"The Illusionist": Another Indie One-Ups the Big Boys

JOE'S SUMUP: Undiluted magic

(2006) Some films contain real magic, like Harry Potter.  Others contain fake magic, such as The Prestige.  This is a film that, simply put, is magic, in and of itself.  What's magic then, in this case?  Such a film to me will entrance its audience with a story both believable and impossible, containing characters doing combat with more than guns and swords, and of course quality enduring romance.  "The Illusionist" goes above and beyond all that.  It offers up its tale with an artistry from which one may feel swept right into the magic of 19th-century Vienna.  The art direction and costuming are period-perfect, the cinematography has a sepia-toned storybook quality to it, Philip Glass's score is so haunting and penetrating it makes me feel absolutely vulnerable.  And, special effects have never looked less like special effects.  "The Illusionist" at 

times has a decidedly creepy tone to it.  As I always say, keep watching.  As both a peasant child and a professional adult, Edward Abramovich (aka Eisenheim The Illusionist) has a gift for conjuring magic so real, that he is capable of convincing entire audiences of anything he wishes. After his sweetheart, the Duchess Sophie von Teschen, is torn from his side while both young children, he proceeds to travel the world to learn the greatest illusions as one may only find far away from the common trickery of Vienna (no, no spoiler alerts so far).  Upon his return as an adult opening a new act, he enchants his audiences, until he is soon himself enchanted again by his childhood love, who is then dating the conniving Crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The plot thickens... and I can say no more here, lest I give away the great illusion.

Let me make mention of the cast and performances for a moment.  Flawless.  I'll also reemphasize here, I write mostly to recommend great movies, the best of them.  So if my 

constant zeal ]comes off as hyperbole, let me assure you it isn't.  I have little interest in giving press to mediocre films, so I don't.  That said, flawless.  And I do mean absolutely flawless. 

I was introduced to Edward Norton by this movie, playing the calm and pensive Eisenheim. His perfect role here.  Jessica Biel was an unlikely choice for portraying the feminine and bold Von Teschen.  Her perfect role here.  Rufus Sewell takes on the Crown Prince Leopold.  No surprise there, he was born to play the part of sinister villain.  His perfect role here. Finally, perhaps the most enjoyable performance of all is delivered by a beefy Paul Giamatti, playing a gruff Chief Inspector with a childlike delight for the ethereal.  Absolutely perfect.

Where are the flaws in this film?  Well obviously it's a romance, so if you're squeamish at a rather sensuous love scene showing no nudity but sensuousness nonetheless, fast-forward for 15 seconds---you'll know when, with plenty of warning.  Other than that, you tell me.  Now we always like to say we're rooting for the underdog, but let's face it, when push come to shove, too many still patronize Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and IBM.  Don't yell "Hypocrite!" at me---I already know I am one. But as an idealist, and while I do love a good Warner Bros. action flick, I have a great affinity for indie films.  Especially ones which make Hollywood look stupid.  One would never guess that "The Illusionist" was made by Bob Yari, an Iranian-American independent producer, on a budget of 17 mill.  It appears less interested in its successful revenues, and offers up something more for its audiences.

Movies shouldn't just entertain us.  OK, maybe some should.  But hopefully most will get us thinking a little too, on the world and our lives, our surroundings and our encounters, our 

interactions, our flaws and our strengths, our loves and our hates, the very subterfuge of life which demands our interest.  When I see a man balance a monarch's sword on its tip, then make subtle mockery of the ruler's inaptitude for true greatness, I too feel like I can

see through the trick. Money is not enough, gadgetry is not enough, impression is not enough, authority is never enough. True greatness is rooted and cultivates through principle and idealism, indifference rejected. It is then that intangible simulacra may transcend authenticity.  Spare me some indulgence as I say, let everyone's ideals be enveloped by a consummate spirit of progress, determined to discover what greater treasures like in store for those who will reject the greatest illusion known as reality. It's a nice illusion for this idealist anyhow. Running time: 110 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443543/

