Diane and I saw this fabulous film today in Fremantle and we both agreed that of the pastiche movies it was head and shoulders above the rest. I say that because we were entranced by the brief, five to ten minute segments that composed the film and the fact that this film had a theme around which each piece was composed and of course that theme was love in its many forms.

Ostensibly the film took place in the various Parisian arrondisments thus giving a particular flavour to each segment. Having only been in Paris several times, I was not knowledgeable enough to readily recognize the locations but I am sure Europeans and particularly French people could easily recognize the city's locations. In any event, the viewer is immediately pulled into each story because of their production excellence so these city locations fade into in-consequence.

The film moves quickly and the viewer is left absorbing one scenario while the new one is on the screen. The stories themselves are not graphic like some pulp Hollywood nonsense, they are subtle and thought provoking and gentle as with most of life without the media swath that buries so much of life's beauty under the nearest dung heap just to sell, sell. sell ...

Go with someone you care for and allow this magical little film to bathe you like a spa treatment and when you leave my guess is you will feel renewed.


It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.

20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.

I clicked on "spoilers" option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.

And smile.


... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest Hemingway

It is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris,

"It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris."

Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.

Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...

I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country.


18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):

1. "Quartier Latin", by Gérard Depardieu

One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.

2. "Tour Eiffel", by Sylvain Chomet

Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of "The Triplets of Belleville") story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;

3. "Tuileries", by Ethan and Joel Coen

The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious

4. "Parc Monceau", by Alfonso Cuarón ("Y Tu Mamá También", "Children of Men"), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);

5. "Place des Fêtes", by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);

6. "14th Arrondissement", Alexander Payne's ("Election", "About Schmidt") wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in "Million Dollar Baby") as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;

7. "Faubourg Saint-Denis", Tom Tykwer's ("Run Lola Run") frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;

8. "Père-Lachaise", by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);

9. "Loin du 16ème", by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);

10. "Quartier des Enfants Rouges", by Olivier Assayas ("Clean"), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;

11. "Le Marais", by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);

12. "Quartier de la Madeleine", by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;

13. "Quais de Seine", by Gurinder Chadha;

14. "Place des Victoires", by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;

15. "Bastille", by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated "My Life Without Me"), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;

16. "Pigalle", by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;

17. "Montmartre", by and with Bruno Podalydès;

18. "Porte de Choisy", by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of "Barfly", "Reversal of Fortune" and "Single White Female").

I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give "Paris, Je t'Aime" an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between.


Oftentimes, films of this nature come across as a mixed bag of great work along with slight drivel to fill the runtime. Whether it be the big name support or the project itself, Paris je t'aime never falls into this realm. I believe I can truly say that the movie as a whole is better than its parts. Between the wonderful transitions and the fantastic ending sequence, merging characters together in one last view of love in Paris, I think the film would have suffered if any cog was removed. True, there are definitely a few standouts that overshadow the rest, but in the end I have a lasting image, even if just a split second of each short vignette. Love takes many forms, and the talent here rises to the occasion, to surprise and move the audience through shear poetry and elegance of the emotion's many facets.

Quartier des Enfants Rouges: Maggie Gyllenhaal surprises as a drug-addled actress shooting in Paris and meeting with her dealer. The reveal at its conclusion leaves you a bit off balance as the infatuation between the two changes hands.

Quatier Latin: Ben Gazzara and Gena Rowlands (recreating a relationship from an old Cassavettes film?) bring some great sharp wit and sarcasm as they meet to discuss their impending divorce. What of their conversation is true and what is just to anger the other, it is all enjoyable, leaving a smile on your face.

Quais de Seine: Director Gurinder Chadha gives us a touching portrait of love existing beyond religious and racial differences. It is a sweet little story of shy love between two people obviously feeling a connection, but unable to quite vocalize it.

Tour Eiffel: I will admit to being disappointed that Sylvain Chomet did not get an animated sequence together, however, this live action tale of mimes falling in love at a Paris jail has the same quirky nature as his film Les Triplettes de Belleville.

Tuileries: The Coen Brothers stick to their strange sense of humor and deliver some fine laughs. Steve Buscemi really shines and sells the performance without speaking a word. His facial reactions to the verbal abuse of a disgruntled Frenchman are priceless.

Bastille: Here is a heartbreaking portrait of a couple about out of love only to have it come back in the face of tragedy. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson a moving as the couple dealing with trouble and finding how strong the bond of true love is.

Pére-Lachaise: A surprisingly funny little tale from horror master Wes Craven. A little Oscar Wilde humor can add levity to any relationship.

Parc Monceau: Alfonso Cuarón looks to be practicing the amazing long-takes he perfects in Children of Men with this tale of two people in love, walking down the street. As Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier eventually come into close-up view, we also find the true context of their conversation of "forbidden love."

Porte de Choisy: A very surreal look into the glamour of Paris. This is probably the most odd entry, but so intriguing that you can't look away from the craziness that ensues. Do not anger your Asian beautician, whatever you do.

Pigalle: An interesting look at a relationship undergoing a role-play that seems to have been stagnant for years. A little variety from Bob Hoskins is necessary to fire kindled.

Quartier de la Madeleine: Even vampires in Paris can find love amongst the feeding hours. I don't know whether to be happy for Elijah Wood as a result or not. Beautifully shot and muted to allow the vibrancy of the blood red, this short is strange, but then so is love.

14th arrondissement: Leave it to Alexander Payne's odd sense of humor to really add some depth to this voice-over story told of an American in Paris to find what love is. Her harsh, uneducated French is a very stark contrast to the authentic accents we've been listening to until this pointjust off-kilter enough to be both funny and totally true to the story.

Montmartre: An interesting introduction into the proceedings. Paris can be a city reviled for everyday activities like finding a parking spot, yet when love is discovered, it will take its prisoner anywhere to continue the journey.

Loin du 16éme: Catalina Sandino Moreno brilliantly shows what love for a child is through her subtle performance as the tale is bookended by her singing to a young child, yet totally different each time.

Place des Fetes: My favorite tale of the bunch. Seydou Boro and Aïssa Maïga are simply fantastic. The cyclical nature of the story and how fate brings the two characters together twice in order for Boro to finally ask her for coffee is tough to watch. Sometimes love at your final moment is enough to accept one's leaving of this earth.

Place des Victoires: One of the best stories about a mother trying to cope with the death of her young son. Juliette Binoche is devastating as the mother, desperate for one last glimpse of her son, and Willem Dafoe is oddly perfect as the cowboy who allows her the chance.

Faubourg Saint-Denis: Sometimes one needs to think he has lost love to accept that he has not been fully invested in the relationship. Melchior Beslon reminisces, trying to find where they went wrong through a series of sharp, quick cuts from his meeting Natalie Portman to eventually "seeing" how much he needs her.

Le Marais: Leave it to Gus Van Sant to show us a story about the gap in communication and understanding as his films almost always deal with some form of alienation. His photographer from Elephant is an American working in Paris who is the catalyst for Gaspard Ulliel's artist ramblings of love and soul mates. Sometimes one doesn't need to know what is being said to understand what is going on in the pauses.


