When I learned they were remaking the original "Sabrina," I couldn't fathom any reputable actor would even attempt to fill Bogart's shoes. Yet Harrison Ford was a more than suitable choice. Julia Ormond, however, lacked the confidence Hepburn portrayed, making for a Sabrina not nearly as charming as the original.

Several years after seeing the remake in the theatre, I watched it again some Sunday afternoon, and was surprised by the affect it had. When not compared to the sassy, comical, melodramatic romance of the first movie, this new version - considered on its own merit - is a pensive, mature romance that takes its time considering small details, as Ormond emerges as Ford's humble equal, rather than being duped by infatuation.

I watch it about every other year now, and as I grow older, I only enjoy more this movie's careful attentiveness to detail and the lack of emotional manipulation characteristic of Hollywood romances.

Okay, so I'm not a prepubescent boy. I'm a nearly thirty-year-old woman who was made to watch this ridiculous film quite against her will... And, damn it if I nearly peed my pants with laughter!

However, I do not recommend this to anyone who dislikes bathroom humor on principle. Though each joke is well-executed, each corny, melodramatic quip delivered with deliberately dewy-eyed sincerity, it is unapologetically juvenile, raunchy, and pretends to have no amount of redeeming value. But even its lack of values came as a surprise to me, for I can't help but give it more credit than it seems to give itself for having very strong underlying themes of maintaining integrity (believe it or not), and of course, friendship.

Bottom line - if you're looking for good clean fun, this is not for you; but if you're feeling a little off-color, goofy and in the mood for a guilty pleasure, this is a film that, at the least, will make you laugh in spite of yourself.

This is an exceptionally well done film.

Carefully balanced art direction, acting, and dialogue allow the story to ascend the stigma attached to the subject matter (which happens to concern a star rising and falling in the 1970's porn industry). It generates a surprisingly laid-back, groovy and even comforting mood while telling an intriguing story of a subculture about which most of us make presumptions, but know very little. The character studies are fascinating, most eliciting compassion for the weaknesses of a troubled community of remarkably average people who didn't pursue hedonistic tendencies as much as they sought acceptance, friendship and success in the only industry that would allow them to feign they were glamorous and special, as short-lived an illusion as it would end up being.

By my way of thinking, there are three ways to look at it.

The first - it's great for a genre that rarely gets the funding to produce anything at all, much less something this inventive.

The second - compared to movies outside its genre, it's poorly written, poorly acted and poorly filmed. Hate to say it, but it's true.

The third (and probably the most reaslistic) - it's an endearing enough idea that could have been better had the budget been there to hire someone to write a better script to be performed by better actors (perhaps some who are actually gay instead of beautiful straight women who seem more like they're experimenting than actually coming to terms with their sexual orientation). As it is, there was no budget, so some of the better actors overcome the dialogue that isn't so great, making this a fine and somewhat enjoyable way to kill a few hours just before bed. At least they tried, huh?

The scenario of a family dealing with a wife being the abuser rather than the husband is not commonly explored, yet this particular plot was ill-conceived, which almost makes it a crime. If a story as important as this can't be told well, it's better not to tell it at all, or the effect is that the viewers are numbed to a reality people should care more about. And when I finished watching this film, I yawned and put in something more gripping, while I should have at the very least been lulled into a few moments of reflection or contemplation.

For the most part, though the screenplay wasn't great, I feel poor casting is responsible for the film's failure. Try as she might, it just doesn't seem Meg Ryan can be taken seriously doing much else than romantic comedy. No, she isn't a bad actress, but the quirky, cute persona is what carries her, and when she attempts to be serious, she comes off as a little witchy and intolerant, not at all sympathetic or likable. In this particular role as the substance-abusing wife and mother, she doesn't inspire sympathy, never expresses any depth of confliction, and never convincingly emerges with dignity, though I suspect it was meant to be an empowering story.

Andy Garcia is "blah" as her husband. Yes, he's suitable as a nice guy who is confused as he both supports her and tries to hold her accountable, but he often comes across less confused and reticent and more wary and aloof as if he's actually secretly distracted by his dealings as a mob flunky or something.

The best performance is by Tina Majorino, who doesn't for a moment look like the spawn of Ryan and Garcia, but who's authentic reactions of fear and confusion when victimized by her mother are heart-rending. Thus to the film's credit, I guess the reality of a child being the most vulnerable victim in situations of substance abuse is demonstrated, but is not a strong enough impression to make this an even moderately impressive film.

If you're hoping this film will satiate your need for a tale of romantic love that softens the greediest of hearts, you will at least be rewarded with disappointment, but at most, an uncomfortable feeling of reticence.

Yet if you think of it as a cynical romp through a world in which love is dead and romance is an accessory, you might have some fun.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is pretty, catty, shallow, funny enough, and ultimately replacable. Casting a more endearing woman might have helped the romantic side of things, because it is too easy to disbelieve her genuineness. George Clooney on the other hand is extremely funny and self-deprecating (his relationship with his teeth is particularly funny). He is as shallow as Catherine's character, but much more likable, which keeps the film entertaining.