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" An Eye-opening Docudrama

JOE'S SUMUP: Long, and worth the wait

(1970) In 2001, a cute little romance flick came out, you may remember it, called "Pearl Harbor".  My but what a misnomer.  This film was a high-action romance with about as much substance as Napoleon Dynamite (not to dis Napeleon---that kid had class).  As written by Randall Wallace (Braveheart), one might have expected it to contain a bit more than superficial war drama cliches, sappy romance triangles, exaggerated dog fights, etc.  Three hours worth.  Ugh, worthless.  Want to see an actually smart movie about December 7, 1941?  Try this one.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" (literally translated "Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!") were the code-words used by Japanese aircrafts to transmit that complete surprise was achieved on the Hawaii naval base.  The film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is the collaborative effort between Japanese and American cinema, made to depict this event historically accurate as possible, and with the juxtaposed viewpoints of both ends.  The transitions are smooth, yet we are frequently switching back and forth between American and Japanese non-fictional officers, watching the tension growing betwixt them, and the eventual cataclysmic catalyst which changed the direction of the war.  The lion's share of the first act is given to the Japanese (all done in Japanese with subtitles).  During this time we are let in on exactly why and how they planned this attack, America's strategies to prepare for it, and what went wrong.  No bias is apparent from either position.  One example is, just before the attack occurs, the Japanese' attempt to officially warn the Pentagon the morning of, which warning is not transmitted to Pearl Harbor in time, thus throwing America into a fit of rage over a "surprise attack".  This film is an example of brilliant and unbiased filmmakers getting over differences (only 25 years after the atomic bombs) and making a movie of real events in as close a measure as possible.  They didn't get it exactly exact of course, how could they---numerous details were left out (hence the idea of dramatization).  But that's still true synergy to me, and it's what makes this movie interesting.

Now then, on to the good stuff.  Some skeptics might questions these filmmakers' aptitudes for portraying a sequence as large scale as this, wayyyy back in 1970.  Hang on to your seats, is all I can say.  A small sampling...

This 20-minute sequence is spectacular, and these pics do not do justice.

The attack scene is also accurate.  I sat back relishing these Oscar-winning visual effects, knowing there were no models nor CG images throughout, all done in live-action.  This film is not three hours, but it is two-and-a-half.  The majority is dedicated to the buildup, but the attack sequence wouldn't have been so amazing without it.  Films like this are made for the sake of education in and of itself, holding no national or political agenda.  I think it's a great film.  Having said that, let me make it clear, this is strictly a war drama.  There is very little emotion to grab hold of, no romance, no deep character development or big plot surprises.  It is all done in a straightforward and objective manner, which I think was the idea.  Fluff (even good fluff) would've inevitably biased its viewers one way or another, depending on whose side you're rooting for.  One would hope that films like this one will immortalize human conflict and remind us to stop making them.  Enough said---if you like historical drama, this classic sleeper ought not to dissatisfy.  Running time: 142 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/

"Disney's The Kid" Not Just For Kids

JOE'S SUMUP: genuine, hilarious, introspective

(2000) It was recently suggested to me to make a list of must-see films in different categories, be it adventure, mystery, comedy, etc.  I have yet to do that, but it did somehow spark my desire to review one of my favorite true-to-form family adventures made in recent years.  Meet "The Kid".

Without giving much away, I will say, suspend any disbelief if you will.  Any good movie about 

time-travel is obviously not about time-travel at all (now if you want to sample really BAD time-travel cinema, go rent "Timeline", a film based on the fabulous Crichton novel).  This film takes a cue of sorts from "A Christmas Carol" in that Bruce Willis, playing an "image consultant" named Russ, is as Scroogey as they come.  His egocentric life amounts to giving advice to people about how they may better fit their image to their profession.  His cynicism was so excessive I thought it almost endearing, which I think was the point.  On the verge of 40 and still single, he is in denial of his attraction to his adorable colleague, Amy (played enchantingly by Emily Mortimer and her British charm).  So, the powers that be decide to pay him a visit, in the form not of a ghost, but of himself, 30 years younger.  Enter "Rusty" on the set.  Both are totally spooked by each other, and neither Russ nor Rusty can figure out how the kid got there nor what to do about it.

