Arnold Schwarzenegger's last film ("End of Days") was a disappointment to most of his fans. Much better was this 1994 slam-bam action fest. It is one of the best movies in the Ahnuld canon. It is also an exciting, sometimes hilarious film that should satisfy the appetites of action fans everywhere.

Arnold stars as Harry Tasker, a mild-mannered, milquetoast computer salesman--or so his wife Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis) believes. Actually, he's a superspy for Omega Sector, a shadowy government intelligence agency.

Harry has been spying for seventeen years along with his wisecracking sidekick Gib (Tom Arnold). They go into the most dangerous, thrilling situations possible. At the same time, Helen complains about how boring Harry is, always in sales meetings or dull conferences. All she wants is a little adventure in her life. Be careful what you wish for!

Writer-director James Cameron outdid himself with this one, delivering over-the-top action and special FX like only he can. (Yes, I did like this better than "Titanic." Much better.) Some of the sequences in this film are nothing short of amazing. They really do have to be seen to be believed.

Schwarzenegger shows off his always-improving acting skills, even going so far as to tango, a trick he never would have tried a few years ago. He's no Pacino, maybe, but he's not half-bad. Schwarzenegger's presence holds the film together, providing a veneer of believability in the midst of all the cartoon violence.

Tom Arnold is refreshingly good in the comic second banana role, all but stealing the film from the principals. Having cast off the mantle of "Roseanne's husband," Arnold shows himself to be a gifted and likable performer in his own right.

Jamie Lee Curtis is as sexy and smart as always. Her role is somewhat awkward, as she is forced to endure some fairly embarrassing moments. She plays them, though, with verve and guts and accords herself well.

I do have one major complaint about "True Lies." It's too long and the second act lags. With a running time of two hours and twenty-one minutes, there are unavoidable lulls in the story. The scipt, as written, just can't support this much movie. Some judicious editing would have solved this.

Still, "True Lies" is definitely an E-ticket ride that should not be missed.

The romantic comedy is a very popular genre at the movies right now. I suppose that it always has been. In "Forget Paris" the emphasis is on the comedy, rather than the romance, and it provides a nice counterpart to some of the others.

The story is structured in a fashion that will be familiar to Woody Allen fans. Three couples are sitting around at dinner telling stories about their absent friends Mickey (Billy Crystal) and Ellen (Debra Winger).

Mickey and Ellen first meet in Paris through a rather amazing set of circumstances. (I won't give it away.) They fall in love, but Mickey has to go back to work-he's an NBA referee-so he leaves. He pines for Ellen, though, and it starts to affect his work. (There's a great scene with him and Kareem Abdul Jabbar.) Finally, Mickey returns to Paris and they resume where they left off.

Eventually, they decide to get married and Ellen quits her job and moves to California with Mickey. That's when the problems begin. Mickey is constantly on the road, so Ellen gets lonely, plus she hates her new job. Basically, she's miserable.

Trying to make things work out between them, Mickey quits his job and stays home with Ellen. In the meantime, she has gotten a great job that she loves so she's never home. Now Mickey is miserable.

If you suspect that somehow everything works out in the end, you've probably seen this kind of movie before. No matter. A romantic comedy succeeds or fails, not based on its originality or unpredictability, but on its charm, humor and the charisma of its characters. On that basis, "Forget Paris" succeeds.

Billy Crystal produced, directed and co-wrote the film, in addition to starring in it, so it's his picture all the way. With that kind of pedigree, you know it's going to be funny, and it is. Sometimes hilariously so.

It also means that there will be moments when the story or the characters will be sacrificed in order to serve the humor-and there are. There are too many scenes where Crystal cracks jokes and all Winger is given to do is laugh at them. That's too bad. An actress of her talent and intelligence should have a character that is more worthy of her.

There will be natural comparisons between this film and "When Harry Met Sally...," which also starred Billy Crystal. Although this picture is not as good as that one, it is still enjoyable.

In the world of books, Tom Clancy is the undisputed king of the techno-thriller. In the world of the movies, though, his title is a little less secure. "The Hunt for Red October" was a very taut and exciting film. "Patriot Games" was rather ordinary with only occasional glimpses of Clancy's magic. This third entry in the series is somewhere in between.

Harrison Ford is back as CIA analyst-extraordinaire Jack Ryan, only this time he's been promoted to acting Deputy Director of Intelligence. With his new job, though, comes new responsibility and accountability, something he finds that he is not altogether happy with.

