movifan

The opening of the movie finds us reading the words, "Based on a True Story," but "Patch Adams" feels like a movie with a wildly out of control comic as its lead.

Robin Williams plays a real-life medical student named Hunter "Patch" Adams, who dreams of giving his future patients a better "quality of life." He prances around and makes patients laugh and feel good about themselves to make them forget their pains.

The message in "Patch Adams" is a nice one, but the actors don't make it real. The big payoffs feel cheap, especially a key speech by Williams late in the film. One of main problems is the screenplay, which doesn't really give us much to care about. Everything happens in such a set-up way that nothing feels right.

And so, this is not one of Williams' shining hours. Compare his work as a doctor in the wonderful "Awakenings" (1990) to this and it's night and day.

I like "Star Trek." The characters are fun to watch and the movies are usually entertaining, sometimes very good.

In "Star Trek: Insurrection," the latest in the series, the crew must try to protect a mystical "fountain of youth" planet from being over-taken by villains using an alliance with the Federation.

OK. Sounds simple enough, right? Wrong. This "Star Trek" movie has some great ideas for a good movie, but nothing is right. The actors are incredibly indifferent to the material. They are lazy. Where is the customary urgency, the sense that the crew needs to race time to save humanity? It's missing because the actors make no effort to make us care about the people on this planet that makes them stay youthful.

A subplot involving a romance between Riker (Jonathan Frakes) and Counselor Troi (Marina Sirtis) is handled with such an abruptness and awkward timing that it generates no interest. The comedic moments are so badly timed that they aren't funny, just perplexing.

Captain Picard's involvment with one of the planet's inhabitants is sweet but inconsequential. And other subplots concerning Data are wasted, adding only annoyance to the film.

Even the usually adequate special effects and sets are cheesy this time. The magic is not there.

Frakes directed the much more confident "First Contact" a few years ago. That film was suspensful, funny and well-acted. The story moved with eased and grace, creating a sense of awe and interest in its characters. "Insurrection" is directly the opposite. Instead of moving along breezily, it slogs along. I'm inclined to say this is worse than "Star Trek V." At least the film makers seemed to be trying for something in that one.

Jim Carrey would not be on too many lists for very good actors, but he is a major talent. His comedy is alternately inventive and off-putting. Yet here he is in a role that is original and interesting.

He plays Truman Burbank, who lives in a nice, quiet town where everyone knows everyone. But little does he know he is the subject of a 24-hour TV show.

The screenplay is creative in inventing ways to keep Truman from knowing this fact, such as a fear of the ocean, and in the gradual awakening to a new reality that Truman must face.

Carrey makes Truman into a sympathetic character, who is thrust into a situation that is hard to accept. Everything he's ever known is staged. It is a touching, likable performance that is complete and true to character.

Ed Harris provides fine support as Cristof, the creator of "The Truman Show," opting for a low-key approach rather than a madman performance that makes him worthy of pity.

Andrew Niccol ("Gattaca")'s screenplay is one of the most creative in a long time, which presents intriguing questions about the nature of television, privacy and how far technology should be taken. Is it okay to place a person in a bubble all his life for all to see? Just because we can, must we? Those questions provide for a multi-layered plot that makes you think.

Strong direction from Peter Weir ("Witness," "Dead Poets Society").