Jon Turtletaub is a director I would definitely place in a division of lightweights for his trade.  His accolades amount to "While You Were Sleeping", "National Treasure", "3 Ninjas", etc.  Generally his are not the most stellar films in history, and this is one that could have followed suit.  The reason it peaks over the top to greatness is its performances.  The story is outlandish enough that it requires something dry, perfect coming from Bruce Willis who excels at such roles, to help us buy it.  The tone of the film

in turn needed some lighthearted balancing, and it is gracefully achieved by Mortimer's absolute sweetness and integrity.  Where child actors go, as Jake Lloyd proved in "Star Wars Episode I", it takes some doing to find a decent one.  Spencer Breslin was only 7 years old when he made this performance, and he makes me laugh every time he comes onscreen.  Rusty, in definite need of my services with his lateral lisp (and how many movies out there actually reference speech pathology?), constantly livens up the room with all the delightful quirks of an insecure 7-year old.  Upon his arrival, Russ is disgusted, but Amy is enchanted, realizing there's a lot more to this man than his ugly cold exterior.

The show makes good discussions on who we were as children, why we would sometimes prefer to forget that time, and what merit there is in remembering.  Seriously who would want to be 

confronted with the joy and the innocence of the kid they were at age 7, staring it all in the face, wondering where it went?  A lot of people right now need the message that "Disney's The Kid" conveys.  The greatest problem, I would say, is the film's title, or more specifically the inclusion of "Disney's".  This was surely done so to differentiate it from Chaplin's 1921 film of the same name.  Meanwhile, the title could easily mislead adults when they see it sitting on a shelf, that the movie is just another Disney flick strictly for kids.  Be aware, not the case in this case.  If you are looking for a sweet, fun, entertaining family film, this one's better than the bulk of them made this side of the 21st century.  Running time: 104 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219854/

A Deep Night With "Pan's Labyrinth"

JOE'S SUMUP: gruesome, powerful, majestic

(2006) There are times when we break convention, whether or not we feel we must. One of my conventions is to see only R-rated movies which will leave me a better person. Tonight I broke it.

"Pan's Labyrinth" (originally "El Laberinto Del Fauno") is not the greatest movie ever made. It is also not a movie I would recommend to general audiences. It is simply no less than a masterpiece, of visual artistry and storytelling, a 20th-century fable mimicking Greek tragedy, written only for those who can stomach unmitigated tribulation coupled with wearied victory.

The film is set in an army camp in Franqist-repressed, civil war-ravaged Spain in 1944. A young girl named Ofelia travels with her mother to live with her sadistic stepfather, Captain Vidal, an officer in Franco's army. Her mother, in her third trimester, is deeply ill, while the tyrannical stepfather has two interest: quelling a local rebellion of guerillas, and keeping his wife's unborn son for himself. Ofelia's interests meanwhile are in fantastical legends, which she pours over in her books. Little does she know that she is the star player in one.

Yet another original story is written for the screen, wherein we are shown the merit in paths bearing no logic, yet that somehow make more and more sense as we start walking them. Ofelia follows a

sprite down such a path one night, into an ancient labyrinth found behind the chateau. Deep in the ground, she finds mythical creatures waiting for her. The greatest is the faun, a messenger of sorts. He informs her that she is no mere human, but the ancient princess of an ancient king, and that she may return to her kingdom if she will perform three difficult tasks of virtue. She is immediately mesmerized by this true existence of magic. Complications soon arise, due to her mother's health and her stepfather's brutality in running his household, wherein rebel spies pose as servants, preparing

for a final confrontation.

From the moment the film started, my respect inched up for its maker. Created by Guillermo del Toro, a Mexico-born Hollywood writer/director, this is the kind of film which, if made at the end of his career, could be called his magnum opus. He once left years of notes and sketches in the back of a taxi cab.