The art direction is charactertistic Coen Bros. - dark, but richly colored, making for a farcical ambience throughout. The jokes are wicked and clever as usual.

If you're a Clooney fan, you'll love it, a Coen Bros. fan, you might enjoy it, but a romantic comedy fan... well, you're probably better off going to rent a Meg Ryan film.

If you're hoping this film will satiate your need for a tale of romantic love that softens the greediest of hearts, you will at least be rewarded with disappointment, but at most, an uncomfortable feeling of reticence.

Yet if you think of it as a cynical romp through a world in which love is dead and romance is an accessory, you might have some fun.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is pretty, catty, shallow, funny enough, and ultimately replacable. Casting a more endearing woman might have helped the romantic side of things, but it was too easy to disbelieve her genuineness. George Clooney on the other hand was extremely funny and self-deprecating (his relationship with his teeth was particularly funny). He was as shallow as Catherine's character, but much more likable, which kept the film entertaining.

The art direction was charactertistic Coien Bros. - dark, but richly colored, making for a farcical ambience throughout. The jokes were wicked and clever as usual.

If you're a Clooney fan, you'll love it, a Coen Bros. fan, you might enjoy it, but a romantic comedy fan... well, go rent a Meg Ryan film.

Though it's not crass like "Ace Ventura," "Bruce Almighty" is Jim Carrey once again executing his usual stunts - over-acting, spouting not-quite-clever catch-phrases ("B-E-A-Utiful"...? Whatever...). Though these things annoy me personally, they admittedly do well in the box-office. Having enjoyed him so thoroughly in more innovative roles like "The Truman Show" and "The Majestic" (the latter of which may not have been the best, but was a nice deviation from his norm), I was hoping he'd continue down a more discerning path, since his rubber face and rear-end ventriloquism are only funny the first few times.

On a more positive note, this is a movie to which I'd take my preteen brother. It's clean and funny, as trite and unoriginal as the jokes may be. One particularly good scene is more to the credit of Steven Carell (known for his reporting on "The Daily Show") than any inspiration by Jim Carrey.

Take your kids, perhaps. Watch it on a Sunday afternoon when you have a few hours to waste. Don't expect much and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Expect it to be as funny as your friend said it would be, and you'll be disappointed. It's a light, mildly humorous, and completely harmless way to pass the time...

Truthfully, I know nothing of this movie's history, nothing of the actual events from which it was taken. However, considering the film for film's value alone, its strengths are easily indentifiable. Gary Oldman is absolutely brilliant. Any fan who simply loves to watch him work, loves to study each inflection of his ever changable features, will be in heaven just as I was. Though there are many movies of his I enjoy more - few display his breadth and depth so completely. He's nearly flawless here, and is present in almost every scene. Dennis Hopper is also uncomfortably believable, and the supporting cast was perfect (Frances McDormand, Ned Beatty, Pamela Reed).

For those whose attention won't be secured by Oldman alone, or who aren't generally intrigued by stories of mental illness or the usual "injustice within the system" scenarios, this film may hold little for you. I happen to like these kinds of films, and therefore didn't find it to be as bleak as critics nationwide promised it would be. There were some interesting visuals, some touching scenes, some disturbing scenes, etc. It had the rambling gait characteristic of "stories inspired by actual events," and moved at a steady pace, though I was annoyed when it ended upbruptly with an odd lack of closure. What I did find daunting could be perceived as a sign of the time it was made or perhaps low dvd quality - some of the editing and cinematography were poor, and there were warped voice-overs and dubbing.

Bottom line? It's a must for Gary Oldman fans or anyone who needs proof he can play someone other than a villain, a maybe for true story buffs who care more about studying human nature than facts, and probably a good one to overlook for anyone who's looking for a film that is, taken all-in-all, uplifting or cinematically impressive

I'm guessing Gary Oldman just needed some pocket change for his own projects because this movie was a painful joke. Though Ving Rhames is customarily a likable fellow, if not for Oldman, I wouldn't have given this film a second thought... or a first for that matter. Because I'm a die hard fan, I own it, and will of course watch his better scenes - he always keeps his integrity even when put in a film that has little.

As for the rest, it is slow and low budget with a hero nearly as corrupt as the bad guy, which is usually all right with me if there's some complexity to his character (ie: Leon, the Professional). Nothing complex about this hero, though. Perhaps we were supposed to root for him because he wasn't the grosser of the two? Or maybe because he had a bum arm?

On the brighter side, in spite of the rest of the script being incredibly wooden, a truly unique scene is the one in which we get to see Gary Oldman's bad guy posing as a very endearing, down-to-earth gas station attendant. The dialogue is notably good here, reasonably philosophical and well-delivered by both Rhames and Oldman; it makes me wonder why the writer didn't work harder to make the rest of the film as palatable.