The clear and present danger referred to in the title is the threat posed by the powerful and violent drug lords of the Colombian cartels. After the cartels kill a close friend of the President's, he decides that something must be done. Unfortunately, he does not have the legal authority to implement the course of action that he desires. If you think that is going to stop him, though, you are in for a surprise.

In a review of this sort, there is always a temptation to reveal more of the plot than one should. I will resist, however, and not give anything else away. Let it suffice to say that the story is interesting, reasonably complex and enjoyable, even if the ultimate outcome is never in doubt.

Harrison Ford is the kind of actor who is always fun to watch, even when he doesn't have much to work with. Here, though, writer John Milius and his collaborators have given Ford a good, well-written role and he makes the most of it. The Ryan character hasn't developed much since the last film, but that is forgivable. The emphasis in these pictures is always on the plot and the characters are made to serve it, rather than the other way around.

Ryan is joined this time by the mysterious Mr. Clark, a mercenary and former Company man. Clark is well-played by Willem Dafoe, an actor who doesn't get to work as much as I would like. It is too bad because he is very good. Clark will no doubt be spun-off into a sequel of his own, as Clancy himself has done with the later books. Clark is a good character with a lot of potential and I am eager to see what is in store for him next.

My main complaint with this film is a common one: it is too darn long. Like "Forrest Gump" and "True Lies," "Clear and Present Danger" clocks in at over two hours and twenty minutes and there is simply no reason for it to be that long. It would play much better had it been edited down to only two hours or so. A drama like "Schindler's List" can justify an extended running time. A thriller like "Clear and Present Danger" cannot.

"Frankenstein" is the ultimate Gothic horror novel; written in 1818, just after the end of one age and before the dawning of another. It was a time of enormous change in society, with the coming of the industrial revolution and the rise of science, and Mary Shelley's novel reflected the fears and apprehensions of many of the people. Frankenstein's monster was a symbol of man's growing power to alter the very fabric of life itself, and at the same time a warning to all who would meddle in God's domain.

The story is familiar to everyone. A young scientist and medical student named Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) is conducting a series of bizarre experiments, convinced that, in the newly-discovered science of electricity, he has found the key to creating life. Robbing bits of corpses from here and there, Frankenstein forms his golem and then infuses it with the precious gift of life.

The monster (Robert DeNiro), of course, is horrible to behold, ghastly both in appearance and in deed. He escapes from Frankenstein's laboratory, fleeing into a world that is as frightening and strange as the monster himself. The Doctor suddenly takes ill and is nursed back to health by his fiancee (Helena Bonham Carter). He is devastated by his failure, but believes that his creation has died of cholera.

It is important to realize that Frankenstein's monster is no bete noir. He is a thinking, feeling creature; a haunted soul whose torment is magnified a thousand times by his awareness of his own monstrous nature. Feared and reviled, his overtures of goodness and peace are met with hostility and hatred. He thus learns that he is not welcome in the world of man, regardless of his intentions.

It would seem that there is no better director than Kenneth Branagh to handle this story. His flair for hyper-dramatic material and penchant for excess are just what is needed for "Frankenstein." Unfortunately, though, something is not right here. What should be the most exciting scenes in the film-the creation of the monster, for example-are instead flat and uninspired. The style of the film style is choppy and abrupt, the pacing uncertain, and the narrative muddled and uneven.

The fault must lie with Branagh. He has seemingly overextended himself, taking on too large a task, and his work suffers, especially his performance. He never seems to really get inside his character. It is particularly noticeable opposite the brilliant work of DeNiro. His monster is wonderfully wrought; his characterization, intricate and textured. Bonham Carter is also excellent, as is Ian Holm in a small role as the blind grandfather.

"Frankenstein" is not a terrible movie. The filmmakers, including producer Francis Coppola, are all too competent to allow that to happen. It is a big disappointment, though. I expected much better from such fine talent.

This utterly charming, little British film took me completely by surprise the first time I saw it. I did not know what to expect going in, but I quickly found myself falling completely in love with it.

The plot is structured around the five events mentioned in the title. A magnificent group of seven dear friends attends a string of weddings, none of them, unfortunately, involving any of the principles. Our focus is on Charles (Hugh Grant), a devilishly handsome man who is completely incapable of committing to marriage. He is, as an ex-girlfriend describes him, a "serial monogamist."

There is some hope, however, that that might change when Charles meets Carrie (Andie MacDowell), a beautiful American woman. He falls in love with her, and we suspect she might love him, too, but instead she gets engaged to Hamish (Corin Redgrave), a boring, but rich man, twice her age. Our hearts break along with Charles' because we know that she is making a mistake. He is too disappointed, though, and too afraid to do anything about it.

