Starring: Tom Cruise, Max von Sydow, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Spielberg's last effort, A. I., was a
terrible sci-fi film that contained a very simple plot combined with
dazzling special effects and a superb cast of lesser known
stars. So he follows that up with another sci-fi effort with a
box office superstar known more for eclipsing his projects and
consisting of a convoluted, mind-twisting mash of intricacies, with
special effects that are nothing to write home about... and creates
Well, he still is Steven Spielberg, and he goes to show he
still have the chops to deliver an amazing film just when you think
he's fallen by the wayside. Somehow that's reassuring, like
seeing Rocky get back up off the canvas and wade in knowing he may
be down but he most assuredly is not out.
Minority Report contains a whole lot of things, not the
least of which is a plot hole big enough to drive a blockbuster
through it (see end of review for full details, which also contain a
spoiler) and yet manages to succeed in the same sort of marvelous
way that a magician's trick does: against all odds and improbable in
the extreme. I was at all times entertained and completely
enthralled by every concept in this film, even though they were
mostly inferior to the lofty ones put forward in Spielberg's
earlier, much inferior, effort.
The basic plot (from a Phillip. K. Dick short story) you've
already surmised from the T.V. ads: Cruise is a cop who solves
"pre-crimes": murders that haven't yet happened but will,
predicted by a trio of spooky precogs who are infallible.
Things are fine until one day they predict Cruise will become a
future murderer of someone he's never met.
At that point the oldest plot device known in police drama
occurs: Cruise must solve the crime before he is apprehended.
The twist here of course is the crime hasn't yet occurred, and there
is no particular reason why it should, and so Cruise must solve that
mystery as well.
The 90 minutes or so of the film is filled with splendid chases
and split-second timing (along with humor that's been missing from
most of the last 10 years of Spielberg's work) that leave you
literally on the edge of your seat, all punctuated by a wonderful
John Williams score that is anything but typical John
Williams. Then just when you think you've reached the end of
the film it suddenly turns a corner and you find there is a whole
lot more to go (the film runs almost 2 1/2 hours) While you'll
probably spot the bad guy a long way off (I certainly did) the
resolution is a challenge to guess, and will leave you satisfied.
At least until you get home. Then you may start to wonder
about something, and the next is something you do not want to read
until after you've seen the film, so go out and spend the money
(really, if you like movies you will have to see this) and then come
back and we'll talk...
Back? Okay, the problem with the film, one that you
probably won't notice during the film, is really huge, but somewhat
difficult to state. Let me try it simply: if you wanted to
frame someone for a future murder of someone he had never met and
never would, how would you go about it? In other words, there
is no way you could actually get the two people together without
exposing yourself (something that doesn't occur in the film).
So we have a future event dependent upon the future event itself, a
paradox the filmmakers have neatly sidestepped by pacing and other
tricks of the trade. But a trick it is: this is a piece of
logic that should not have happened. Cruise would never have
been in that hotel room unless he saw himself in the hotel
room, and he never would see himself there unless he would go
there... I think you can see the problem.
I actually don't mind the film has this huge flaw -- it's kind of
endearing, a sort of Monroe birthmark on the face of what was a
superbly entertaining effort. But that doesn't mean it doesn't
Worth Seeing? I'm not in the minority by reporting yes!
A Beautiful Mind
|Starring: Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer
Directed by Ron Howard
|There are movies the less you know about before you
see them the better, and this is one of them. Therefore, I
won't spoil it for anyone by revealing any more of the plot except
to say it's the true story of a mathematical genius who has a
difficult time with life outside of his work.
Russell Crowe delivers a performance both understated and
stunning, and is a sure lock to pick up the Oscar in a few
months. It's equally matched by his love interest, Jennifer
Connelly (who's grown a great deal more interesting since she played
the ingénue in such films as The Rocketeer) and will almost
certainly hold a gold statue herself from the academy's spring
fest). Their scenes together are among the film's most
interesting (and provide a great deal of the sly humor in this
otherwise very serious film).
