n-mo

This could never be mistaken for high literature, nor for grand cinema, but it's entertaining, and frankly that's what cinema is all about. Demi Moore - not an actress known for incredible range - is surprisingly great as a straight lead in a bit of a bind thrust into a world of absurdities: everyone who's had a period of feeling like "I'm normal but I'm surrounded by crazies!" can relate. Of course, for more than a few, her biggest credit in this movie is her body (which, let's face it, was easy on the eyes), which is on full display.

The setting in 1990s Miami is a wonderful trip down memory lane, and the premise of corrupt judges, heartless divorce and custody regimens and everyone in the world of political and business movers and shakers getting their rocks off at strip joints has aged beautifully (sadly). Burt Reynolds as pervy Congressman David Lane Dilbeck of South Florida is a hilarious combination of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, and the film deserves additional credit for predicting the sort of the former in particular in 1996 (though anyone who'd been paying attention to the 1992 presidential campaign knew Slick Willy had a long history of "bimbo eruptions").

Of course, the film isn't without its flaws. The cinematography isn't nearly as imaginative as a Miami setting and a tavern full of gorgeous babes suggests. The script really needed a few revisions so that its ventures into "thriller" territory didn't detract from the satire; some of the plot devices needed some foreshadowing so they wouldn't appear contrived; and occasionally the story tells rather than showing. One does have to suspend a bit of disbelief: in particular, the male managers of the porno stage are quite gentlemanly, a portrayal belied by both logic and the depiction of their clientele (to say nothing of their real-life counterparts).

Still, the critics seemed rather harsh. There's a lot to like here, certainly enough to make for an entertaining evening. It's a great ride for after work when you're cool with just shutting down the old neurons. Not a good date movie, though, and DEFINITELY not a family movie (sex, of course, and a bit of bloody violence to boot).

'Revolutionary Road' is director Sam Mendes's second attempt (after 'American Beauty') at relating the insipid side and/or rotten underbelly of the "idyllic" American suburban middle-class life. It's livelier and more captivating, with characters that resemble real humans rather than cardboard cutouts, but it still misses the mark. I've not read the original novel and cannot comment on how well Justin Haythe's screenplay adapts the source material. Taken on its own terms, however, is not clear on what the film 'Revolutionary Road' wants to say: on what story it wants to tell or what moral it wants to relate.

The problem is that the story doesn't establish a clear conflict to animate the narrative. Are April and Frank struggling against each other, against themselves or against the onerous demands of their perfect middle-American community? A case could be made for all three. I personally was left with the feeling that we had two ordinary folks trying to punch above their weight and prove that they were "better" than their folksier neighbors and making enemies unnecessarily.

The problem is that the film lacks any subtext - either verbal or visual - to give clues as to the resolution of the conflict. The viewer can take away whatever point of view he wants about suburban life, about the bourgeois bohemian quest for "something special," about Frank and April as people or even about the morality (or wisdom) of abortion. The ambiguity on both the literal and the metaphorical level feels like a cop-out, and we're left feeling as though we've swallowed a concoction that is rather less than the sum of its parts.

The film manages to keep our attention thanks to decent cinematography - albeit one which does not exploit its 1950s period setting in a very imaginative way - and its two well-proven leads. Despite its thin plot, the script does at least attempt to paint two round if static characters, and the undeniable chemistry between Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio is not wasted on blubbery utterances of each other respective flat love interest's first name. It's a tantilizing but ultimately unsatisfying piece of candy. Worth seeing if you like the lead stars; otherwise, steer clear.

Alexis Shannon, a naïve Irish-American grad student in Boston, is recruited by a charming young Irishman out of a waterfront pub to help the IRA blow up a loyalist paramilitary headquarters facility in Belfast. Eager to follow in the footsteps of her grandfather, a soldier in the Irish War for Independence, Alexis sets sail that very evening. The plan appears to work smashingly, but it turns out the recruiter is not what he seems. Alexis finds herself abandoned by her new friends and is forced to take cover in the dark streets of Belfast. As she struggles to find a way back across the sea, Alexis discovers both sides of the conflict are far less monolithic, and far more capable of duplicity and perfidy, than she could ever have imagined, with just a ray of hope somewhere on the horizon.

Ostensibly this is based on a true story. As near as I can tell, it is a *very* loose adaptation of the true tale of John McIntyre's gunrunning on the intercepted S. S. Valhalla, grafted onto a far more innocent, almost "gal-next-door," profile. There were, to be sure, Irish-American Troubles-era gunrunners who fit that bill, though few females that I'm aware of and McIntyre was certainly no "boy next door." The movie is set in a frame story and opens with Alexis turning evidence to the U. S. Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, a narrative choice which serves mostly to buckle a chilling but obscure link in the conclusion, similarly to what we know of McIntyre. While Alexis's self-critical narrative emerges as credible, she dodges so many lies and so many shady characters that the final truth, here as in the McIntyre drama, must be left to speculation.

Some have reproached the script's refusal to "pick a side," though that was a pretty good move for painting the personal journey of an adventuress who jumped headfirst into a cause she deemed noble but hardly understood at all. The personalities of most of the paramilitaries/terrorists here, whether Republican or Loyalist, come off as rather singular and wooden, though one must remember these were hardened men trying to put on a hard face to march ahead in righteous conflict. The film is obviously low-budget, but for a depiction of the hardhat sections (in the geographic AND demographic sense) of Boston and Belfast that actually works quite well. There's a kind of "seedy prosperous poverty" in every shot which really puts you in the zone. That said, the subpar acting - especially on the part of the leading lady - and the artificial accents are a definite sore point for this movie, and prevent the suspenseful and thoughtful plot progression from drawing us all the way in.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't many other movies that explore the American involvement in the Troubles, from political lobbying and fundraising to gunrunning and, yes, vigilante intervention. This one is interesting for its study of a highly anecdotal and ad hoc iteration of that involvement, though the much "grander" story is I think still waiting to be told on film at any rate. If you're into all things Irish and enjoy true-to-life suspense thrillers, this is definitely worth your time, despite its technical limitations and professional flaws.