Paris Je T ' aime is a movie that explores the different kinds and aspects of love and all the emotions that it provokes. This movie reunites some of the best directors from around the world such as Gus Van Sant, Joel and Ethan Coen , Walter Salles a...(read more)nd Alfonso Cuaron to tell short stories about love located in Paris, each one with their particular way of directing. In this film we also have one of the best cast ever seen in a movie including such great actors like Willem Dafoe, Steve Buscemi, Natalie Portman, Elijah Wood, Gerard Depardieu and many more each one with great performances. In conclusion, this movie is a compilation of stories of happiness, separation, unexpected encounters and love.


Paris, je t'aime (2006) is a film made up of 18 segments. You can do the math--18 segments in 120 minutes means each director had seven minutes to tell her or his story. The movie is based on the premise that you can, indeed, tell a story in that short amount of time. The premise works. Almost all of the segments are powerful, complete, and satisfying. Each presents a different aspect of the Parisian experience, and almost every director draws forth outstanding performances from a cast of great and near-great actors.

There were so many powerful portrayals in this film that it's hard to pick one or two favorites. Probably the most memorable to me were Juliette Binoche as a grieving mother in the segment "Place des Victoires," Gena Rowlands as an aging beauty in "Quartier Latin," Catalina Sandino Moreno as a maid in the segment "Loin du 16ème" and Margo Martindale as a Colorado mail carrier who has learned to speak French so she can visit Paris ("14ème Arrondissement" segment).

Special mention must be given to Gulliver Hecq, probably the meanest little boy to ever harass an American tourist in a Parisian Metro Station (segment "Tuileries").

This is an outstanding movie. My wife and I decided to rent it in a few months so we can catch some of the subtle points we surely missed. However, Paris is photographed so beautifully that I would suggest that you try to see it on a large screen. In any case, don't miss it!


I just viewed the film two days ago, and I was filled with anticipation, being that Paris is my second favorite city in Europe and I spent a very romantic 18 months there in the '80's. I was somewhat disappointed that most of this group of vignettes, while original and artistically done, did not capture the "light" and beauty of the city very well.Nor enough of the romance! We saw none of the tree-lined boulevards... There was too much darkness, not only literally but figuratively. Some of the plots manipulated the viewer it seemed, and let him/her down "flat "(the Marais sequence, the coiffure salesman sequence, to give two examples). The uplifting, good ones: The Mime sequence, the cemetery, the Montmartre (though it left too much to the viewer to comprehend), the "Cowboy" vignette ,and the Sacre Coeur-- seemed few and far between, and I would have liked to have seen such a wonderful actor as Orlando Bloom be in something that would have showcased his originality more.


it's a very nice movie and i would definitely recommend it to everyone. but there are 2 minus points: - the level of the stories has a large spectrum. some of the scenes are very great and some are just boring. - a lot of stories are not self-contained (if you compare to f.e. coffee and cigarettes, where each story has a point, a message, a punchline or however you wanna call it) but well, most stories are really good, some are great and overall it's one of the best movies this year for sure!

annoying, that i have to fill 10 lines at minimum, i haven't got more to say and i don't want to start analyzing the single sequences...

well, i think that's it!


Thankfully saw this on a plane to Singapore recently (thought I'd missed it at the Cinemalaya filmfest). Paris, je t'aime is a collection of 20 short films (about 5 mins each) by 20 directors showing love in various pockets of contemporary Paris.

One of my fave segments is 'Parc Monceau' by Alfonso Cuarn (Great Expectations, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), which was done in one continuous shot and features Nick Nolte.

The Coen brothers' 'Tuileries' starring Steve Buscemi as a tourist in the metro was hilarious ! Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe in 'Place des Victoires' was haunting.

For Maggie Gyllenhaal as an American actress/druggie in 'Quartier des Enfants Rouges' to have portrayed anticipation and heartbreak in such a short period of time was just brilliant.

Elijah Wood as a vampire victim in 'Quartier de la Madeleine' was pretty surreal, while Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell played a cute couple in Wes Craven's 'Pre-Lachaise'.

Natalie Portman was beautiful as usual as the actress girlfriend of a visually impaired French boy in 'Faubourg Saint-Denis'. But despite the many portrayals of young love, a more mature execution by Gena Rowlands in 'Quartier Latin' was equally aww-inducing.

This movie is perfect for those with ADHD because each sequence is driven and carefully thought of.

There are also a number of memorable quotes. One in particular is this one from a cheating husband who eventually leaves his mistress to stay with his dying wife in her last days: "In pretending to be a man in love, he became a man in love."


I took my 19 year old daughter with me to see this interesting exercise in movie making. I always find it intriguing to get views and opinions from a different generation on movies, especially as I'm such a cynic myself. It's good to get an unjaded opinion from someone who hasn't yet reached the "been there, done that" approach to every movie she sees. I'm pleased to say that we both really enjoyed it and regarded it as a successful mother / daughter evening out. Far, far better than going to see some brain dead "chick flick", which I gather is what we are supposed to enjoy, according to the demographics?

Eighteen directors were asked to produce a short piece about each of the arrondissements of Paris, a city I haven't visited in 20 years. But I wish I had. They are loosely linked by joining shots, and represent different approaches to love in the city regarded in popular culture as the quintessential romantic capital of the world. Some of the films work better than others but, as other reviewers have said, it never descends too far into kitsch. Some are funny, some are sad, some intriguing and some just plain puzzling (I'm still trying to discern some deep inner truth to the "Flying Tiger, Hidden Dragon" hairdressing salon.) Some are just fun and perhaps shouldn't be assigned too much meaning (the vampire and the tourist for example.) Possibly my only criticism of the whole film, is that it makes Paris look too good. It can also be cold, wet, foggy, indifferent and miserable, or, in summer, baking hot and packed with so many tourists that you feel like a sardine in a can queuing up for hours to see every attraction. But I'm nit picking.

My personal favourite by far was the Coen brothers film shot on the Tuileries Metro station, and starring a perfectly cast Steve Buscemi as a confused tourist who inadvertently finds himself caught up in a lovers' tiff. Absolutely perfect, and very, very funny, without Buscemi having to say a word. I also perversely enjoyed the piece about the two mime artists, which was probably the closest the movie got to being cutesy - that certainly teetered on the edge of kitsch, but it just stayed on the right side. Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer gaining insight from an encounter with Oscar Wilde's tomb left me pretty indifferent, and Juliette Binoche trying to cope with the death of her small son made me very, very uncomfortable. I thought both the Bob Hoskins / Fanny Ardent piece, and Ben Gazzara / Gena Rowlands fell a bit flat, but Maggie Gyllenhaal was good (has she cornered the market in junkies? I watched Sherry Baby last week.)

But I felt the two "social justice" pieces (for want of a better way of putting it), worked very well. By that, I mean first of all the film about the young mother leaving her own child in a day care to go and look after someone else's baby across town. And then the film about the African migrant, struggling to exist on the margins of an indifferent society, who is stabbed and dies in the street in front of a young, new paramedic. Yet another murder statistic, in a world which sees thousands of migrants dying in the struggle to reach what they see as a better life, every year. I thought both pieces very well observed.

The final film, 14th Arrondissement, in which Margo Martindale plays a postal worker from Colorado recounting the story of her first trip to Paris  in very badly accented French  to her night school French class, moved me. A perfect ending, to a good, intriguing if not quite great, movie.

Paris je t'aime was an ambitious idea, but it works pretty well.


Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.

In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.

