is really a quick, easy book to fly through. It has a lot of funny tidbits about the process of writing. Ms. Lamott deals with the importance of plot, characters, dialogue, setting, and everything else that relates to being a writer.

However, if you are a teacher who is looking for a guide to use in your classroom, this won't help you at all. The main message she is trying to convey is that all of us have experiences worth writing about, and all of us have the ability to put them on paper. This is just a book that helps you see the stages one must go through to get from A to Z.

Bend it like Beckham is a wonderful movie. A young Indian girl, named Jess, who idolizes Manchester United soccer star David Beckham (the movie is pre-trade to Real Madrid) finds it tough to follow her dream of playing soccer. Her parents don't understand her desire to play, especially her mother, who only wants her to learn to cook good Indian food. Jess is very talented at the game, however, and one day she is noticed by a girl who plays on an all girl's team. The girl, named Julie, convinces her to come out to play for the team. Soon Jess tries to play the game she loves while trying to keep it from her parents.

The story is not particularly original. In fact, it is rather formulaic. Contained in this film are elements we have all seen many times before. Will Jess' parents discover her lies? Will there be a conflict between the two girls over a guy they both like?(it happens to be the coach of the girl's team) Will there be a "big game" at the end which gives us a happy resolution? The answer to all these is a yes, yet the film is still great to watch. The young cast, all unknowns, shines and breathes life into the feature. You will recognize no one here, except possible Keira Knightley, who is the gorgeous love interest in Pirates of the Carribean. You won't even recognize her in this film, where she is such a tomboy, that her mother worries about her being a lesbian. In fact, there are a couple of instances of homosexuality in the film, something you should be prepared to discuss with your kids should you choose to watch the film with them.

In short, I liked this film a lot. It's a fun couple of hours. This is one of those movies you may go back a few years later and recognize a lot of the cast who were unknown at the time. Everyone did a great job here.

The Hulk is a bad movie. It has all the necessary elements to be good, but instead it goes awry in a number of ways. The special effects are good, but overused, the cast is effective, but campy. The story follows the original in a way, but doesn't realize that the material needs to be lighter in nature. In short, this is a misfire that results from everything being just a little off.

David Banner (Nick Nolte) has a son, Bruce whom he injects with a chemical he is working on that is supposed to allow him to fix himself when hurt or regenerate limbs he loses. Later, he is fired from his job in the military, and sets off a nuclear explosion. His son is home and survives the blast. Later he is exposed to a large amount of gamma radiation and develops the ability to turn into the hulk when provoked to great anger.

There's much to get upset about. His ex girlfriend (Jennifer Connoley) still works with him in the lab (he does the same thing his father used to do) Her father (Sam Elliott) was the man who fired David all those years ago. Now he wants to use the Hulk as a military weapon. Throw in Josh Lucas as a two fold jerk. He not only wants to date Connoley, but he wants to use the DNA of the Hulk to develop his own creature for his company.

The CGI version of the Hulk is almost humorously campy. He leaps all over the place and destroys buildings like they're not even there. This would not be so bad if it were not so obvious that it is fake. I will give the creature this. It looks more like a mutant than the original series, which simply featured Lou Ferrigno with green paint. The problem comes from the fake look of the action. Also, director Ang Lee looks at this material all wrong. Instead of it being a fun, entertaining look at a fantasy hero, this film is sullen and serious. Nick Nolte's speech at the end is so over the top it's amazing. Lee's previous "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" could have been more serious, but ended up being light and amusing. This is awful. Compare it to SpiderMan and you'll see what I mean.

Finally, the movie is way too long. This should have been 100 minutes tops, not 140. It takes us 45 minutes to meet the Hulk. Why show us a helicopter flying Bruce to the lab for 3-4 minutes? I'm serious. The helicopter just flies along. Why? At 100 minutes this would have been tight and watchable. As it is, you'll barely make it to the finish. The Hulk could have been really good. Hopefully the sequel (I'm sure there will be one) will understand the shortcomings of the original and get it right.

Johnny Depp stars as Mort Rainey, a writer who has had some success. He is awakened by a man named John Shooter (John Turturro) who claims that Depp stole his story and published it. Depp agrees to show Shooter proof that he did not steal the story, while Shooter makes it clear that he intends to make Mort's life tough until he obtains the proof.

This is just the beginning of the story, the window dressing. What makes the film excellent is the acting. Depp is wonderful again as a writer who is dealing with recent tragedy in his life. Turturro is great as an almost over the top tough, Charles Dutton is a strong supporting friend/lawyer for Mort, and Timothy Hutton is menacing as the boyfriend of Mort's soon to be ex wife.

The plot is complex and twists often, but never out of control. All the time, Depp is great and he really shows his range. This character requires him to be in control of himself, but just barely. There is an edge required here based on the situations the character goes through. Depp pulls it off beautifully. By the time the credits roll, you will be impressed. The story makes sense, and the surprise ending is good (not great) but the strength of the acting makes this almost a must-see.

Sophia Coppola's Lost in Translation is an exercise in character presentation and development. As you probably know, there is little plot to follow, and no hair raising twists to shock you. What you do have are two characters you have never seen before, yet you can probably identify with both of them a lot of the time. Their platonic friendship is refreshing; it's so common these days for strangers to meet, feel attraction, and jump into bed for no reason except that it's in the script. Because this movie chooses not to go that route, the characters are forced to show us their personalities on the screen, and that turns out to be much more entertaining than I expected it to be.

Bill Murray plays an actor who is in Tokyo to shoot a series of ads for a whiskey. He finds Japan strange; the opening scenes of the movie show him landing on his plane and looking at the culture shock before him. He has a lot of down time. We only see him working a few scenes. The rest of the time, he is wandering through Tokyo with no direction whatsoever. It is here that Murray's comic ability comes through. He has done so many comedies that require a large amount of physical acting, here, the looks on his face are all it takes. When he is in an elevator and he is a foot taller than every other man in there, he has a look on his face that evokes a chuckle.

