mo-20

Although I have several friends who are Cuban exiles, some pro- and some anti-Castro, and despite having SOME knowledge of Cuban life today (having visited Cuba in the late '90s), I will not comment on the historical accuracy or political tone of this film.

I'll stick to the acting, casting, and direction, and briefly say that I thought that the cinematography and music were delicious.

I feel badly that such an obvious labor of love for Andy Garcia ended up having such poor finish. The dialog was stilted, the performances lacked credibility, and although I truly enjoy Bill Murray, his role and performance in the film were nothing but a distraction.

Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Meyer Lansky was understated, credible, and just about the only bit of acting that didn't make me feel like I was watching outtakes.

Smiles were forced, dialog didn't match expressions, continuity wasn't, reactions were inappropriate, and in general, it appeared that the director was spread too thin. I can't say whether the editing was poor or if Mr. Cibelli didn't get enough to work with, but the finished product was quite flawed.

I've seen Garcia act at a higher level, and more believably. Maybe he just needed a better director, or at least one who'd stay behind the camera.

I stumbled into Chunhyang through a teaser on Sundance Channel today. The story is a variation of a timeless theme of forbidden love found and lost. Or is it lost and found?

The presentation includes a staged classical Korean theater performance where a singing storyteller and a drummer (Pansori) act as the narrator. His singing punctuates and accompanies the visual story and dialog.

I was afraid that the acting would be too stylized and therefore distracting, but it was very believable and engaging.

Having recently become interested in Korean history and culture through their pottery, I was familiar with some of the images, values, and traditions, but the beauty of the costumes, architecture, and scenery were strikingly beautiful and compelling.

I'm looking forward to seeing this again. It was so visually rich that I'm certain it will continue to be a source of beauty.

Viewing a film while carrying the burden of high expectations is often a recipe for disappointment, and my experience with "Quills" was no exception. The story is certainly compelling enough to offer a suitable platform for a more engaging film, but the execution here did not rise to the challenge. I could not relate to any of the characters, nor did I believe the performances; they were either flat, over-the-top, or just lacking credibility. I am a fan of both Caine and Rush, and think they came across fairly well, but suffered from having poor lines, situations, and possibly direction. Phoenix was detached and seemed to overcompensate with excessive facial movements. It may be the fault of a screenplay that doesn't allow enough character development, or a director having poor rapport with the actors, or a schedule and budget too tight or poorly managed to allow for enough convincing performances, or a draconian editing process that took the soul from the film. The cinematography and design were beautiful. Production designer Martin Childs has done equally remarkable work in other period pieces such as "The Madness of King George," "Frankenstein," and "Shakespeare in Love. I'm sorry to say that this film does not approach the compelling nature and credibility of other Kaufman films, such as "Henry and June" and "The Unbearable Lightness of Being."