The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp


With the sun shining brilliantly on a quiet Sunday that is just about to fully wake up, love can be felt in the soft breeze that sweeps past my feet and can be seen in the smiles of the people I walk alongside. It is the perfect day to stop off for croissants and a café-o-lait before heading off to the city of lights and love. Of course, a flight to Paris is not reasonably in this humble film critic's budget so I had to opt for the next best thing, Paris, JE T'AIME, a collection of 18 short films by a variety of international directors. Each piece is named after a different Parisian neighborhood and is a reflection on love. Careful not to over glorify the most powerful and persuasive of all human emotions, Paris, JE T'AIME explores love at the many stages of its own game. The results are spontaneously romantic and surprisingly consistent. And truly, what better way to express the fleeting nature of love and how a moment can change your life than with a collection of filmed moments.

The beautifully poetic quote above is taken from Tom Tykwer's Faubourg Saint Denis. True to form, Tykwer (RUN, LOLA, RUN) uses time-lapse photography and repetition to demonstrate the entire cycle of love, from inception to dissolution. Originally shot in 2004 and paired down for this anthology, Faubourg stars Natalie Portman as Francine, an American actress in Paris for a part in a film, and Melchior Beslon as Thomas, a blind man she falls in love with. Here, the blind leads the blind through the most unstable of terrain, where two people consume each other to a point where their lives nearly lose their own existences. As love seems to go from dazzling to dizzying, Tykwer reminds us of the tricks it can play on our minds and the illusions it can create when we stray towards doubt.

Perhaps the most giddily romantic offering comes from Sylvain Chomet's Tour Eiffel. Choosing the city's most identifiable attraction for its title, Chomet (LES TRIPLETTES DE BELLEVILLE) gives us a little boy who tells the story of how his parents met and fell in love. His father, a mime (Paul Putner), finds himself falling into one surreal scenario after another and eventually lands himself in jail. This is where he meets the woman who will become the love of his life (Yolande Moreau). Miming has become something of a dying art, if it isn't already dead. Yet by nature, it is dreamy and untroubled. Miming points its silent finger at the ridiculousness of human behaviour and what but love can make people act more absurd? We might find someone special in the least likely of circumstances if we could just take ourselves a little less seriously.

Paris, JE T'AIME keeps the flow lively by not always focusing on love between lovers. Three memorable shorts focus on the love between a parent and a child. Walter Salles (MOTORCYCLE DIARIES) has Catalina Sandino Moreno singing lovingly to her child before she leaves him to sing the same song with a distant longing to the child she watches over for her living. Nobuhiro Suwa (UN COUPLE PARFAIT) has Juliette Binoche trying desperately to overcome the emptiness she feels after losing her son. Binoche says very little yet, not surprisingly given her immense talent, her struggle is evident in her face as she learns that love sometimes means letting go. And Alfonso Cuaron (CHILDREN OF MEN) weighs in with one continuous shot of a father (Nick Nolte) and his grown daughter (Sara Martins) walking together for what must be the first time in a long while. We see them only from across the street and we only get close to them as the distance between the two characters narrows to a place of comfort and accepting.

The last short to screen is Alexander Payne's 14ieme Arrondissement. As usual, Payne (SIDEWAYS) takes an ordinary person and shows us what makes them extraordinary. Carol (Margo Martindale) is another American in Paris. She is there alone and for less time than she would have liked as she has dogs waiting for her at home. She is a plain person with an uneventful life who finds herself in a city that is rich and lush. In beautifully delivered Americanized French, she muses about the sights and how being there makes her feel. This woman spends so much time trying to be happy despite life's numerous disappointments and as she sits in a city made for lovers, she realizes that she is in fact happy and loves herself more than she knew. She falls in love, if only for perhaps a moment, with life and love itself.

The characters that appear but fleetingly in Paris, JE T'AIME find themselves at the romantic center of the universe. The moments they share with each other, be it helping someone up after a hard fall or reaching out your hand to another person without touching them or without their knowledge, are the moments that give love its flare and flourish. Outside the city of lovers, it can be easy to miss moments such as these but we must remind ourselves of their significance. It takes but a moment for love to shine through a cloudy sky. You just have to keep your heart open to see it. And if one city can be so abundant with love, one has to believe it can find its way one day to your door.


Back in 2004 I saw "True", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.

Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.

First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the "Quais de Seine" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) "Quartier de la Madeleine", and "14th Arrondisement" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: "True" or "Faubourg Saint-Denis" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and "Quartier Latin" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.

Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.

Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.

I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.

There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...

What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - "Quais de Seine" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and "Père-Lachaise" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. "Tour Eiffel" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in "what will this director do with this?" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.

I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love!


A mock documentary about a pair of Canadian producers, Bobby Myers (Matthew Modine) and Paul Linder (Saul Rubinek), trying to make their first film in the late 1970s. Hollywood North is the comic tale of their struggle to pull everything together, despite a number of conflicting threads.

Hollywood North works as a film in a way very similar to why This Is Spinal Tap (1984) works so well. Namely, although exaggerated in some ways, it is very close to the truth, and the truth consists of "behind the scenes" facts that are very different than the public face of the industry. It isn't easy to make a film, and it must have been especially difficult in Canada in the late 1970s. Films involve tens, if not hundreds, of people. Many have incompatible desires, motivations and personalities. Especially crucial are the financiers and the on-screen talent, as if either drops out or becomes undependable at any stage while the film is in production, it could jeopardize the whole affair, either necessitating extensive reshoots or abandoning the film altogether.

So it's not surprising that Hollywood North focuses on those kinds of relationships. The result is an excellent film that is both hilarious and tragic at the same time. The script is flawless and the performances are top notch. This is a must-see for any budding filmmaker and anyone with a serious interest in the craft of film-making. It should also be more than entertaining for any viewer with a modicum of intelligence and a sense of humor.

A 10 out of 10 from me.


"Hollywood North" is an euphemism from the movie industry as they went to Canada to make movies because of tax breaks and cheaper costs in a civilized city like Toronto, in this case, later in Vancouver. Peter O'Brian, the director, probably saw a lot of the invaders from California that this movie seems to be the right way to deal with the arriving personalities trying to capitalize on the economics that Canada presented.

Needless to say, "Moon Lantern", the successful novel written by a Canadian author is turned into "Flight to Bogota", which has nothing to do with the original film. A great egotistical has-been, Michael Baytes, who is obsessed with what is happening in Iran, is offered the lead part, which turns to be a disaster.

The film seems to be saying that too many cooks have spoiled the broth, which seems to be the case with the ultimate product, which is saved by its producer, Bobby Myers. With the help of Sandy Ryan, who has been around making a documentary of the film being shot in Toronto, parts of the film are transformed into a cohesive movie at last.

The filming process is hilarious, and the acting, in general, is good.


I rented this movie on DVD without knowing what to expect - and as I am about to study film-making in Canada of all places, I most certainly will bring this up in class.

The story, centered around the probably most unlucky film team in the history of film itself, is brilliantly written and the very talented actors manage to deliver every single pun on time.

If you simply couldn't laugh during "Hollywood North" I suggest seeing a psychiatrist right away - you might have serious issues.

Besides the wonderful script I also noticed the great chemistry between actors Deborah Kara Unger and Matthew Modine - where they really just acting? Jennifer Tilly (playing a hilariously bad actress) and Martin Landau, also delivered a very edgy, yet funny performance.