Shattered, he believed he would shut down the project. But the cab driver found them so moving that he searched del Toro out and delivered the notes back to him. The director, convinced this was a blessing, found new determination to achieve the picture. He was later offered double the budget for his film from his producers, if he would make it in English. Then, he stuck it right to them, stating that he "didn't want any compromise in the story, just to suit the market's needs." A true artist and idealist---my respect went up a few notches more. It went on to receive a 22-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. And Roger Ebert called it the #1 best film of 2006.

This is a fairy tale of sorts for adults. I was gripped with its weird yet believable creatures, its fantastical backdrops, and a mythical heart-wrenching story. If I've made you curious, know that it is still as far from a feelgood as any movie I've seen. That I did not expect. I could scarcely recommend it with its violence and intensity. Del Toro is likewise known for his fascination with the grotesque, and this film does not stop short---enough so that in Mexico, theaters had to put up warnings to parents not to bring their children to see it. Some might then wonder why I wanted to see "Pan's Labyrinth". My chief reason was to size up del Toro, as

he is soon to direct both of the Peter Jackson-produced Hobbit films. Then, the more I watched, the more my reason changed. I became mesmerized by the film's spirit. It is the reasons why it is not a feelgood that I ended up appreciating it so. Its tragic tones, a haunting unforgettable score, a very daring plot, stark performances---these all combined to express what the film was actually about. "Pan's Labyrinth" is a parable written with the purpose of depicting unwavering virtue, and its quiet potential in every person---then understood all the clearer when dichotomized with unharnessed vice. It is about the pursuit of liberty from oppression. A film could hardly portray eternal vigilance better.

I'm with Richard Roeper on this one. I don't know that I could see it again because it is so very weird and so memorable. But my thumb is up. Running time: 119

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430

POST-SCRIPT: Prognosis for "The Hobbit" films: Anyone worried because Jackson is not directing, be at peace. We'll get our money's worth in 2012.

"The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1: The Journey": How about just "The Movie of Mormon"?

JOE'S SUMUP: unworthy and amusing

(2003) Six years ago, I was approached by an old friend commissioning me to write a theme song for a movie.  Needless to say I was thrilled.  Little did I know what the movie actually was.  Yes I knew its title, "The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume One: The Journey".  I knew what it would turn out to be: a second-rate Hollywoodesque makeover of this profound narrative.  What I didn't know was how much credit I was actually paying the film with such a generous prognosis.

Scene: Jerusalem, 600 BC.  Yes, spoiler alerts all over the place here---if you've read the book, you know what they are.  If you haven't, don't worry---the book's substance is in its subtext.  

Back to Jerusalem.  Lehi, the righteous father of a Jewish family, has been commanded by God to warn the city's residents of its coming destruction.  In the book, here was a learned, wealthy, respected trader, and a intuitive, eloquent prophet.  In the movie, he's raving mad.  His two phrases for five minutes are: "Don't you underSTAND??" and "The CITY will be DESTROYED!!"  ...And again: "DON'T you UNDERSTAND??  THE CITY WILL BE  DESTROYED!!  The CITY will be DESTROYED!"  And again and again.  My jaw dropped.  This is the same guy giving such orations as found in 2 Nephi 2?  What was I a part of here.  I knew this would not be a good film.  But I did not know it would make my Bottom 10.

One would judge a movie's quality most objectively by its tone and by how well its director is able to maintain tone throughout.  Gary Rogers, bless his heart, had no idea what he wanted this film to be.  The script and its delivery are the most vital elements in setting tone---in which case, this ship sadly sunk itself right in the harbor.  When time comes to leave Jerusalem, Lehi's wife Sariah makes parting words with her best friend, the wife of Ishmael.  Have I ever felt so awkward in a movie?  Possibly not, watching them sit and sob together in this close-up shot for five minutes, saturating the audience in sap.  Worse, when Lehi commands Nephi to return to Jerusalem and retrieve the Old Testament, the popular 1 Nephi 3:7 is paraphrased, nay, anachronized into: "Yes father, I'm gonna go and do what God's commanded, cause I know he doesn't give commandments to the children of men that he won't prepare a way for them..." ...etc.  And the accidental humor just comes out of the woodwork.  Fictional side plots like Nephi being saved from bandits by his brothers Lamam and Lemuel (??), later hallucinating about snakes in the desert, a single camel escaping the caravan at around 2 mph, Sam (played by the infamous Kirby H.) missing his wayward brothers and finding them dancing around a campfire making faces at the camera.

