awjonesjr

The concept of MANON ON THE ASPHALT — the effect a woman's life had on those around her in the moment she dies, as seen by the nearly departed — is slightly affected and literary, but the execution as visual and emotional little film. Of the five live action short Academy Award nominees, this is the only one that choked me up. Like AMELIE, Manon (we barely know her, actually) is a spritely Parisienne with a wide range of friends, neighbors and family, all of whom care about her. What's remarkable, of course, is that neither Manon nor those in her circle are "special" — they are just like everyone else, as complex and human and quirky as anyone. The film taps into a universality of life with clarity and heart without becoming cloying. I can't imagine someone not nodding in acknowledgment or familiarity at many of the events and personalities. My vote for the Oscar.

Few films are more annoying than those that are emotionally dishonest, badly paced and redolent of trite characters is predictable situations,and by that score, A GOOD YEAR is clearly one of the worst films of its year.

You might not expect such a misfire with Ridley Scott directing Russell Crowe, but don't let the pedigree lure you in — or the presence of new Oscar winner Marion Cotillard. Plodding, horribly plotted and acted without a trace of passion, this is easily Russell Crowe's dullest performance. As a stiff banker softened by visiting his childhood haunt in Provence, he's predictably priggish. Nothing about it rings remotely true.

Worst of all, as a foodie, I'm always looking for good movies about wine and cuisine. I think I'll just watch RATATOUILLE again.

It's been nearly 20 years since the last SUPERMAN movie, and that one -- SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE -- was such a low-tech, silly muddle that it doesn't even seem fair to count it among the first two. (SUPERMAN III was nearly as bad.) Yet somehow, the Man of Steel has kept his place in our hearts. Who does have at least a curiosity about how the new film, SUPERMAN RETURNS, will fare? Certain the special effects have advanced considerably since the 1978's original tagline promised us "you will believe a man can fly." And here, you do. The FX are great and convincing. But... what else? Does it deliver? The answer is a mix of "yes" and "no." SUPERMAN RETURNS, as much as Clark Kent himself, seems to have a split personality. Is it a sequel (as much of its dialogue and title suggest) or a remake (as its style and plot choices indicate)? Well, it's a little of both, and in that conflict lies both its fatal flaw and its salvation. The storyline and tone so closely mirror the original -- especially in the comic flair exhibited by Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, predictably delicious) and his relationship with ditzy cohort Kitty (Parker Posey). Superman (Brandon Routh, who often appears to have been extruded from a solid piece of manhunk)has been missing for five years and suddenly returns to earth to continue doing good deeds (why he left and why he returns never really make a lot of sense). Meanwhile, Luthor has a plan for world domination that includes, once again, a giant land-grab (even the 1978 jokes about this are recycled). Back at the Daily Planet, Clark continues to pine for Lois (Kate Bosworth), who still can't spell. Then there's Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Ma Kent -- all the usual suspects. Lois has a boyfriend and a son, too, which is one of the few changes from where we last saw them.

There's so much the same that to speak ill of the film is somehow to dishonor its predecessors. But there was a lot of room for director Bryan Singer to improve and reinvent the story, not feel beholden to another 30-year-old movie. But his efforts smack of folly. There are a fair number of moments to enjoy in SUPERMAN RETURNS, but they require an unusual amount of pretending not to notice the obvious. Does it bother anyone else that a 23-year-old (Bosworth, who looks all of... 23) was THE famous Lois Lane -- the same one who Margot Kidder portrayed at 30) when she was 18 years old? (The story makes numerous references to the first two films, including the "My Night With Superman" article that we are now meant o believe was written before Lois could vote.) Or that a 26-year-old (Routh) left the earth at an age when he would still be considered SuperBOY? Or that Lois' son -- who, in the time line, has to be no more than four -- looks to be at least six? Doesn't this all strike you as Hollywood at its franchise-minded worst? At more than 2.5 hours, SUPERMAN RETURNS doesn't need to be as long as it is, and would have benefited immeasurably from a tighter script. But as an entertainment, there have been worse. It's just this one could have been much better.