There is something so pleasing about friendship in a movie. When it is done right, as it is here, it involves the audience in a way that most stories cannot. While watching this film, I could not help but wish that I knew them all better. Who wouldn't want a group of such trusted and wonderful friends? Because we like them, and because we feel we know them so well, the events in the film aren't just happening to somebody else. They are happening to us as well. That is why "Four Weddings" is so touching and so moving.

The acting is nothing short of brilliant, especially the work done by Hugh Grant. Not since Cary Grant has an actor displayed such suave, British charm and natural good looks. He is a delight to watch and, no doubt, has an excellent future ahead for himself. Andie MacDowell is equally enchanting. She has never appeared as lovely in a movie before as she does here.

The screenplay by Richard Curtis is extremely well written. The scenes have the ring of truth to them; the characters feel as real as anyone we know. The writing always hits just the right note, striking a delicate balance between moments of great humor and romance, as well as deep sadness.

Mike Newell's direction is fine, never distracting us the center of the film: the characters and their words. At the same time, there are moments of inspired visual artistry. The sight of Charles arriving late for Carrie's wedding, standing alone in a broad, Scottish moor, is touchingly sad. Even better is the funeral chapel, stranded in a bleak, industrial wasteland, overlooking the dull, gray Thames. It is a very evocative and poignant moment.

I do not want to give the impression that this is a sad film because it is not. At times it is rather hilarious, the romance is always enticing, and it does have a happy, if unexpected, ending. More importantly, all of its emotions are genuinely earned. "Four Weddings and a Funeral" is one of the most delightful films I have seen in a long time.

"Blue" is the first film in Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy that examines life in contemporary European society. Each of the three films corresponds to a color in the French flag and a segment of the French national motto. They are "Blue" (liberté), "White" (egalité) and "Red" (fraternité).

The theme of liberty runs throughout "Blue," but it is a cruel, unwelcome liberty. The husband and daughter of Julie (Juliet Binoche), a young French woman, are killed in a car accident at the beginning of the film. She, of course, is devastated. She briefly considers suicide, but is unable to go through with it. That would take an intensity of emotion-grief, loss, despair, something-that she simply does not have. She is so cold inside that she can feel nothing at all, not even sadness. (Blue, after all, is the coldest color of the spectrum.) In one telling scene, Julie comes upon her housekeeper who is weeping profusely. "Why are you crying?," she asks her. "I am crying," the maid replies, "because you are not."

Julie decides that her only course of action is to free herself completely from her past. She sells her house and all of her possessions and moves to an apartment in Paris where she knows no one and no one knows her. The only thing she keeps is her daughter's blue bead lamp, a colorful focal point in her drab, spartan quarters, and the only reminder of her lost life.

Before she can leave, though, Julie must give herself one final test. She seduces Olivier (Benoit Regent), a rather dull former colleague of her husband's who, not incidentally, is in love with her. They make love on a solitary mattress in her empty house, but she feels nothing. Perhaps she really is incapable of love. Having confirmed her suspicion, she walks away without even a backward glance.

Julie's disappearance, however, is difficult. Her late husband was a famous composer and they both remain the subject of media interest and gossip. It is rumored that Julie actually wrote his music herself, and it is true that the sounds of his last, unfinished work haunt her throughout the film. No matter where she goes, she cannot escape his (or is it her?) music because it lives within her mind and her soul. Occasionally the action is stopped completely and the screen fades to black, accompanied by the fortissimo sounds of his last, farewell concerto. It is an interesting, risky device, but it works well in conveying the dislocation, the sense of forever being apart from others, that Julie feels.

In the most interesting twist in the film, Julie meets her late husband's mistress, Sandrine, (Florence Pernel), a woman she did not even know existed. Sandrine is pregnant with his baby, a shocking revelation, but Julie does not hate her for it. Rather, she is remarkably generous and kind, just as he had always promised Sandrine she was. All Julie wants to know is, "Did he love you?" She answers her own question, though, when she spots the cross hanging from Sandrine's neck, the same beloved gift her husband gave to her.

Kieslowski takes his time in telling his story. Things do not happen quickly, nor are events momentous when they occur. The pacing is slow and languorous, but certainly never boring. Unlike most movies made today, this is a quiet, subtle film. Kieslowski and his cinematographer do a lot with the lighting, particularly in the scenes in the swimming pool. Those shots are awash in soft, evocative blue hues that give the scenes an exquisite, dream-like feel.

