Review: Public Enemies

Review: Public Enemies

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 64%

I was not bored by Public Enemies, the story of John Dillinger, but I was not engaged either. As the movie unfolded, the story was more episodic and disjointed than one might expect.

And then there are the inevitable comparisons -- to Bonnie and Clyde and The Untouchables. But Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard, adept actors though they be, are colorless and two dimensional when compared to the charismatic lead characters of Arthur Penn's film. And Christian Bale, another gifted actor, seems trapped in a narrow role overshadowed by that of J. Edgar Hoover, played subtly with a hint of perversity by Billy Crudup. Needless to say, the film is also missing the vibrant supporting performances of the two earlier movies: those, for example, of Michael J. Pollard, Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons, Sean Connery, Charles Martin Smith, Patricia Clarkson, Andy Garcia, and, oh yes, Robert DeNiro. In Public Enemies, the minor characters all seem interchangeable. Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson fuse together; you need a scorecard to keep track of who's who.

When all is said and done, I don't care about these characters, and I ask, "Why was this film made?" At the end of the movie, Dillinger sits in the Biograph Theatre watching (memorize this for Trivial Pursuit) Manhattan Melodrama starring Clark Gable and Myrna Loy. In the few seconds that those two appear on the screen, they emanate more charm, charisma, chemistry, and sex appeal than Depp and Cotillard manage to generate in all of Public Enemies.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: My Sister's Keeper

Review: My Sister's Keeper

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 44%

In the past three years, while I was focused on things like theology and biblical exegesis, a whole genre of fictional literature passed me by: chick lit. Jodi Picoult, it seems, has churned out several novels which focus on children in peril and parents in extremis. One is now a film: My Sister's Keeper.

I have not cried so much during a movie in a long time. It's a six-hankie weeper for sure. I don't mind a good cry, but I do mind feeling manipulated by what one critic called, "clunky voice overs, corny music, and maudlin montages."

The story, however, does present a solid ethical problem: Anna, the youngest child has been genetically engineered to supply her leukemic sister the stem cells and bone marrow necessary to keep that sister alive. When it becomes clear that Anna's sister needs one of her kidneys in order to survive, Anna balks and hires a successful litigator to argue that she alone has the right to decide how her body will be used. It's a compelling dilemma, but, in the end, through a plot twist, the movie does not contend with that ethical issue head on. I am told that as dissatisfying as this manipulation might be, it is not as frustrating for readers of the book as is the rewrite of the novel's original ending in the film. However, now that I know what that original ending is (I won't spoil it just in case you want to read the book), I'm really glad the film didn't go there. I think I might have thrown popcorn at the screen.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it