About the only thing wrong with this film (which will win the
Oscar for Best Picture despite being an inferior film to Lord of
the Rings -- Hollywood will never give such an award to any
portrayal of something as "frivolous" as Middle-Earth) is
the end. Director Ron Howard has taken the time necessary for
us to care and worry for these characters, and the last fifteen
minutes events and time are so compressed it feels as if he suddenly
looked up at the clock and said "Oh my gosh! I've spent
two hours and the film isn't done yet!" The most
satisfying part of A Christmas Carol is after Scrooge has
been reformed and we bask in the glow of his happiness; Howard has
wasted a lot of potential here by rushing things and not letting us
appreciate the good moments our heroes have earned.
As it is, it's a terrific little film that will interest any
adult thinking individuals (for the rest, like the people in the
back row behind us who wondered loudly after the picture was over
just what everyone had been chuckling about at times, I would
recommend renting any of the excellent Adam Sandler films, curling
up on their hideabed sofas, and laughing themselves silly in their
|Worth Seeing? If you have a mind, you'll find
this film beautiful.
Lord of the Rings
|Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen,
Sean Astin, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd,
Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean, Ian Holm
Directed by Peter Jackson
|Once upon a time, a long time ago, a group of
explorers set off on a Quest. The Kingdom had fallen on dark
times, and an evil spirit pervaded the land. Our intrepid band
of heroes, bound by love for each other as well as the duty to
themselves, traveled through dangerous territory, beset by creatures
and obstacles that would have defeated lesser souls. They travel
directly to the lair of their greatest enemy, despite the incredible
risk involved. Their eventual triumph was possible because of
their devotion to each other, to the fellowship this mission
This, of course, is the story of The Wizard of Oz, a
series of books predating those written by J. R. R. Tolkien by a few
decades. It's more than a little possible Tolkien was
influenced by these books. Then again, the story described
above could be applied to any number of stories both before and
after the Lord of the Rings trilogy was written.
I'm not going to go into the background of the books because, for
the enthusiast it would be redundant, and for those who are not
familiar with them it really doesn't matter. One of the very
nicest things about Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings
(to use the full title, since this is the first movie in a trilogy)
is you don't have to be one of the Tolkien faithful to enjoy or
understand it. Indeed, while I have a passing familiarity with
the story (through my wife's explanation as well as seeing the
animated versions made a quarter of a century ago), I found the
movie to be very complete in its explanation of all I'd need to know
of middle-earth and the enormous amount of characters and races that
Often even before we see a film we type it in our minds:
"This is a science-fiction film, this one's a comedy, this is a
very serious drama..." Sometimes that first impression
isn't true -- we may see a film we think is science-fiction, like Galaxy
Quest, but understand that it really is a comedy. So I'll
tell you something surprising about Rings: while it contains
a lot of scenes involving magic, Orcs, special effects of all kinds,
this really isn't a Fantasy film, any more than Galaxy Quest is
a sci-fi film. Rings is first and foremost a drama, a
very good drama about the honor and relationships among people who
try their best to deal with moral issues. Some of them will
succeed, some of them will fail, but all will try and in their
efforts we learn a lot about ourselves as well.
And in that service the acting is absolutely superb, from the
smallest supporting characters to all the main leads. It's no
easy job for a movie to give enough screen time to the nine major
characters of this film, but they do that with time to spare for all
the rest of the cast. I would not have wanted this movie to be
one minute shorter than it's nearly three hour running time if that
meant any scenes from any characters would be eliminated.
The best test I have for any film is how soon do I want to see it
again. With Rings it will be just as soon as
possible. My only problem is how I will be able to wait until
the next movie is released.
|Worth Seeing? Yes, this movie Rings true.
Harry Potter and the
|Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma
Watson, Maggie Smith
Directed by Chris Columbus
|Harry is an interesting film -- a film whose
catchline "Let the magic begin..." could easily be turned
into a wish mantra ("Please, let the magic begin!").
It starts off promising, with a satirical opening reminiscent of
the kind of sensibility from Willie Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory. In that, far more magical, film, the young hero
lives with his two sets of grandparents and mother, and they all
share the same (rather small) bed. Here we have Harry (played
with wide-eyed perfection by Daniel Radcliffe) living in a small
room under the stairway, dominated by his tyrannical aunt and
uncle. Before long we learn that Harry is special indeed, and
we begin a series of fanciful adventures that end with him
triumphant. But we hardly ever come back to that tone set at
the beginning, just the first of the many problems this film has.