The problem with dramatizing a book like this is that the audience can immediately see straight through to the filmmakers' intent.  There are books which can never be properly converted.  In this case, it's because the Book of Mormon's intent is not to tell a story---its stories are mere vehicles to teach principles.  Movies' stories in contrast are generally vehicles to distract audiences from their lives for a few hours through entertainment.  Polar opposites.  This movie's attempts to do that are amusing at best, embarrassing at worst.

"Come ON, why are we always fighting?  That's all we ever do anymore."  A classic Sam line.  Laman and Lemuel later appear as if being electrocuted by God's power.  I mean,

WHAT were these Mormons thinking?  Did they have ANY experience in filmmaking whatever?  Don't you underSTAND???  This book will be DESTROYED!!  So then, what was their intent?  Mostly to be the first ones to say they made the Book of Mormon into a movie, to make money, and to make some Mormons go "ooo" and "ahh".  One for three, guys, good job.  There was so little cinematic effort put forth that it's embarrassing.  I mean, come on, not even a good costume designer?  Did the women really sport pastel-colored tubetops, dancing around and telling their parents how "old-fashioned" they are?

Obviously there're more examples where these came from.  But suffice it to say, when I heard The Book of Mormon was hitting the big screen, I thought to myself, Great, now people can cop out from the book, saying they saw the movie.  I'm relieved to say that anyone who would actually do that would prove about as shallow as the film itself.  But to devout Mormons, yeah, I recommend it.  Others might point fingers unfairly at the Church for this comedy, but if Mormons don't take it as seriously as it takes itself, they ought to get a good laugh out of it.  So, if comedy's your fancy some evening, go crazy.  Running time: 120 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349159

"WALL*E": 5 Reasons Why

When asked what his favorite movie of all time was, M. Night Shyamalan responded: "Favorite movie... interesting wording.  Because I think the best movie ever made was 'The Godfather', being tonally flawless.  But the term, favorite movie... there's a little guilty pleasure implied there, and for me that would be 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark.'"  I echo his sentiments in that I think the greatest Pixar film ever made is "The Incredibles."  But my favorite I expect will ever be "WALL*E". 

Five Reasons Why, in no particular order.

1.  This movie and its title protagonist parade one thing humanity seems to craves these days, that being innocence of heart.  I'll say, anyone who desires the same, for themselves or the world around them, go watch Shyamalan's "The Village" again, see what you missed the first time around.  Or, come back soon for my illuminating review.  Digressing again.  WALL*E is this intelligent and sentimental machine stuck on a barren earth, with one purpose: picking up other people's trash.  Does he mind?  Does he even notice?  What a dismal purpose of life.  AI films usually involve some kind of insurrection, where the machines aren't gonna take it anymore,

reflecting rhetoric on human cruelty or slavery.  This film instead suggests that all things have a purpose and an accompanying choice, to accept or reject said purpose.  WALL*E not only accepts his purpose, but he enhances it to achieve a purpose even greater than his own.  Until that day however, he not only concedes to his given purpose, he enjoys it.  We Speech Pathologists call it redirection.  Makes me laugh to watch him just dinkin' around this desolate planet, humming his beloved Hello, Dolly!, playing with his cockroach, collecting his trinkets, yearning for dancing lessons.  Is it his undying curiosity that keeps his cogs moving, or his hope that something better is on the way?  He retains his optimism even through hard (and undeserved) work and loneliness for a companion.  Begs the question, how different are optimism and innocence?  And humility?  Or confidence?  Something to chew on.