The performances by all of the leads are splendid. Juliette Binoche is truly a marvelous actress. She was so good in Godard's "Hail Mary" and Malle's "Damage," and she is even better here. Her character does not say much, nor does she take much dramatic action. Most of what we learn about her comes from staring into her sad eyes and regarding her troubled face. She is able to convey so much, not with broad strokes or grand gestures, but with intricate nuances and careful expressions. It is a performance to treasure.

As I watched "Blue," I was reminded of another excellent French production, "Un Coeur en Hiver," that also dealt with painful music and the tragedy of a cold, unfeeling heart. The similarities are subtle, but I think both of these films demonstrate one quality sorely lacking in most Hollywood pictures: maturity. The average major studio release is targeted at the core demographic of 14 to 24 year old males, not exactly the most discerning audience around. This strategy results in a lot of dreadful films being made. Fortunately for those of us with a more highly developed aesthetic sense, there are films like "Blue" around to satisfy our longings.

"Batman" may not be forever, but if this film is any indication of what the future holds for the Caped Crusader, he will be fighting crime for a long time to come. Although this is far from a great film, it is definitely the best of the series so far.

The story takes us back to the forbidding confines of Gotham City, where evil is again running amok. The overly-complicated plot is largely the same as in the previous two pictures; only the faces have changed. The bad guys once again want to take over Gotham and kill Batman. He, of course, wants to stop them.

The villains this time are the maniacal Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and his crazed companion, the Riddler (Jim Carrey). Together they chew through the scenery like two fat guys fresh from Jennie Craig. They're not very frightening, but then, they're not supposed to be. Two-Face is, however, rather dull. He could have been dropped entirely from the story without hurting a thing.

The Riddler is much better. After one particularly outrageous scene, Carrey (in character) turns to the camera and asks, "Was that over the top?" The answer is a hearty "Yes--but keep it up!" What makes Carrey special is his boundless comic energy. He's like a shark; if he ever stops swimming he'll die.

In a welcome addition to the series, "Batman Forever" finally introduces Robin (Chris O'Donnell), the Dark Knight's faithful sidekick. It gives a much-needed jolt to the film to see the Dynamic Duo together at last. They're relationship is one of the few emotionally stirring parts of the movie.

The thing that keeps the film from being better is the screenplay. Not only is the plot convoluted and unoriginal, it's not even very interesting. The writers would have done better to come up with something new, not just deliver another rehash of the original "Batman."

The story, though, is not what is important in a film like this. People come to see the characters and, on that score, they won't be disappointed.

Val Kilmer has taken over for Michael Keaton as the title character and he is good. Kilmer brings the humor, charisma and sex appeal to the role that Keaton always lacked. Batman is still too brooding and low-key for my taste, but he is getting better.

Chris O'Donnell furthers the youth movement with his star-making turn as Robin. Sporting close-cropped hair and a newly-buffed body, O'Donnell had the guys cheering and the girls swooning.

Nicole Kidman is ravishing as ever in the improbable role of the abnormal psychology expert. Her character is not given much to do but stand around and look pretty. Fortunately, Kidman is very good at that.

"Batman Forever" is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. It is, however, a lot of fun to watch.

Roman Polanski has never been accused of being a timid filmmaker. Over the years, his many movies have been distinguished by their potent subject matter and sure-handed direction. They are certainly not for everyone's taste, but those who like Polanski films tend to like them very much indeed. Bitter Moon is no different. It is one of the most frank and deliciously outrageous films I have seen in a long time.

The story begins with a very staid and proper British couple on an ocean voyage. Nigel and Fiona (Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott-Thomas) are hoping to rekindle the faint spark of romance that is left in their marriage. What they get instead is something much more than they bargained for.

Almost immediately, they meet Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner), a seductive French femme fatale, and her crippled husband Oscar (Peter Coyote), a failed American writer. Oscar knows that Nigel desires Mimi and he is willing to accommodate him, but first Nigel must listen to the sordid story of their life together.

I don't want to give away too many of the details, for the shock of hearing their tale is the best part of the film. It is, at various turns, erotic, outrageous, outlandish, hilarious, titillating and unbelievable. What it is certainly not is boring. As we peek in on their bizarre sex life, first stimulated, then horrified, we are never quite sure what is true and what is fantasy. Against his better judgment, Nigel finds himself drawn into their twisted, little world and the results do not disappoint.