Scarlett Johannsen plays a young newlywed whose husband (Giovanni Ribisi) is a photographer on assignment. He is always working, leaving her alone to do nothing. She wanders around, just like Murray. Eventually they meet in a bar (which they both frequent often). They strike up a friendship and spend lots of time together doing various things. Murray is in his 50's and Johannsen is supposedly in her early 20's (although she is really only 18), which in recent cinema has meant a May-December romance. But not here. Both are married (Murray's wife calls and sends faxes asking him which color carpet he wants in the house) and there is a great scene where Murray tells Johannsen why marriage is tough, especially once you have kids.

It's not so much about the characters being "real" as I have seen from reviewers here. It's about being able to identify with them. I was able to see myself and alot of what I feel from the characters on the screen. Kudos to Murray. I found him funnier and more entertaining here than I have in a dozen of his comedies before. Movies are not about special effects, or about shocking moments. They have always been, and will always be about characters. I found these two very interesting.

Good Will Hunting is a great character study. There is really no plot to speak of, because the characters in the film, all of them, are kind of in limbo. No one is going anywhere. In fact, that probably is the story because one of the characters has the ability to go all the way to the top and the fact that he does not care is frustrating to all the other characters in the film.

That character is Will Hunting, played expertly by Matt Damon. He is a janitor at MIT who sees a difficult math problem on a chalkboard outside a lecture hall and solves it as easily as you or I would add a column of numbers together. The problem had been put there by a professor (Stellan Skarsgard) who challenged his entire class to try to solve it by the end of the semester.

Will is a math genius, like Mozart on the piano or Bobby Fischer in chess. What normal people find impossible in math, he sees with complete ease. This opening scene at the university lets us see this side of Will before we see his other side- the side including his past and his temperment. He is a troubled man with a tough past. He spends his free time drinking with his friends (including real life best friend Ben Affleck, with whom he wrote this script) and getting into fights. He has made many trips to the local courtrooms.

Eventually, Skarsgard gets "custody" of him in exchange for Will not going to jail. In return, Will will have to attend counseling sessions and work with Skarsgard on mathematical problems. We are introduced in the course of the film to two other characters who will play critical roles- Robin Williams as a psychiatrist and Minnie Driver who may become a love interest.

This is a great performance by Damon, who gives us a complex character full of flaws and tough as nails. He allows us to watch him soften up as he learns a lot of life's lessons from people who truly care about him. We realize that this may be the first time in his life where that is the case. The film is not about any particular story, just a young man who is learning to trust life and the people who love him

Joan Fontaine laments as she opens the film, obviously several years removed from her time at the lush, oversized estate, which recalls "Tara" from Gone With the Wind as a residence which is actually also a character in the movie. People remember the houses from these two films almost more than the characters. No coincidence that both films were produced by the ridiculously meticulous David O. Selznick. GWtW was of course the most popular film of all time, so Selznick figured he had the right idea about how to make a film. Details, right down to the last corner.

Alfred Hitchcock had made a career in London making films with complete autonomy. He basically called all the shots. When he got to America, he signed a four movie deal with Selznick. Rebecca is the first and best of the three. (no, not a mistake, I'll explain later) Rebecca was the only film by Hitchcock to win best picture from the Academy, although Hitch did not win best director. The film was basically a tug of war between producer and director. Selznick wanted the book followed religiously, Hitch wanted to take the basic idea of the book and add his own touches. Selznick wouldn't allow it, so Hitch was forced to make the film exactly by the book.

The film stars Fontaine as an unnamed young woman who while working as a paid companion for the unbearable Mrs. Van Hopper (Florence Bates), she meets and falls in love with the brooding Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier). They marry after a quick courtship and go "home" to Manderley, Olivier's mammoth estate. Fontaine is very young and has no idea what she is getting into, especially when it dawns on her that Olivier's late first wife, Rebecca, still dominates the house. Her stationery, napkins, and rituals are still present, and Fontaine feels she has no chance against this woman.

The other problem in the house is the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson),who creeps around the house, showing up at any time to frighten Fontaine. She is still obsessed with Rebecca, still keeps Rebecca's old room the same way, hairbrush at the correct angle on the vanity. She makes Fontaine feel she will never measure up, will never be a great lady of Manderley, something that Mrs. Van Hopper tried to tell her as well. Everyone and everything in the house revolves around this dead Rebecca, so much so that Fontaine almost can't live through it.

Rebecca never appears in the film, yet it is amazing how much of a character she is. When Fontaine tries to dress up for a ball, Danvers suggests a portrait on the wall which is supposed to be a long dead relative of Maxims. Of course, when Fontaine wears the dress, she realizes from Maxim's reaction that the woman and the dress were Rebecca and that she just reminded him of her.

Eventually the film goes into Rebecca's death in some detail. We never know for sure that we know all the details of the death, but it doesn't really matter. By the end of the movie, all the major characters in the film will have been changed. Some will have been destroyed forever.

Criterion has done a great job with this film, giving us a great transfer, as always, along with a superb commentary. The second disc features trailers, interviews with Fontaine and Anderson, making of featurettes, examples of Selznick's letters and his attention to detail, and how maddening it got for the master.

By the way, Selznick got three films out of Hitchcock. They were Rebecca, Spellbound, and The Paradine Case. Well, he really got four, but he gave one of them to RKO studios because he was unhappy with the story and he thought it would interest no one. What was the film Selznick gave away? It was Hitch's best film of all time in my opinion--Notorious. What a waste it would have been had Selznick been allowed to ruin Hitch's masterpiece.