I've never read any of the books and had no preconceived notion
of what to expect -- what I saw was a rather charming if boring film
that would probably entertain most children under the age of 8 or
so. Above that and they'll be wanting some action, and
it's here that Potter most disappoints.
Even the scenes which are meant to be dramatic and exciting, like
the fight with the Ogre, the chess battle or (most boring of all)
the climatic confrontation with the villain have all the excitement
of, well, let's say a real chess match. You can't lay all the
fault of that on the screenplay -- while it's obvious Steven Kloves
(a particularly odd choice for this movie, considering his other
writing credits such as Fabulous Baker Boys and Wonder
Boys are very adult movies: perhaps the producers were thrown
off by the "boys" in those movie credits) was attempting
to be faithful to the book by including far more material than was
necessary for this film (it runs 2 1/2 hours and seems every bit of
it) the scenes are there. In the hands of a more capable
director (Chris Columbus has written some of the most boring
children's movies of recent years (Goonies, Young Sherlock
Holmes) and directed only one real standout film (Home Alone))
this movie would come alive.
As it is it's most interesting in the small scenes -- the
interaction between the three students as they become friends, the
mysteries of the school as it is first introduced, Harry discovering
the secret behind his past.
The film ends with Harry leaving his beloved school, the place he
thinks of as home, and going back to his evil stepparents.
This is a very odd ending (it should have ended back at the house
award ceremony), a complete downer to all except those who've read
the books. But then again, I guess this movie isn't designed
for anyone who hasn't read the books.
|Worth Seeing? Only if you've read all the
books and are not looking for any excitement in your movies.
Otherwise, stay tuned for Lord of the Rings.
Planet of the Apes
|Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham
Directed by Tim Burton
|Hollywood loves to remake classic films and why
not? They have a sure-fire, familiar scenario, and they have
actors and directors who grew up watching (and loving) the
original. Indeed, most of the people working in film today are
working there precisely because they became addicted to so many
great, earlier films.
It sometimes borders on the obsession, as when Spielberg remade A
Man Called Joe (as Always) -- the original wasn't very good but it
touched something in his heart and his remake became a labor of love
(and just a labor for those of us who had to watch it). I
believe something similar is at work here.
How else to explain remaking a film that had been pretty well
done to death (five sequels and two television series)? Was
there truly anything about apes acting like men we needed to explore
again? The short answer is no, and unfortunately you have to
sit through what seems like five hours (but is only slightly over
two) in order to discover that.
All this despite the fact there is some good work going on
here. Yes, the ape makeup is remarkable (although truly not a
quantum leap over the remarkable work done on the earlier series --
more like a point release of the software rather than a new
version). The performers under all that makeup are really
great -- Paul Giamatti (doing his best Jim Carrey) as riotous ape
entrepreneur, Tim Roth (given full reins here to chew up all the
scenery, nearly literally) as the lead chimp villain, and Helen
Bonham Carter as the female ape who, well, goes ape over the humans.
And Helen sums up exactly what's wrong about this movie -- she is
truly wonderful, and the emotion and range she brings to this role
despite the not inconsiderable handicap of all that latex are
stunning. But I'll now provide another Kelley Rule of Thumb:
when the character in your movie with the most humanity is an ape,
you have a Problem.
The problem, of course, is Mark Wahlberg. Publicists for
some reason want to keep harping on the fact he's had no formal
acting training. Note to publicist: don't overstate the
obvious. As a much better writer observed once, Mark runs the
acting range of emotions from A to B. During a critical moment
we are supposed to believe he's pondering his fate (or whatever): we
know this because he sits on a rock. If he sits too long on
that rock, it might be hard to tell them apart.
Because you don't get any feelings from him, you also
don't develop any feelings for him. How unlike this is
from the original! Charlton Heston's astronaut was vibrant,
dynamic, full of life and indignation at being stranded ("A
planet where apes evolved from men!?"). Even his small
cameo here (as Tim Roth's chimp father) has in it's few seconds more
range than all of Mr. Wahlberg's performance (and I use the term
Much is being made now of the "surprise" ending of this
movie (which I won't reveal). It's only a surprise if you've
never seen a film over the last oh, say, 30 years or so.