2.  As a child of the 80's, I grew up alongside a sci-fi revolution in the movies.  Robots and aliens started coming out of the woodwork.  So I'm sitting in the theater watching WALL*E with his comedic beeps, his bells and whistles, his explosive personality.

And I'm seeing R2D2, I'm seeing E.T., obviously Johnny 5, even the little saucer fix-its from "*batteries not included".  Pushed me right to the edge.  The characters, the sets, the music, the sound effects, even the Nintendo-esque credit sequence... boy but was there ever such a tribute to my childhood sentimentality!  This film pays wonderful homage to its great sci-fi predecessors.  Themes of Strauss from "2001", dark electricity from "Return Of The Jedi", giant airlocks from "Aliens" (with Sigourney Weaver as The Computer---hah!), etc.  EVE could have easily been the quiet child of C-3PO, while "Auto" was clearly the spawn of HAL9000.  Writers Stanton and Reardon must've had a ball with it all.

3.  I'm a sucker for stories involving post-apocalyptic, dystopian societies.  What can I say, it's a weakness.

4.  I'm sorry, but I've had to raise an amused eyebrow at hearing people sneering at this film for its "environmentalist" bias.  The biggest complaint from cynics was its hinting to global warming.  To that I say, show me; I'd love to see it.  Then I respond---don't mess, because there's no such hint, not in this show (and I'd love to hear a single politician say he has no problem with polluting the earth---as many of them think it).  Still, these guys weren't beating around the bush.  This film makes an unabashed call to the world, not just to be more caring of our surroundings, but of ourselves, and our integrity too.  What wonderful audacious satire was making the world's government a mega-corporation, By 'N' Large.  Way to stick it to 'em, Stanton.  BnL could be likened to a false god or Big Brother just as well as to WalMart, taking its subjects slaves through duping them into virtual leisure and complacency.  I've heard people say this movie's "fatties" and their lifestyles just depress them.  As always, I say, keep watching.  For all its cynicism, this is not filmmakers getting preachy and pointing fingers.  This is

a tale of human redemption.  Is WALL*E then a Savior, or a type of him?  No, but a type of Adam rather, bringer of restitution to humanity, yet powerless without his help meet.  Hence the arrival of EVE (may I say, I love seeing the modern woman in action here).  Earth's dilemma is obviously comparable to Noah's ark and the flood, with EVE also akin to the dove wielding the olive branch, alerting passengers that earth is becoming safe again.  This is no children's tale.  It is a tale of the innate humanity inherent in all creatures great and small.  It is a message our planet could really use right now, whether we take heed or not.

5.  But at the end of the day, "WALL*E" is a romance.  Among the greatest romance films I've seen.  Unscathed shimmering irony.  Scene: Lido-Deck (Small Spoiler Alert).  EVE and WALL*E dodging guards, EVE's mind racing on how she can accomplish her mission.

There behind her is WALL*E, and what's the thing on his mind?  Not saving the world.  He proceeds to blast Michael Crawford singing "It Only Takes A Moment" in attempts to woo his woman with romantic overture, fingers outstretched.  She's like, whaaa??, pushing him back going, This really is NOT the time, babe.  I love this moment because it shows WALL*E's courage in being honest, if tactlessly upfront, about his feelings.  Don'tcha love it when we do that, girls?  Really though it's the kind of honesty that our society has become overly cynical about, males and females alike.  It's one way that this movie does NOT resemble the 80's, a time when Hollywood warped society's very expectations of what love and romance should be---a thing they now often make fun of.  I take courage from WALL*E's stark example of how a true romantic will in the end win fair lady (in spite of Hitch's wise axiom "With no game and no guile, there is no girl.")