Great film, even better cast.


This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, "Hollywood North" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, "Flight to Bogota" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, "Hollywood North" is a great place to start.


I recently saw this film and enjoyed it very much. it gives a insight to indie movie making and how much work is really involved when you have a low budget yet need a name actor/actress to get people, any people to come see it and give the movie exposure. Bobby Myeres played by Modine and his partner Saul - Paul Linder make an excellent combination finding eccentric Miachel Bates, a "NAME" actor played by Alan Bates was a perfect casting decision in the movie and for the movie. My favorite cast member was Sandy Ryan played by the magnificent and underrated Debra Kara Unger with her own special performance again in the movie within the movie. If you enjoy thinking when watching a comedy then this one is for you. Low budget meets lower budget with High laugh content.


Hollywood North is a satirical look at the time in Canadian film history when the Canadian government offered huge tax breaks for films made in Canada. Most of the time it was treated as a tax shelter or a cheap way to get American films made. For example, Porky's came out of it. Anyways Matthew Modine plays a novice producer who wants to make an adaptation of a beloved Canadian novel. However, in order to get the money he needs a American name star. He gets a loose cannon and learns he has to compromise to the point where the film no longer resembles the book it was originally based on. It plays well in Canada but may not be understood outside of the Great White North. Americans will think we're satirizing ourselves but will miss the point that we're actually satirizing them. For Canadians 8/10 for the rest of the world 5/10.


As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.

Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: "Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". As she gets more and more curious about this "man", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.

The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: "Lots of planets have a North!".

The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.

First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor.


They did it. And, boy, did they do it fantastically or what! The BBC finally brought the Doctor back to our screens on a Saturday evening where he belongs! And they did it with style!

EPISODE ONE: "Rose" - One of the strengths of the new series is Russel T Davies as a writer and executive producer. He's a fan of the show and knows what the other fans want, but also is an experienced writer in his own right, so knows what other people want. Another strength, as perfectly shown here in this first episode, is Billie Piper and her character of Rose Tyler. Finally the Doctor's companion gets a credible back story and a strong character. Also nice to see the return of the Autons - a nice nod to the Classic Series there.

EPISODE TWO: "The End Of The World" - In the start of this double bill to show off the TARDIS' strengths, we end up in a story where special effects is everything! They now have the technology to create real, believable environments and monsters - no more rubber suits of sorts! Also the hints at the end of this episode regarding the new Doctor's past - very intriguing to kill off all the Time Lords and make him the only one.

EPISODE THREE: "The Unquiet Dead" - We've had the future, now lets have the past. The first non-Davies written episode is a little flat in some places, but this is made up for by Simon Callow's Charles Dickens and the sudden twist in the plot when it is revealed the pitiful Gelf are not so pitiful after all...

EPISODE FOUR: "Aliens Of London" - The consequences of the Doctor's actions are fully explored in this series, not least with the repercussions of Rose running off with him. Also, we have our first cliffhanger; not the best of ones admittedly. The Slitheen are an interesting villain, though they can look too CGI for their own good.

EPISODE FIVE: "World War Three" - The second part of this story about the Slitheen suffers mainly from the same problems of the first. Also, the clips from the next episode coming up at the end of the current episode are annoying and spoil it for people.

EPISODE SIX: "Dalek" - Yes! We've had the future, the past, and the present(ish), but now we get to the good stuff - the return of the Doctor's arch-nemesis. Here I think we can complement Christopher Ecclestone - he was brilliant as the Doctor, and no more so then in this episode, where we see the pain on his face as he recollects the Time War and the alien nature of him as he almost turns into a Dalek himself.

EPISODE SEVEN: "The Long Game" - really only a story to act as a prologue for the series finale. Saved by Simon Pegg as the smarmy Editor and Tamsin Grieg in an amusing cameo. The media are controlling us - that's never been done before, has it...

EPISODE EIGHT: "Father's Day" - this is a great episode. Full of human emotion and heartache for Rose, and the true consequences of what happens when you really muck up history. Full marks to Billie Piper here.

EPISODE NINE: "The Empty Child" - I don't find this kid very scary. Sorry, but I don't. It's a good episode though, but the cliffhanger still could have been better - it's those "Next Time" bits that spoil them. John Barrowman is introduced here as Captain Jack, the dashing conman - he's a good actor who's been around for a while but only seemingly noticed now.

EPISODE TEN: "The Doctor Dances" - Part two of this WW2 story - very well made in historical context terms. A nice upbeat ending, though a little confusing perhaps for younger viewers when the "Mummy" is revealed?

EPISODE ELEVEN: "Boom Town"- probably the weakest of the series, but that doesn't mean its bad. A nice return for the Slitheen and also an interesting character study of the Doctor and Rose.

EPISODE TWELVE: "Bad Wolf" - this starts off quite silly, with some good-hearted humour and cheeky fun making at popular TV shows over her in Blighty. Things turn deadly serious quickly, though, and the revelation at the end is the best cliffhanger in the series!

EPISODE THRITEEN: "Parting Of The Ways" - Goodbye Christopher Ecclestone. A fantastic Doctor in so many ways, David Tennant is having to really work his socks off to be as good as him. The regeneration scene at the end is beautifully played. Oh, and the Daleks are back - in the extreme! God bless CGI, because they'd never be able to pull this off normally!

Overall - brilliant! 9/10


Picture the scene: a mountainous alien landscape. Twin moons illuminate the blood red sky. The Tardis lands, and out steps the Doctor, a middle-aged man in a Victorian frock coat, and Rose, his companion from Earth. A flicker of recognition crosses his face. "Well, I never! Its the planet Saurious-7. Where I fought the warlike Kraggartians. They tried to use giant Skinkons to take over the planet.". The girl sniffs the air. "Can't we go, Doctor. I don't like the look of this place. I keep thinking we're being watched.". The Doctor wags a disapproving finger. "Don't be silly, girl. I wonder if the King and Queen of Cordaraby City remember me from my last visit. Come along, Rose, come along!". He strides off, the girl struggles to keep up. High on a hill, sinister red eyes regard them with hatred...

That was not how 'Rose' began back in 2005, and thank heavens for that say I. Unfairly derided at the time of its original U.K. broadcast, 'Rose' can now safely be regarded as a landmark episode, putting 'Dr.Who' back where it belonged, as one of the B.B.C.'s flagship programmes. The mistakes made by the McGann T.V. movie were well learnt. Instead of trying to shoehorn the new 'Who' into existing chronology, it represented a fresh start for the series, beginning with shop girl Rose Tyler ( Billie Piper ) going about her daily routine. One day she goes to the basement to find a man named Wilson, and then the trouble begins. Mannequins come to life and attack her. It is only through the intervention of a mysterious stranger ( Christopher Eccleston ) that she is saved.

The story, slight though it may be, is more than adequate as a starting-point for the series. The Autons are, of course, an old villain ( this was their first appearance since 1971 ), but no references are made to their past appearances - another wise move. The finale effectively recreated the famous scene in 'Spearhead From Space' when shop window dummies sprang to life. As the Doctor, Christopher Eccleston lacked the eccentricity of his predecessors, preferring a modern leather jacket to the Doctor's traditional period clothes, but this made him more accessible to the show's hoped-for new audience. Billie Piper confounded her critics by making a big impression as 'Rose'. Also good was Noel Clarke as her boyfriend 'Mickey'.

