Bruno

I thought for this to be Shirley's first directing job, she was amazing behind the camera. I hope that she will do more movies with Shirley herself in there. But then again, as I remember, she said she hated directing herself. Alex was great, Gary was wonderful, Stacie and Kiami took over the screen, and everybody else really took control of the movie. Although this is December, for the rest of this month, if you live on the West Coast, you can see it on Starz Movie Channel. Then you can check her website to read more about this movie. I don't know about anybody else, but I give this movie about 9 1/2 to 10 stars.

Maclaine does as superb job with her first directorial debut: Bruno (The Dress Code DVD title).

This movie pulls at the heart strings at points, and tickles the funny bone at others. All performances were excellent. Alex Linz has come a long way with his acting. He wasn't too great in Home Alone 3, but shines in Bruno.

The story is original and clever. A young boy named Bruno (linz), has a dream/vision that he is being chased by an angel, which is a nightly thing for him. During a hospital visit ( after a car accident), he is at the gates of heaven. Though it is not his time, he is dressed in the robes of an angel.

When he comes out of his slight coma, he besides that wearing dresses is as close to his spiritual gown. Calling them "holy vestments", He goes through his days in "drag".

Also a genius speller, Bruno challenges the Catholic faith and church, focusing his attention on opening peoples eyes to the beauty of Heaven...Through wearing dresses.

Maclaine plays the Bruno's grandmother, who, with her own son, bruno's father, was very dominant and aggressive. Boys didn't listen to Oprea, that was for sissies. Well, I don't like getting into too much detail...

Take heed, the movie is exception...the acting is great...and newcomer, angie, Bruno's obese mother was excellent.

8 out of 10

Bruno was the kind of movie that I will see over and over. I am not usually a fan of movies starring children, and I generally look for some (intelligent) action. This dreamy story of an angelic, cross-dressing young boy was presented with style and compassion and offered a lesson in respect. Run don't walk to rent it!

I stayed up late last night to watch this movie on the cable. It is a little gem.

The script by David Ciminello was alive. I couldn't stop watching until the conclusion. I'm waiting to see his next one.

As a good Catholic boy I thrilled seeing the reactions of the nuns to the boy and his dress. Kathy Bates as "Mother Superior" was wonderful - in fact the casting was superb.

Some people have thrown negative comments about this film but really it is a fun film with a deep meaning.

What were all of these fine stars thinking when they agreed to be involved with this chaos? I truly mean no offense to those of you here who love this film, but good grief! As has been mentioned, it was too ambiguous about what it was trying to say (if anything). The writers really needed to decide on the story they wanted to tell. Was this supposed to be about a kid responding to a religious epiphany, or a kid experiencing a gender identity crisis? The script insists that it's the former, so let's assume for the sake of argument that's the case. (See "Ma Vie en Rose" for a definitive film on the latter.)

If we're to believe that Bruno's choices come from a vision he had rather than confusion regarding gender or other issues, the film should have depicted him trying to imitate angels and religious figures by dressing in robes, not Cher's castoffs. (That could've been just as interesting, maybe more so -- I'm sure the Catholic school would've found Bruno's imitations of the Pope or Jesus just as shocking.) I find it impossible to believe that a boy that age would calmly discuss his La Cage aux Folles wardrobe as his way to open people's eyes to the beauty of Heaven, that he's not afraid of dying at the hands of people who would want to kill him for appearing in public this way, ad nauseam. (The conversation about all this between Bruno and grandmother MacLaine was absurd.)

If Bruno's motivations had been based on confusion, I would be the first to defend his right to wear dresses and appear feminine. This makes all the difference, and this is what I find offensive about this story passing itself off as a testament to tolerance. Unless there's a darn good reason for it, who in their right mind would let their nine-year-old boy run around looking like that? We're not talking about boys imitating Roman warriors, the Pope, Dalai Lama, and other historic figures Bruno cites in his argument to nun Kathy Bates (delivered with far too much confidence for a little boy coming from a screwed-up broken home, genius be damned). We're talking about a boy (who keeps insisting he doesn't want to be a girl, yeahrightsure) wearing decidedly feminine dresses, sequins and tiaras, MAKEUP and WIGS. AAHHGGHH!! These ensembles, fetching though they may be, have nothing to do with visions of angels or holy vestments. The kid is a mini drag queen, and the adults are wrong to encourage him in such outrageous public display, especially at school. Age nine is far too young to understand the implications of such things. The film gives the impression that anyone who has trouble with Bruno's actions is intolerant, homophobic, etc. What nonsense. Another reviewer said there are plenty of straight men who dress up in women's clothing. The key word is MEN.

I will say that the film looks very nice and some of the performances are fine. Alex Linz does a great job, but his dialogue is badly written; it simply doesn't ring true of a child. I'm simply not convinced that, having been through all Bruno supposedly has been through in his short life, he would be so self-assured.