guy_lazarus

I can't believe that the reviewers who have also seen Michael Mann's 1986 version of Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon fail to point out that, except for the ending, this movie is a nearly scene-for-scene remake of the Mann flick. I watched Manhunter after Red Dragon, and I was shocked by how blatant the remake was; except for fleshing out the relationship between Graham and Lecktor/Lecter and adding a flashback to their joint past, this movie IS Manhunter, right down to the flaming body in the wheelchair and listening to the heartbeat of the tiger. I cannot believe that Michael Mann does not get a writing credit on this film since many of the lines in the two films are identical.

I feel that Manhunter is the superior film, but Red Dragon was a good view, though it ultimately proved disappointing despite its stellar cast. Anticipating something wonderful when thinking of this great cast with at least 10 Oscar nominations between the five lead players, I was dismayed that Red Dragon didn't deliver more.

I rate this two and a-half stars (5 out of 10) while Manhunter came in at three to three and a-half (8 out of 10). Face it: Michael Mann is a much better director than Brett Ratner, and the journeyman William Petersen is just more comfortable, just more right playing an FBI agent than is Edward Norton. Norton is a potentially great actor, but he just doesn't have the cajonnnes in this incarnation to make a convincing cop. He was too flighty, too lightweight; he would have been better in the role if he had pumped up, like his memorable turn in American History X.

That said, Anthony Hopkins was BORN to play Hannibal Lecter. He elevates the role to something Shakespearian, and the film would be worth seeing just for that.

Sarah Polley gives another great performance in this quirky indie, which is a small gem of a film. The idea of "chick flicks," particularly "Disease of the Month" movies, left me cold, but I went to see it as I am a huge Polley fan. I was happily surprised by the quality of the film, thanks to the cast and director Isabel Coixet.

The movie was marvelous and utterly devoid of the cheap sentimentality that mars so many Hollywood pictures. Stripping the story of sentimentality created a nearly bare stage, emotionally, on which the luminous Polley could really shine.

The movie -- a dying mother trying to cope with her young life being cut short -- could have been dreadful; could have been dreadful, but was not. There are no miscalculations in the film and "My Life Without Me" turns out to be extraordinarily life-affirming. More significantly, it offers an incredible character in the doggedly determined, and ultimately heroic, Ann, played so poignantly by Polley.

Can this actress get any better? Polley gives a performance that surely would have been nominated for a best actress Academy Award if it had had a major marketing budget and studio-supported Oscar campaign behind it. She's that good.

Watch the scene where Polley, as Ann, tapes messages for her daughters to be played in the future, on their birthdays, when she is gone and...faded from her daughters' memories. Polley is amazing. It's virtually an acting class for thespians, young and old, apprentice, journeyman or master. Such a great talent in a story worthy of that talent should not be missed.

Sarah Polley is extraordinary in the fatally flawed film "The Weight of Water." Is there a better actress in films today than this remarkable Canadian? Her performance of the psychologically pressured Maren easily surpasses that of the much-ballyhooed Nicole Kidman's Virgina Woolf in "The Hours" (a performance I liked very much, but Kidman isn't half -- nay, a third -- the thespian Polley is).

Unfortunately, this brilliant actress' beautiful performance is in a film whose release was delayed more than a year (and then barely put into distribution) because of the fact that the "modern" story in this bifurcated drama is, to put it simply, simply AWFUL. A shame, since Polley's performance should not be missed.