Yes, there was an added emphasis on special effects, but then there needed to be - the wobbly sets and unconvincing monsters of the past have no place on 21st century television. What is more important is how good a script this is. Ten million people tuned in to see the new Doctor.

'Dr.Who' was back - and back with a bang!


Perhaps the last film you would expect to come from Vittorio de Sica and Cesare Zavattini (who wrote the novel on which this film is based). It's a neorealist fantasy, kind of an oxymoron, really. An old woman finds a baby in her cabbage patch and raises him as her own son. After a few years, the baby is a young boy (named Toto) and the adoptive mother is dying. He goes to an orphanage and, when he finally turns 18, he leaves. Immediately, he finds that he has no home. Toto is optimistic, though, and won't let anything get him down. A man steals his valise, and instead of getting angry over it, Toto becomes his friend and goes and stays with him in a small shantytown. Toto takes some initiative and organizes the many homeless living in the area and they build a better shantytown. Soon, the landowner is trying to sell this plot of land, and the citizens of the shantytown have to protect themselves. After many attempts, the owner mounts a force of police to get rid of the homeless. At this point, the film becomes full-fledged fantasy (before this it was more comedic/fantastic melodrama in the style of Charlie Chaplin). This stuff is so weird and shocking that it's probably best for others to see it for themselves. It's quite amazing, and very funny. There are objections you could raise about the plot of Miracle in Milan, most certainly. Fellini and Visconti were greatly criticized when they started to stray from Neorealism. I think I read this was widely criticized at the time of its release. At this point, though, it's so enjoyable - I loved it very much. It might be my favorite of Vittorio de Sica's films, although Umberto D and The Bicycle Thieves come very, very close. 10/10.


This is a really strange film--and that is NOT a bad thing. It is a combination of a neo-realistic film about the homeless AND a fairy tale. I'm sure that some may find this movie a bit too strange, but I loved it. Once again, this director brings together a wonderful cast of everyday people (not actors) and gets a great ensemble-type performance. Although not nearly as sad as Umberto D, both movies have a very similar point to make--this one just does it in a very absurdist way. Ignore the cheesy special effects--after all, it was made in the early 1950s and special effects aren't terribly important anyway (or at least they shouldn't be in films). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the very strange and silly ride. Unless you are a total curmudgeon, you'll have a ball.

By the way, since I first reviewed this film, I have seen another DeSica directed film that is an absolute must-see and that is THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US. While not a fantasy or light in spirit like MIRACLE IN MILAN, a great film nevertheless.


The snobs and pseudo experts consider it "a far cry from De Sica's best" The ones suffering from a serious lack of innocence will find a problem connecting to this masterpiece. De Sica spoke in a very direct way. His Italianness doesn't have the convoluted self examination of modern Italian filmmakers, or the bitter self parody of Pietro Germi, the pungent bittersweetness of Mario Monicelli, the solemnity of Visconti or the cold observation of Antonioni. De Sica told us the stories like a father sitting at the edge of his children's bed before they went to sleep. There is no attempt to intellectualize. Miracolo A Milano and in a lesser degree Il Giudizio Universale are realistic fairy tales, or what today we call magic realism. The film is a gem from beginning to end and Toto is the sort of character that you accept with an open heart but that, naturally, requires for you to have a heart. Cinema in its purest form. Magnificent.


This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!


This movie was my first touch with Mr Sica so I really didn't know what to expect. But what I saw just broke all my expectations - in a good way.

The storyline is not complex and shows us a life of found boy- orphan and particularly his connection into the community of poor people who together built themselves a hood of simple metal plate houses. This little city in another city lives own life and things are going fine. But one day there is a water resource found and a rich nobles man is getting interested in the buying the place. But as the title of the movie hints - there is a miracle taking place. Our character gets a wonder dove from his dead mother. What is he going to do to protect his friends and all built city as well?

It was just a masterpiece of natural comedy. There is shown the behavior of poor people and how money and property can talk and play with people. Also many funny moments and scenes are included - at the beginning with the spot where sun is shining and many more.

So according to the fact that I m not a comedy lover you should see this movie because I liked it much

I


This film is like an allegory of the gospel. It has such direct honesty and innocence you can not possibly believe it was made after the world war when Italy was ravaged and devastated, and was filled with a huge homeless, impoverished population. It is a monument to the best qualities of the human spirit, as well as to the endless creative resources of that land of inspiration.

Toto is a character like Doestoevisky's "Idiot", a modern Christ finding his way in a big city. He is goodness and purity fortified by love, and his acts change the people he encounters, as much as the miracle working dove. The story is told in a natural manner and simple style, yet imbued with a magic that is almost a premonition of Fellini's surrealist fantasies. It is one of the most inspiring, uplifting movies ever made.


This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.

7/10


If you have trouble suspending disbelief then this isn't for you. Consider: a woman already in late middle age finds a newborn baby in a cabbage patch and raises it as her own. Think about it; she makes no attempt to locate the mother, who may well be a confused teenager in need of medical treatment and seemingly no one from the Italian equivalent of Social Services makes any attempt to put the baby into 'care' (no Social Services? now I KNOW it's a fantasy). Before you know it young Toto is ten or so and his adoptive mother dies leaving him to the orphanage from which he emerges a HAPPY man who loves everybody. In nothing flat he has not only given his suitcase to the man who stole it from him but organised the local homeless into bona fide Shantytown residents and for an encore he leads them in a fight against capitalism in the shape of the businessman who buys the land on which the Shantytown stands when oil is discovered there. This wants some swallowing without the subsequent 'miracles' beginning with Toto's dead mother (the old lady who raised him rather than his biological one) appearing to him and handing him a dove which doubles as a magic wand allowing him to grant modest wishes and a finale in which the hobos fly away to a better place located presumably somewhere over the rainbow.

On the other hand the film is up to here with Charm and is easy to surrender to. On balance a small masterpiece.


De Sica is becoming one of my favorite directors, but this one was a hit-and-miss for me. A grinning idiot youth becomes the leader of a community of illegal settlers in a deserted area outside Milano. It is a detailed and sparkling story of the innocent poor masses, complete with evil capitalists and trigger-happy police forces, but slowly it evolves into a magic fantasy tale, as the boy wonder Toto develops unlimited superhero powers. I had it up to here with the ever-smiling Toto after 10 minutes, and when the magic took over, I was left in the dust. There were so many wonderfully orchestrated shots, so many good characters among the settlers, that I kept thinking it was a waste the movie wasn't more serious with its material. The coupling of neorealism and fantasy comes out more as an experiment of the "look-what-we-can-also-do-mum" sort than as a fully developed piece of work/art.


Forget the jaded comments that come before these. This is an action packed but sensitive movie about people who overcome real problems in a beautiful setting. Well-acted, even by Elizabeth Berkley. Recommended for anyone who wants to feel something and experience change.


Why a good actress like Elizabeth Berkley stars in this commonplace movie???!!! The cast gives some good performance (Elizabeth Berkley as a Barbie girl, Ele Keats as a girl without mother and Justin Whalin, a guy eternally lessened by his bother), but the direction is extremely boring and the story is NOT so interesting and original. I can NOT believe that a movie like this was produced for the big screen! Julie Corman (the producer): are you CRAZY???!!!