Otherwise you'll not only know exactly what's coming, but wonder
what the heck the point of it was. The original had an ending
that tied everything together and made perfect sense: this ending is
gratuitous and dumb.
|Worth Seeing? As long as you make sure you
rent the far better original and watch it immediately afterwards.
|Starring: Julia Roberts, Billy Crystal, Catherine
Zeta-Jones, John Cusack
Directed by Joe Roth
|A romantic comedy needs as its core two people you
desperately care about, two people who are unlikely to hook up and
yet, by the end of the movie (against all odds, of course) come
together for that screen filling, popcorn selling, ticket buying
incredible closeup of a kiss... (to paraphrase another, better,
The biggest problem with America's Sweethearts is that it
doesn't have that, although it has all the other pieces it needs
(and gets them right). It has the wise-cracking third role
(here, Billy Crystal as the movie studio PR man pulling the behind
the scenes strings), the kind of role Eve Arden made a living
playing, it has some terrific comedic characters (Stanley Tucci's
mercenary studio head, Hank Azaria's riotous Cuban gigolo) and, of
course, the third wheel in the love triangle, the bitch goddess
(played to unexpected perfection by Catherine ZJ).
She is one-half of the Sweethearts, and John Cusack plays the
other half, the leading man (and separated husband) to whom she may
or may not still be in love with. Julia Roberts is her
long-suffering sister/personal assistant who has admired (and loved)
John from afar. John is somewhat smitten with Julia as well,
but is so blinded by his desire to win his wife back he can't see
that Julia is really the Right One. Will these two find each
Who cares? That's truly the problem, because Julia and John
seem better suited as brother(in-law) and sister than anything more
serious. There is so little chemistry between the two that you
start thinking about how this movie might have been.
For, you see, Robert Downey Jr. was to have originally played the
John Cusack role. Bobby had a little problem, though (called
substance abuse if you're politically correct -- basically he's a
junkie loser who's squandered away his considerable talent) and was
replaced just as the movie was to go into production.
I really really (really) like John Cusack -- I think he's one of
the most underrated actors working today -- and in such films as High
Fidelity and Grosse Pointe Blank he has demonstrated a
charm and talent that it's a pleasure to watch. I've enjoyed
his career ever since his first major role, in Sixteen Candles,
and I was hoping that this film would give him his first chance at
playing a traditional leading man.
But John is much better at being the quirky, unconventional hero,
and he shows here he just doesn't fit in the standard mold.
Add that to the fact that Julia Roberts is one of the least likely
people to play the shy wallflower of a sister/assistant who finally
decides to stand up for herself and you have a total dud for
I'd have love to have seen this film with Downey (who would have
been much more believable as the handsome movie star type) and some
truly cute actress, say Meg Ryan or perhaps Ashley Judd (as she was
in Someone Like You) in
the Julia Roberts role. Then this movie would have had
magic. As it is, it's just funny (albeit at times, very
|Worth Seeing? If all you want is a comedy
without the romance.
Jurassic Park III
|Starring: Sam Neil, Bill Macy, Tea Leoni
Directed by Joe Johnson
|The rule of thumb is the third movie in a series that
involves large, dangerous beasts, such as Jaws 3, Aliens 3
or even Rocky 3, is a very bad movie indeed.
Usually the good ideas that made the first movie so good are
dissipated -- for the most part the first sequel consists of the
same themes with fewer of the original characters. By the time
the third one is made, it's become a franchise, and you're lucky to
have one of the original characters (with perhaps a cameo or two by
someone from the first two). Indeed, the third movie is
usually the sequel killer -- if the fourth is made it will bereft of
any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
But rules are made to be broken, and in this case they are broken
with the same force the large spiny dinosaur that is the central
villain in this piece disposes of the fence that holds him in.
This is one terrific movie, much much better than nearly all the
reviews will have you believe.
Part of the reason it's so good are the dinosaurs, of
course. They are absolutely wonderful, and much more at center
stage than in either of the two previous movies. The
technology has advanced to where it's no longer possible to tell
what's animated and what's a model -- I do quite a bit of 3D
animation and I didn't have a clue.
