Bruno

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.

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"?

Well, this looks like a film many people (most?) didn't get. Should have got a lot more credits than it seems to have gotten. Not sure why at all it flunked the critical course. It's quite good and seems to have been Shirley MacLaine's first directing job. So, go see it or rent it. BTW, there is nothing in it of floating in clouds of spirituality over Peru, for those who have worried about that sort of thing over the course of Ms. MacLaine's almost always very distinguished career.

The movie is kind of like a home movie done by an extremely talented director and a lot of other talented movie pros: it's not that it's amateurish at all; its rather that it doesn't try for finished Hollywood effects much. Just lets things out, sometimes to play, sometimes not. It's very, very well directed but not in a usual or common or regular sense. Shirley MacLaine may do her best at what you might call encouraging and allowing her actors (including herself) to do "fresh" things onscreen. Sort of like, "OK, go!" Really nice spirit about almost all of the show.

And, like most good or better creations, the film doesn't at all go out of its way to explain the story it's showing you. Good. That means it's real hard to put it in a category. Also Good. It's some kind of comedy AND drama, I suppose, but please don't call it a comedy-drama, I think.

The young hero, played by Alex Linz, is a quite wonderful "open" part. Again the movie does not try to explain, put words on what "exactly", "precisely" <groan> his motivations are (to win the National Catholic Spelling Bee <really>) while most of the time wearing girl-woman dress, often flamboyant. Kathy Bates as the head of the Catholic grade school he attends is wonderful, too, a quite masculine and tough (and funny) nun who just won't tolerate the boy, for awhile. And there are quite a few nice drop-ins from actors like Jennifer Tilly. Gary Sinese, who I usually think of as a great villain or great sickone, or both, is wonderful as a trying-to-be tough cop who was labelled sissy when he was his hero son's age, not least by his mother, Shirley MacLaine.

I liked David Cuminello's script a lot. Got the impression he may not have written all of it???

In all, a quite different film that is well worth watching, wherever. Far from run of the mill, as they say.

I'm a little afraid to give it the 6 rating I've put on it, but I think I should stop worrying because I am a hard grader. Somewhere between 6 and 7 is I think where it belongs, and where I hope it's getting to on IMDB.

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.

This film seemingly attempts to take on a number of serious subjects, mostly relating to the rejection of people based upon characteristics which have nothing to do with their essential personality (e.g., weight, skin color, cross-dressing), and to send the message that being different is okay, and that friends accept friends the way they are (and that parents *should* accept their kids the way they are). But it treats these serious topics in such a superficial manner, it is hard to discern what lesson a kid might draw from this fim.

Make no mistake - this is a kid's film. It's rambling, somewhat incoherent presentation is not likely to hold an adult's interest. Yet it's subject matter is likely to dissuade many adults from letting their children watch. The film initially attracted my attention because the capsule summary surprised me (Something about a cross-dressing spelling champion at a Catholic school), and Kathy Bates usually gives strong performances. Her part is relatively small, and as it turns out it was the acting competence of Alex Linz which (to the extent possible) held the movie together.

My impression is that this film was, at least in some degree, inspired by the French film, "Ma Vie en Rose", which addresses the issue of a child's cross-dressing and gender identity in a very direct manner. Here, the American film-makers avoided any of the psychological implications behind cross-dressing behavior, and instead provided a very contrived explanation for the child's desire to cross-dress. While the French precursors to American films aren't always that appealing to American audiences, it is amazing to me that American filmmakers can squeeze all of the innovation - and all of the daring - out of those films as they remake them for American audiences.

If this film was intended to send the message of accepting people the way they are, some of the comments about this film, to me, highlight its failings. This wasn't a serious attempt to take on the subject of cross-dressing. Having worked as a divorce lawyer, I can tell you that this behavior is not as rare as some think - within the heterosexual community. This impression has been reinforced by discussions with professionals from hospital emergency rooms, who are in a unique position to observe some unusual choices of undergarment. Had this film been more daring, it would have presented cross-dressing in a realistic manner, rather than hiding behind a pseudo-religious, neutral excuse for the behavior.

While I can understand why an American studio executive would get nervous at the thought of addressing this subject head-on, I think the disingenuous treatment of the central focus of the film serves to undermine its message, and essentially turned this into a film without an audience. Shirley MacLaine was willing to hint at her subtext in the opening credits - "A film by (A film bi) Shirley MacLaine" - but didn't stand behind her convictions. Granted, had she done so, she still might have ended up with a film without an audience, but it may well have been a better film.