I began watching a replay of this TV movie on a Sunday afternoon, thinking it was just another dumb airplane disaster flick. I was wrong.

"Pandora's Clock" is an intelligent political thriller that is far beyond the quality of most TV movies. It could just as easily have made its debut on the big screen.

The cast is excellent, including veteran actors Richard Dean Anderson, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and Robert Loggia. Daphne Zuniga turns in one of her best performances as a medical specialist working for the CIA, and Frasier's Jane Leeves is also very good.

The dialogue is well-written and the story is compelling throughout. In fact, the final hour is so filled with plot twists and suspense that you can't leave your seat for a second. If you get a chance to see this movie, invest the time -- nearly four hours. You will be richly rewarded!


Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here.

Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.

There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.

It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless.


Sometimes, Lady Luck smiles on me. I had originally made -- and copied over -- a VHS tape of this wonderful TV presentation. I was heartbroken when I realized what I had done since I had been unable to obtain a copy of it anywhere else.

Recently, I subscribed to digital cable, and while searching through upcoming movies, there to my surprise was a scheduled broadcast of the movie. This time, however, I made a copy of it to DVD so there's no chance of repeating my mistake.

I finally got to watch it again after eight years, and it was just as exciting and tense as when I first saw it. There is a little bit of prelude to this story in that my first contact with "Pandora's Clock" came with a live reading of the book on public radio. I just happened to tune in to the broadcasting station on my way home for lunch, and from the first installment, I was hooked. Each day, I waited with anticipation for the next chapter to be read.

When I learned a few months later that the book was going to be broadcast on TV as a movie, I made sure to clear my schedule for that event.

First of all, I'd like to say that the movie was very true to the book, contrary to what another reviewer had said. That, in itself, is a rare achievement for TV movies.

Secondly, I agree with others about the casting. I could not imagine a better choice for Captain Holland than Richard Dean Anderson. Literally, the movie could have crashed and burned without a proper cast for this pivotal role. Anderson has never been better, and it is a shame that we have not seen more of him. In fact, all of the cast members did a superb job.

My only complaint with the movie -- and the book -- was the interjection of the "terrorist plot" to arm a private business jet with air-to-air missiles and have its pilot stalk and shoot down the stricken plane. Basically, we are talking about less than 36 hours to orchestrate and execute a plan like this one, and folks, that is just not realistic at all given all the players involved. Also not realistic was how little the airliner was affected by having first one, then two of its engines blown off.

That beef aside, I enjoyed the building suspense and found to be very believable how the reactions of foreign governments were portrayed in the film, as well as our own.

If you have an opportunity to see this movie, do so by all means.


I've seen a lot of TV movies in my time as a student, the majority the normal waste of time that US television throws out. This one, however, was well crafted and plotted and had a very nice twist at the end. Having only seen Richard Dean Anderson in MacGyver and Stargate I was surprised with his excellent performance rather than the rather gamut of expressions from A-B that he normally gives. It was a pleasant surprise to see Daphne Zuniga after quite a long time dating back to The Fly II. Also nice to see Robert Guillaumme in a leading role again. I can't say that I ever take Jane Leeves seriously after her Benny Hill days but she just about managed to cope well in her role. All in all a highly recommended film.


"Pandora's Clock" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked "Pandora's Clock". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's "Frasier"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.

*** (out of four)


I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.

All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)

Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one.


Walt Disney's "The Rookie" is based on the story of Jim Morris, a former minor league picher who made one of the most amazing comebacks in sports history, ending an almost 10 year retirement and making his Major League debut in 1999 at the age of 35.

The film opens with a brief synopsis of Morris' childhood, which included a series of re-locations - his father was a military man. And even when his family settled for good in football crazed Texas, Morris' passion for baseball remained strong.

The childhood segment then jumps ahead about 23 years to the adult Morris (played by Dennis Quaid) who is now a baseball coach and chemistry teacher at Big Lake High School (in real life it was Reagan County High School in Big Lake, Texas). It is mentioned that he attempted a career as a baseball player but that it didn't work out.

Morris's team is struggling and he lectures them about giving up on their dreams. They turn the table on him, telling him that he should try out for a Major League team. At several times when he pitches to them in practice, they express amazement at the speed with which he throws. Morris seems unconvinced but agrees to a deal with his players in which if they win district, he will try out for a Major League team.

Big Lake does win district and, adhering to his end of the deal, Morris attends a Tampa Bay Devil Rays try out. Phenomenally, he throws 98 miles an hour - faster than he threw during his minor league career and an outstanding speed even for a Major League pitcher. After another try out with the team, Morris is offered a contract with the Devil Rays.

This leaves him with a tough decision - stay in his comfortable life or once again pursue his Major League dream by going through the minor league grind of making little money and spending months at a time away from home. And the decision is even more agonizing than during his first minor league stint because he now has a wife and three children.

Morris signs with the Devil Rays, begins at the AA level and moves up quickly to the AAA level, one level below Major League Baseball. But as the season winds down, the chances of him getting "called up" grow increasingly slim.

For the most part, I love this movie. There are lots of great performances and likable characters and it's easy to find yourself really pulling for Morris. Also, the movie does a great job portraying professional baseball at both the major and minor league levels. And most of all, it teaches the timeless message of holding tight to your dreams even when they seem distant and almost impossible to achieve.

Still, the movie has some flaws. While generally accurate, it exaggerates and even fabricates a few things. Check out http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020410.html for some examples. Also, except for one scene in which he prays with his players, the movie completely ignores Morris' Christian faith. But considering Disney's left wing zeal, that's not surprising.

Presumably, a lot of the exaggerations/fabrications were done to make the story more dramatic. Yet the 20 minute documentary on Morris that is included on the DVD features some information that makes his story more dramatic but is excluded from the movie.

For example, from birth until his family settled in Texas for good when he was 12, Morris re-located 14 times. And his initial minor league career ended after four surgeries through which he lost half of the muscle in his left (pitching) shoulder, thus making his throwing 98 mph even more inexplicable.

To fully appreciate and understand the story of Jim Morris, it's good to not only watch "The Rookie" but to watch the DVD's documentary, check out the aforementioned link to the movie's inaccuracies and probably also to read Morris' biography, also titled "The Rookie." I haven't read the book but I hope to one of these days.

But overall, "The Rookie" is a very good portrayal of a miraculous story and is a powerful testament to the power of dreams and the triumph of the common man. 8/10


A fine story about following your dreams and actually taking a stab at Doing something about them when the chance strikes. Nothing was easy for Morris either-he had a family, job, job opps elsewheres, a mortgage, etc-it wasn't like he could just drop what he was doing and blithely hop on the greyhound to play AAA ball for 4 months. It took guts. I am glad that they showed his indecision, almost up 'til he got the callup to the majors.

I can remember seeing him pitch against the Red Sox(I think...), it was a great story. Though Morris actually looks more like John Kruk or a Mills Watson than Quaid-that's okay.

Quaid does a very good job playing the man, the teacher, coach and 'oldest rookie'.... As someone who is in the the same age group, I certainly can ID with his plight. You're not Quite too old to do what you had dreamed of as a kid, but it's getting there. You have to do it sooner than lator.

Believably told, nicely edited, paced, acted, good to see the familiar faces of the late Royce Applegate, Brian Cox and Rachel Griffiths here.

Good job all around, glad to see it hit.