So, there's the first five that came to mind (I'll talk about its flawless art direction or the legendary Ben Burtt another day).  My question, where are the flaws?  I look for them in every film, and find none here.  Except how WALL*E keeps saying: "WALL*E!" to everybody.  That I could skip (tee hee).  I usually make a point not to review recent box-office smashes.  Obviously I couldn't help myself this time.  Running time: 98 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970

"What Dreams May Come" Dons Dantean Impressionism

JOE'S SUMUP: visually stunning, descriptively daring

(1998) Richard Matheson wrote the bangsian fantasy "What Dreams May Come" in 1978.  At the end of his highly successful career of some thirty novels, he wrote: "I think What Dreams May Come is the most important book I've written.  It has caused a number of readers to lose their fear of death -- the finest tribute any writer could receive."  I don't need to read the novel to know that the film doesn't likely match up.  I do know though that it serves its own purpose.

Matheson's contention was that he did not tell this story as a work of fiction, but based on research.  New Zealand Director Vincent Ward brought it to life in a way no other film on the afterlife ever was.  It tells the story of two parents, Chris and Annie Nielsen (Robin Williams and Annabella Sciorra), who first lose their two young teenage children in a car accident.  Then, a few years later (all within the first fifteen minutes), Chris is likewise taken in a car accident.  We see things through his eyes as he begins his journey into the unknown, which seems intent on defying any convention or belief he as a Christian ever held.  He is taken under the wing of Albert Lewis, a former-doctor whom he interned under in life.  A lively performance by Cuba Gooding Jr., this man helps Chris gain his footwork in an existence which at first seems perfect, while explaining to him life and being in his new existence.  Chris quickly comes to realize the power of the mind, seeing that "he thinks therefore he is" and that is all any person can in the end keep hold of.  But it is not enough for him, not without his greatest treasures, his wife and children.  

This is a daring movie.  Cudos first to Interscope Communications for producing it, since producers generally steer far clear of this subject matter, let alone invest $85 million in it.  It isn't without its flaws, I'll say first.  The script is sometimes lacking and sometimes just pretentious (occasionally rendering language that sits uneasy in its contexts).  It fortunately compensates for itself the rest of the time.  Attempts to pull our heartstrings also occasionally seem forced, but it's worth looking past those moments.  It isn't difficult to tell when things are contrived, and this film is thoroughly sincere.  Know too, without giving anything away, the third act contains images that may frighten certain audiences.  My advice, keep watching.

Woven together here is a story of people and of imagery.  One of the great beauties of this story is its agreement with a statement I subscribe to saying: "...that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there..."  The director understood that to make a movie about the life hereafter, it has to be about people.  Even against its Academy Award winning imagery, this film's greatest achievements lie first in its explorations on self-identity.  It discusses potential ramifications of choices we make in life, and how these things affect our status -- not with God or the world beyond -- but with ourselves.  It displays ideas on how people and relationships may be weaved together from one sphere to the next---another bold move by the director.  It's interesting that, theologically, this vision incorporates bases of many beliefs and ideologies, and not just in the ways that they agree.  It bravely does not comply with only Christian nor Hindu nor Islamic views on the afterworld, and has in consequence often left its audiences with mixed feelings.  Appropriately so.  Any person of faith could dispute one point or other of its doctrine.  But the audacity of the picture's objectives should gain the respect of anyone not trapped in their own dogma.

If there were one great challenge for the director, it was telling a fine story amidst the 

backdrops he wished to create.  This film is just stunning.  Ward achieves it though, letting the plot shine atop a canvas so magnificent and aesthetic, bearing such vivid details, from what was then very new technology in computer imagery.  He's here created entire worlds that give even the Star Wars saga a run for its money.  If a film could ever be compared to the impressionist's painting, this would be it.  The scenes in this story do not detract from its flow (as the Star Wars ones sometimes do, often deliberately so---apologies, Rob Bott), but rather enhance it.  Casting Robin Williams was likewise daring, who has sometimes botched dramatic roles with comedic hyperbole.  Here, he fits in, as both a levelheaded pediatrician and an insecure newly born spirit.

All in all, a good and convincing movie.  It breathes freely, having no identity crisis, even as a romance/thriller/feelgood.  I give "What Dreams May Come" the credit it deserves.  Running time: 113 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120889/