But there is much more to like about this movie than just special
effects. Perhaps it helps that Dr. Grant (Neil) was not in the
second sequel -- seeing him here brings so much freshness and humor
that just wasn't there for JP: The Lost World. The
script also has some very clever humorous lines, and wisely ties
this version together with each of the previous movies.
So the plot isn't exactly Shakespeare -- just what did people
expect? It's not unbelievable (like the second one), merely
unlikely at times. And it's never preachy (unlike the first
one). The script does just what it has to do in order to frame
all the wonderful excitement and action, so there is no wasted fat
here. Indeed, there is much about this movie that is vastly
superior to either of the first two.
About the only negative in the movie is the Tea Leoni character
-- she is annoying in the extreme, the kind of typical screaming
heroine that might have been in fashion in the 40's but certainly
isn't what we expect in our women leads nowadays. Her behavior
isn't necessary for us to be scared, as these action scenes are
tremendously scary on their own. Quite frankly, politically
incorrect or not, I would have belted her somewhere in the first act
and just told her to shut up.
But I can forgive that, and will go to see this movie again and
again. As will, I suspect, a whole lot of other people. JPIV
can't be too far down the road, and I'm sure it will be just great.
|Worth Seeing? Of course. It's
|Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Luke Wilson, Victor
Directed by Robert Luketic
|We might as well say it and get it out of the way --
"Clueless goes to Harvard."
Okay, we've said it (and we're not proud) but while that pretty
well sums it up it is also somewhat misleading. This movie
isn't nearly as smart or as funny as Clueless. Some
critics are saying Reese is better than Alicia Silverstone (Clueless'
smart blonde) but that isn't true. She's definitely prettier,
and she can pout with the best of them, but she's no match to that
earlier, memorable character.
That said, this is a fairly enjoyable (albeit completely
predictable) way of spending 90 minutes or so. Reese is dumped
by her boyfriend (in a very funny scene reminiscent of The
Heartbreak Kid, but not nearly as heartbreaking) because she's,
well, too blonde, and decides to go to Harvard to be near him and to
become the woman he wants. The main humor is West Coast Val
Gal meets East Coast preppies, and it's pretty much milked for all
it's worth. This is strictly sit-com material, though, with
nothing truly clever or rib-tickling.
I'm much more interested in seeing Reese in the rumored movie
version of Honey West. She has talent and looks, and just
needs to find a better vehicle to display both.
|Worth Seeing? If you're just like, totally,
into the blonde thing.
|Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Francis
O'Connor, William Hurt
Directed by Steven Spielberg
|Steven Spielberg got his start telling his family
fairy tales around the dining room table, and with few exceptions
has made a career out of making movies which explore fairy tale
themes. Some of his movies are rather obvious adaptations
("Once upon a time there was a monster who lived in the
ocean...") and his movies often involve someone making a wish,
whether it's Richard Dreyfuss' Close Encounters character's
desire to travel to the stars (to the music of "When you Wish
Upon a Star" playing in the background) to Robin Williams'
Peter Pan wishing he could fly again, to Elliot wishing E.T. back to
life. Spielberg defines movies by wishes come true, and
retelling the story of Pinocchio must have been irresistible to him.
But the Spielberg would so easily grant a child's fantasy to fly
across the sky on a bicycle is light years removed from the director
who made Schindler's List. Such a man, who has dealt
with the realities of the truly dark side of man's nature could not
easily provide a happy ending to a fairy tale based in
reality. And therein lies the rub (and problem) with A.I.
This is a fairy tale, all right, but one by the Brothers Grimm
rather than Hans Christian Anderson. David will be abandoned
in the woods by someone who can't bring themselves to destroy him,
but unlike the classics it won't be some woodcutter but someone
whose love and care makes that abandonment almost unwatchable.
I think there are lots of reasons why the two letter A.I. is the
antithesis of E.T. In each there is a "child" who
moves in a world removed from his family, but makes his own family
along the way. In each there is the lack of a father figure
(how very chilling that David calls Monica "mother" but
keeps referring to her husband by his first name. David will
love his mom, but will never know what it is to have a
father). Both Elliot and David will have various adventures
accompanied by a doll-like "friend" who isn't human but
provides love and understanding.