*** outta ****...who woulda thought that the Tampa Devil Rays woulda been the subject of such a good movie early on?


The Rookie is based on the true story of a 40+ year old school teacher in Big Lake, Texas reaching the majors. Jimmy Morris (Dennis Quaid) is a small-town high school science teacher and baseball coach. His team is losing terribly until the team discovers that their coach played in minor leagues and can throw a pitch 98 mph.

After throwing batting practice and a wager is made, Jim agrees that if his team wins regional's, he'll try out for the Major Leagues. The movie tells the story from Jimmy being boy to playing in his first game in the majors. It is a great underdog story and a very friendly family movie. Dennis Quaid makes the movie worth while, giving an emotional performance and is supported by an excellent supporting cast which includes: Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones.

The story takes a little while to develop and some scenes are a bit slow but it all works in well by the end. The baseball scenes are fun, well-filmed, and portrayed excellently. The movie really isn't about baseball but about one man's quest to reach his dream. It's inspiring, it's emotional, and it's funny. I liked it, I hope you do.

The Rookie. Starring: Dennis Quaid, Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones.

4 out of 5 Stars.


An end of an era was released here in the States in Spring 2002 with "The Rookie," a Disney live action film that seemed to be the "best for last!!!!!" It took place right here in Texas! Actually, the story began in West Texas, as evidenced by an area code found on a sign over there. It was about a high school coach who was so convinced by his high class baseball team that he decided to go professional!!!!!

What I liked about this movie: It was sooo nice!!!!! It was a very good sports movie, ala "The Mighty Ducks" trilogy. It had also taken moviegoers across Texas, from somewhere between the Panhandle and El Paso all the way to the Metroplex (where I live). I can tell because I recognize that ballpark (was "The Ballpark in Arlington;" now it's "Ameriquest Field")! It was nice to see Disney's "Golden Age" end here in my area!!!!!

R.I.P.

Golden Age of Disney

1920s-Spring 2002

"It all started with a mouse...and it ended with baseball." (sobs)

10/10


I first saw this movie 3 years ago, and it was introduced by then Disney chief Eisner and the real Jim Morris.

About a month ago, it came back on TV, and this time I taped it. Since then I must've watched it at least three times.

This is a wonderful, inspirational, feel good movie that is intelligently written and believably acted by everyone concerned. It resists going for every sentimental trick in the book, as well as all of the other clichés.

It is refreshing to see a movie where the kids aren't jerks and have a whole slew of behavioral issues, and the jocks aren't portrayed as testosterone driven muscleheads.

These are just normal people who have dreams like you and I.

In my opinion, Hollywood as gone the other extreme to what they term "gritty realism", making movies where everyone curses, and has problems with aggression.

This movie is about a man who has a dream, and is encouraged by friends and family to pursue that dream. The people in Big Lake TX seem so personable that I want to move there.

As I said b4, the film doesn't try to go overboard with sentimentality. Dennis Quaid, as usual, never disappoints. I've watched him from the late 70's, and he is so underrated.

But this movie has excellent performances from EVERYONE concerned, and kudos to the writers.

A gem in the movie is near the end when Jim is practicing in the dugout before the big game, and his wife calls out to him from the stands. He rushes over and reaches out to his family. The look on the faces of the three other pitchers sitting on the bench in the dugout is priceless.

If you're looking for a change of pace, then pick this movie up.


This movie has several things going for it. It is a "feel good" story. The characters and actors are likable, realistic and present fine performances. Most important, I believe, is that Dennis Quaid knows how to grip and throw a baseball. Robert Redford looked good both throwing and swinging a bat in "The Natural, and so did Kevin Costner in "For Love of the Game" and "Bull Durham." In "Major League," Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen looked like they knew what they were doing, but many of the others did not, and that picture was pure silliness - and not very funny.

So many earlier baseball movies, even where the stories might be interesting, presented such a lack of baseball ability on the part of the leads, they were ludicrous in this respect. In "The Stratton Story" and "Strategic Air Command," Jimmy Stewart looked about as believable as a professional baseball player, as your overweight, non-athletic, elderly uncle in the softball game at the family reunion. Other virile and physically robust stars (e.g., Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig; Robald Reagan as Grover Cleveland Alexander; and Dan Dailey as Dizzy Dean) also exhibited a degree of baseball ability that would put them in the late rounds while "choosing-up" for a game at the Sunday picnic (even if coed, and even if your uncle were involved).

The scenes of Quaid's high school team he coached, the ones where he attends his tryout with the Devil Rays, and those with him playing in two minor leagues and in the American League, all ring true. The participants are believable and capable. In addition, he is an engaging actor who always delivers a talented and appropriate characterization (except, to a degree, some of his "over-the-top" scenes, and his forced accent, in his portrayal of Jerry Lee Lewis). But he's definitely on-target here, and this movie is a "9," as good, or better, as any others of this genre, except for "The Natural."


This is one of my favorite sports movies. Dennis Quaid is moving and convincing in the part of a man who gave up his dream of being a baseball pitcher when his arm gave out on him. As a high school coach, he challenges his players to win the division championship by telling them he'll try out for a baseball team if they do. They win (partly because of all the batting practice they take with a coach who can pitch over 90 miles an hour), and he keeps his side of the bargain--and is signed!

If you have ever decided to try something new and terrifying as an adult, Jim Morris's story will resonate with you. It is moving and inspiring, and the man's relationships ring true.

Inspiration is not the only reason I rent this one, though. Dennis Quaid is just downright purdy in the part, and a baseball movie with a good-looking man changing a diaper is my idea of heaven. Ladies, if you feel the way I do, check this one out.


This movie, to me, is about family. Jimmy Morris lived his dream not just for himself, but for his family. I can't begin to tell you how I would be able to tell my little girl that daddy was going to Kansas City to cover Priest Holmes and the Kansas City Chiefs. She'd think it was the coolest thing, like Morris' son did. Living dreams with the family is what this one is about. I think only a father who has a close relationship with his family can truly appreciate what Jimmy Morris did.


Once upon a time Hollywood produced live-action, G-rated movies without foul language, immorality, and gore-splattered violence. These movies neither insulted your intelligence no manipulated your emotions. The heroes differed little from the crowd. They shared the same feelings and bore the same burdens. Since the 1970s, the film industry has pretty much written off G-rated movies for adults. Basically, modern mature audiences demand large doses of embellished realism for their cinematic diet, laced heavily with vile profanity, mattress-thumping sex, and knuckle-bruising fisticuffs. These ingredients constitute the difference between G-rated movies and those rated either PG or PG-13.

Miraculously, director John Lee Hancock, who penned scripts for Clint Eastwood's "A Perfect World" (1993) and "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" (1997), hits a home run with this G-rated, feel-good, four-bagger of a baseball epic that not only celebrates America's favorite summer time sport, but also extols the competitive spirit of the game. Essentially, "The Rookie" resembles the 1984 Robert Redford saga "The Natural" about an old-time slugger who makes a comeback. Unlike "The Natural," "The Rookie" shuns swearing, sex, and violence.

Moreover, rugged Dennis Quaid plays a real-life individual. Jim Morris' autobiography, "The Oldest Rookie: Big-League Dreams from a Small-Town Guy," served as the basis for Mike "Finding Forrester") Rich's unpretentious, Norman Rockwell-style screenplay about white, middle-class aspirations. Morris attained his dream when he debuted on the mound as a relief pitcher in 1999. Although it doesn't belong in the same league with the inspirational James Stewart classic "The Stratton Story" (1949), "The Rookie" qualifies as the kind of movie that Hollywood rarely makes anymore because audiences find them antiquated.

