Bruno

Bruno had two ineffectual parents - an intelligent boy who is out of place except in his own world of spelling. The movie allows the viewer to feel the hurt of the various characters without damning any of them. It shows how adults can be so wrapped up in their own turmoil and battling their inner demons and disappointments that they fail to see just how their children are being affected.

Bruno manages to touch your heart on one hand and make you want to shout at the screen characters at the same time.

The mother is so over the top that at times you are waiting for the punch line to come, but it doesn't - and you are left wanting to shake her and say get over yourself - look at your son! The father mopes around and turns to a shallow witch who on one hand you can see that he cringes with her behavior but his own pitifully low self-esteem makes him gravitate right back to her - maybe her being so low makes him feel so much better? Anyway, the film will grab you and at times frustrate you but there is an underlying redeeming message - tolerance, recognition of uniqueness.

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 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.

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.

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.