The difference, of course, is that Elliot is human and David is
not, and Elliot moves in a fairy tale world while David's world only
resembles one. Beneath all the neon and glitter and artifice
of the future David inhabits there is no magic. He may fly,
but in a machine. He may find love and acceptance, but it will
not last. He will visit the great and mighty OZ (a rather
hammy performance by a 3D character voiced by Robin Williams) but
unlike Dorothy, he finds no human solace nor magic path home.
One critic called A.I. frustrating, and I can understand
this viewpoint. A.I. is very close to creating all the
Spielberg magic we've come to expect. Time and time again it
fails, but it does get close, much closer than most films made by
There is much to admire here. Haley Joel Osment is
absolutely terrific as David, as is Jude Law as his traveling
companion. His other sidekick, the bear, is one of the more
charming movie creations, avoiding all the cloying possibilities of
such a character. And Spielberg has woven a rich tapestry of
ideas and themes (such as the persecution of minorities, the use of
artificial substitutes for love, the quest for a meaning in life,
and even a return to what alien life might inhabit this universe)
that you never lack for something to think about. I just wish
I hadn't left the theater feeling as cold and empty as some of the
artificial life portrayed within this movie. David deserved
better than he got, and 10 years ago Steven would have given it to
Spielberg quite rightly dedicated this movie to Stanley Kubrick,
the late director who had intended to make this film for quite some
time (he was working on the treatment when he died).
Interestingly enough, I think the film Spielberg made was probably
exactly the film that Kubrick (a man known for making films that
lacked human warmth, such as 2001) would have. In that
respect, it's quite a tribute.
|Worth Seeing? As long as you're not bi-polar
and in one of your down moods.
|Voices: Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, John
Directed by: Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson
|One critic called Shrek "critic
proof" -- well, no movie is immune to criticism, but Shrek
certainly comes close.
It is a movie that falls into that extremely rare category of a
terrific family movie -- too often sacrifices are made in order to
appeal to all ages that results in a disaster. Disney's made a
fortune walking that fine line and now Dreamworks seems to be taking
It has all the things that make a good family picture -- lots of
visual humor as well as witty dialog (which is aimed far above most
children's heads), great characters, a very simple to follow plot
involving romance, adventure and, of course, a happily ever after
that leaves you walking from the theater feeling much better than
when you went in.
About the only thing the picture doesn't have, in fact, is
anything approaching unpredictability. This isn't a
requirement for a family film -- indeed, it can be a distinct
liability, but it's lack here means the picture will not achieve the
"classic" status of such films as The Princess Bride
(a much more unconventional telling of a fairy tale).
Other than the fact that the lead is a Ogre (and discounting the
rather small twist of an ending) this movie follows a tried and true
formula to a "t": the unpopular but ultimately triumphing
hero, the obnoxious sidekick who turns out to have the key to
salvation, the two obviously meant for each other if only they would
realize it, and a road trip where it all comes together.
So if there aren't any surprises here, plotwise, at least the
movie itself is filled with such a rich tapestry of background
characters, throwaway lines and, above all, winning
characterizations by the leads that we can forgive it. Mike
Myers is winning as the best green guy this side of the Jolly
Giant. Cameron Diaz's princess is both charming and
resourceful. And most surprising of all, Eddie Murphy's donkey
sidekick is truly very wonderful (a real revelation considering he's
playing the same character he played in Disney's Mulan,
albeit this time with fur: as Mulan's dragon and even with
limited screen time he really got on my nerves, but with a much
larger role here he never becomes cloying or annoying, except to our
A lot is being made of the animation in the film -- yes, it's
groundbreaking in that it's 3D animation that no longer has to
apologize for anything. The art direction is also very
beautiful -- some of the sunsets and scenics are like paintings come
to life. In that respect the animation should be
admired. But I think we've now reached a point in the
technology where we don't need to mention it, which is about the
highest compliment we can pay the animators (as Hitchcock once noted
about cinematography, the best should be so unobtrusive we never
think about it).
This is the kind of movie you may need to see more than once, to
appreciate all you can't catch the first time. But you won't
lack for company -- if you run out of family to take with you, round
up some neighbor kids and treat them (and yourself) to a lot of
|Worth Seeing? Even if you have to rent a kid
to see it with.