Hancock and Rich encapsulate their entertaining oddball biography in a halo of mysticism. A wildcat oil prospector convinces two Catholic nuns back in the 1920s to bankroll a West Texas well. Fearing they have blown their bucks on an ill-advised fantasy, the sisters blanket the arid terrain with rose petals and entreat St. Rita's patron saint of hopeless causes' to intervene. The well gushes! The Town of Big Lake emerges, and roughnecks swat at baseballs when they aren't drilling holes in the terrain. The spirit of baseball oozes from the earth like petroleum. Meanwhile, years later, the U.S. Navy doesn't keep Jim Morris, Sr., (Brian Cos of "Manhunter") and his family in one place long before uprooting them. The constant moving takes a toll on Jim Junior. Jim's dad shows little sympathy and berates baseball.

Nevertheless, Jim has baseball in his blood, enough so that when he accepts a high school chemistry teacher's job in his Texas hometown, he organizes a baseball team. Like the foul-mouthed "Bad News Bears," "The Rookie" chronicles Jim's triumph at turning losers into winners. Morris promises the team if they reach the divisional playoffs, he will try out for a professional baseball team. Predictably, Morris' students maintain their end of the bargain. At age 35, Jim stuns the big league scouts when he hurls fastballs at 98 miles-per-hour! "The Rookie" never fouls out.


This was truly a great movie. I loved Dennis Quaid and the entire baseball team. Jay Hernandez is also a very likable actor that is very enjoyable to watch. The chemistry the team had once they got things together was spectacular, it just goes to show what you what can accomplish when minds unite as one with one goal. This team came back from the brink, having multiple losing seasons to winning just about everything. I love movies like this as they really are very inspirational.

On top of that, Dennis Quaid's character getting a place in the major leagues. You can't do anything, but root for this guy. It just seems like when someone is supposed to do something, they are going to do that. Things just happen to fall into place and makes everything click.

Based on a true story, this film will really make you think about the fact that "nothing is impossible."


This is a feel good film, about one person's dreams and the drive or push to realize them. It is a beautiful and inspirational film. Why do some people have to try and find fault with every film that comes out, especially the good ones. Dennis Quaid gives a good solid performance in this true story of Jim Morris, a science teacher and high school baseball coach who is pushed by his team to take one more shot at a professional baseball career. With excellent supporting cast, including Brian Cox, as the crusty old ex navy officer who has let so much of his son's achievements go by without his support. It was good to see him as something other than a villain in a film. If I have one complaint with this film it is this: Don't ever let Royce Applegate sign the national anthem again.

Seriously, this film belongs to that handful of great baseball films like "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural." It rates two thumbs up and a big "well done."


this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10


I had low expectations for this movie, but I was looking for something unchallenging for an evening. I walked out of the theatre totally delighted and somewhat surprised. This is a very fine baseball tribute film, and a nice lesson about pursuing your dreams. Dennis Quaid does a masterful job with his role, and I was touched by his performance. Definitely worth a full price ticket and a couple hours of your time!


I was impressed that I could take my 5 year old son to this movie without having to cover his ears or eyes. No sex scenes, no profanity, and not even any violence. Just good entertainment, enjoyable from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid pulls off this movie very well.


As predictable as a Hallmark card, but not without merit, The Rookie makes for a solid outing. Dennis Quaid, the most reasonable jock actor working today, is absolutely perfect as the science teacher turned baseball player Jimmy Morris. The film is never dumbed down for the children, as would be expected from a G rated film. As a sports film, The Rookie is one of the best I have seen since Any Given Sunday.


The movie actually has a fairly good story, but gets bogged down in several key places. It's almost as if the director threw the movie together without taking the time to make some essential cuts in the film. Dennis Quaid does a fairly decent job in his role... but something is clearly missing from several key scenes.

This 2.5 hour movie could have been reduced to about a 2 hour movie. And probably would have been a much better film had it not had the feel as if it was thrown together.


As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much "Disney" for my taste.


'The Rookie' was a wonderful movie about the second chances life holds for us and also puts an emotional thought over the audience, making them realize that your dreams can come true. If you loved 'Remember the Titans', 'The Rookie' is the movie for you!! It's the feel good movie of the year and it is the perfect movie for all ages. 'The Rookie' hits a major home run!


The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.


What a fun movie experience! I was expecting a sappy kids movie and found that I enjoyed it more than my teens. Take a tissue, it's not sad, just 'moving' in parts. Finally, its a 'feel good' flick for the whole family. Note: It's 2+ hours, so consider leaving the littlest 'squirmers' home for this one. AP


This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B-


This is the best picture about baseball since Redford whacked The Natural our way. Dennis Quaid and Rachel Griffiths light up the screen with a great story and a cast that seemed real enough to pull you into their lives.

Laced with dreams - dripping in reality, the American Dream reignites after 9.11 with a true story about the Devil Ray's mid-life rookie, Jimmy Morris. Australian born actress, Rachel Griffiths, plays a native West Texan better than a lot of Texans I know; and Dennis Quaid was perfection  cast as the wannabe, gonnabe and humble winner with as much psychological baggage as the average viewer in the audience. It's real. The on-screen chemistry works. If you like baseball heart-warmers, you're going to love this film. The ingredients for Americana and apple pie were all in there. My popcorn became the a la mode'.

And hey: buy the CD! The music rocks and carries the story magnificently! Syncing words and music pushes the story forward exactly the way it should, an area that disappoints me more often than not.

Criticisms: I'd have given the baseball to somebody else. But Quaid has something to teach us all about character' and heart. St. Rita and the nuns were a nice decoration, but they never really found their place in the story to open and close around them. A little long. Worth every minute in the last analysis. 8 / 10.


The Rookie kept me smiling from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid played the role to perfection. The little boy that plays his son was fantastic. He made this a father-son movie to remember. The messages are good ones. Follow your dreams. Failing at the pursuit is alright as long as you try. The excitement is palpable. I believe this movie will be a classic.


Disney might just be on to something here. First, they had "Remember the Titans" with Denzel, a story based on truth involving sports and a small town in middle America. Now, with Quaid and The Rookie... yet another sports story based on truth.

Both movies move you to tears at times, and both make you smile and feel all warm after seeing them. My wife and I took in The Rookie and we expected it to be a great feel good type movie. We were not let down, when asked if we'd be buying this on DVD when it comes out, it was a no-brainer. Most definately.


I knew I was going to see this when I saw the first preview. Dennis Quaid was one reason, but the theme of holding on to your dreams speaks to me. People talk about this as a movie for kids, but I think it's a movie for baby boomers who are coming to terms with aging, infirm parents, our own mortality, our kids growing up and leaving us, and all the other things we never thought would happen to us.

The movie doesn't fall into the trap of tragedy; it's about what living your dreams means when you have a real life.

Quaid is too small for a pitcher but he makes it look good, and Rachel Griffiths makes a small part as the wife into a thoughtful, layered performance. The camera-work is slow and sweet. When they put this movie together, they left out anything that wasn't necessary. Very nice.


This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie.


I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C)


Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success.