It seems that it always takes a European director to make a film such as this one. Americans are far too timid about sexuality to deal with it in an frank and adult manner. You can count on Polanski or Paul Verhoeven or Bertrand Blier to make a film like "Bitter Moon." But what about Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola? Never. When it comes to films involving violence, American directors can be as bold and explicit as one could ever desire. In stories involving eroticism and sensuality, however, they are sadly lacking.

Due to some regrettable incidents in Polanski's past, his films seldom get the respect they deserve in this country. That is unfortunate because his work is generally superb. His 1988 thriller "Frantic," starring Harrison Ford, remains one of the best, most unappreciated films of recent years. "Bitter Moon" was first released in Europe in 1992, but it took two years for it to finally be shown in America. Anyone who ignores this one, though, will be missing a damn fine film.

The title translates as "a heart in winter." A cold heart, bereft of love. A heart incapable of any emotion at all. That describes Stephane (Daniel Auteuil), a solitary violin maker and repairman. A man with the soul of an artist, but none of the talent.

Stephane is partnered with Maxime (Andre Dussollier) in a thriving business. Maxime is everything that Stephane is not: gregarious, confident, extroverted. Together they form a successful team. Maxime brings in the clients and Stephane does the work. They both are quite happy.

One day Maxime introduces Stephane to his new love, Camille (Emmanuel Beart), a beautiful violinist. He is cold to her at first, but the music she makes gradually stirs something in him. She in turns responds to him. She can sense that he has the heart of a musician, but something is wrong. Something is keeping him from opening his heart to anyone else. That something is music. Stephane is surrounded constantly by beautiful music, but none of it emanates from him.

We come to realize why Stephane, once a promising musician, gave up music. The sounds his fingers made could never equal the music he heard in his soul so he quit. Rather than risk the pain of further disappointment in life, he chose instead to feel nothing at all. If that meant forgoing love, it was a price that he had to pay.

Camille eventually confesses to Maxime that she is in love with his partner. Maxime is hurt, but what can he do? She goes to Stephane. We can see that he probably loves her as well, but still he refuses her. He will not allow her into his heart. She is hurt by this, but she has her music and Maxime and, perhaps, that is enough. She is too proud to play the woman scorned.

Emmanuelle Beart gives a truly wonderful performance as Camille. She is stunning to look at, of course, but as a gifted actress, she will not settle for just that. Her work is meticulously crafted, imbibing her role with dignity and grace. She studied for a year to learn to be a convincing violinist and she succeeds magnificently.

Daniel Auteuil is also excellent, playing the difficult part of a man who keeps his thoughts and emotions very much to himself. It is a subtle performance, filled with poignant suggestions and nuances. His carefully guarded expressions and manner prove that still waters do run deep.

As is typical of most of the finer French films, "Un Coeur en Hiver" is a very mature, adult film. Not in the sexual sense--there is nothing even remotely objectionable in it--but rather in terms of its thoughtfulness and sophistication. The relationships in this film, as in real life, demonstrate that love is never easy. There isn't always a happy ending, and just because a man and a woman should get together, that does not mean they will.

Gerry Conlon (Danie Day Lewis) was not an upstanding youth. He was a petty thief and layabout with little future. He was innocent, however, of the bombing of a London pub which killed four people in 1974. That did not stop an English court, however, from sending him, his father, and several other innocent men to prison.

What makes this story so compelling is that it is true. Conlon really did serve 15 years in a British prison for a crime he did not commit. His conviction was finally overturned in 1989, upon the revelation that evidence which proved his innocence was deliberately withheld by the government.

This film shows several chilling scenes where Conlon is psychologically and physically abused until he finally breaks down and confesses to the crime. He, along with the others, is then sentenced to a long prison term. As the presiding judge tells him, "I only wish I could sentence you to death."

After Gonlon and his father Giuseppe (Pete Postlethwaite) enter prison in when the film's best moments come. The way that the relationship between father and son grows and matures is a pleasure to watch. This is one of the most compelling and moving displays of father/son love that I have ever seen in a film. The acting by these two men is nothing short of brilliant.

Emma Thompson is also quite effective as the English defense attorney who works for their release. This is just another entry in a seemingly endless string of excellent performances by this gifted actress. She is an amazing talent.

Much was made when this film was first released of the liberties that writer-director Jim Sheridan took with the actual facts of the case. That may well be true, but for the purposes of the film it is not really relevant. This is not a documentary or journalistic report, and the facts are close enough. It is a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging film.