Bruno

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.

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!

Although this movie is interesting to a point I had a difficult time deciding what the point was supposed to be. Yes, the young boy is "unique" but that alone is not enough to carry the movie. So much about this movie is obvious and contrived that the characters become caricatures; and poorly developed caricatures at that. The overweight mother, the frustrated father, the curmudgeon grandmother with a heart of gold. All the characters end up simply seeming odd if not downright strange.

There is much wasted talent here also. Kathy Bates, Gary Sinise, and even Shirley MacLaine are all actors of unquestioned talent but they are all hampered by a very weak screenplay.

This could have been an interesting movie but there are too many weak points. Ultimately it fails. One is left asking, "So what"?

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.

This funny, quirky, and touching story of individuality and tolerance makes it one of 2000's best films.

David Ciminello's film writing debut and Shirley Maclaine's second directorial opus populates the screen with the most memorable characters since "Matilda," "Gilbert Grape," and "Christmas Story." Bruno Battaglia (expertly played by Alex D. Linz) is an eight-year-old prodigy who aspires to win the National Catholic School Spelling Competition and its grand prize, an all expense paid trip to Rome for a private audience with the Pope. After a near-death experience and encounter with angels, he resolves to compete wearing various dresses (which he insists are "holy vestments"), much to the distress of the Long Island school's nuns (Kathy Bates as Mother Superior, Lainie Kazan and Brett Butler as his teachers) and the ridicule of his classmates.

Bruno's morbidly obese mother (Stacey Halprin), his estranged father who is ashamed of his son (Gary Sinese), his hyper-masculine grandmother (Shirley Maclaine), and his Annie Oakleyesque best friend (Kiami Davael) round out the cast with stellar performances. Watch for cameos by Gwen Verdon and Jennifer Tilly.