All the elements are there: conflicts between races in Apartheid South Africa, Lesbian intolerance, domestic violence, and finding the courage to stand up to all those negative forces. And yet, I found the film unusually un-compelling. The lead actresses are very attractive and do a pretty good job, as do the supporting players. The black silent partner in the restaurant business is sympathetic, the policeman is even humanized though still committed to doing his sworn job, the husband acts out of desperation to keep his family together. So, the characters are not just cookie-cut-outs of recognizable stereotypes. Why didn’t I feel for these people, these situations?

Miriam (Lisa Ray) owns a popular bar/restaurant in a small township in South Africa. She is strong and independent, even though the Indian population in South Africa is not embraced by the white, Apartheid government. She meets Amina (Sheetal Sheth) who, with her husband (Parvin Dabas) and children, has just moved to the township for her husband’s new job. Amina, also Indian, is a dutiful, though unimpassioned and unhappy, wife, but she quietly accepts her place in life, as all good Indian women must. Between the police being very suspicious of Miriam’s black handyman, secretly and unlawfully a partner in the restaurant; the growing intimacy between Miriam and Amina, the reaction of Amina’s husband and the community to their relationship – I should care. Again, I don’t.

Perhaps it’s because: (1) since Apartheid has ended in South Africa, I no longer invest the same level of emotion I once did to that intolerable situation; (2) the community’s transition to acceptance of this new kind of relationship is far too easy, so

What we suspected about Asians, you know, the stereotype of being inscrutable -- meaning silent, reserved, mysterious, internal, uncommunicative -- is true, even among themselves. They are brought up in homes where their parents don’t discuss, argue, show emotion. So, they follow suit. This is the story of Yilan (Faye Hu), a transplanted Chinese women, who feels she can’t communicate in her own language.

We have to be very patient with this film; we have to slow way down; we have to listen intently. The pay off is small, if you consider it a payoff at all. Yilan may never be able to express herself or get out of her little Chinese box. “If you grew up in a language in which you never learned to express your feelings, it would be easier to talk in an new language. It makes you a new person.” But still, even in English, she may never be happy -- her dad’s major concern. He may never be able to truly communicate with his daughter in any language.

The damage done by the Chinese social order going back to the Cultural Revolution of 1948 may have not only damaged that generation but the ones that followed. A minor infraction at work, followed by unsubstantiated gossip, cost him his career and dignity. The cover-up and lies and silence at home followed, and the next generation thought this simply is how life is. It’s a glum, sad, quite tale without a Hollywood ending, but perhaps a wimper of acceptance between them.

The parallels are so numerous that one might wonder -- is this a thinly veiled historic perspective to the life of Princess Diana and Prince Charles or rather a British cultural phenomenon that begs repetition?

Georgiana Spencer (Keira Knightly) is young, well bred (meaning brought up to be a wife any nobleman would be proud of), beautiful, intelligent. There is no infertility in her family’s women. Same is true of Diana Spencer. Both women were several years younger than their husbands (Keira to Ralph - 23 years), (Di to Charles - 13 years) (Georgiana to William - 9 years). Okay, a little perspective into Hollywood casting. Neither Georgiana nor Diana were loved by their husbands who felt pressured to produce a male heir.

Both men found it difficult to be warm and caring. In more than one scene the Duke states he was not raised to show emotion. Biographies of Charles show that raising children in Buckingham Palace was done more by nannies than the stalwart, stone faced Elizabeth II.

Both husbands loved older, matronly women. Lady Elizabeth, the Duke’s mistress came from a similar situation. Her husband had many mistresses, and worse, beat her, refused to divorce her and kept her children when she left him. What is it with Englishmen? Is it considered unmanly to love one’s wife? Bess had 3 sons, which made her more attractive to the Duke, though her sons would never he his heirs. Still, breeding sons was a quality in women he admired. It has been said, though not kindly, that Charles found in Camilla the mother he never had - which solves that mystery.

Georgiana was famous for her fashion sense and was a trend setter, explaining to her husband in one of their very brief and infrequent discussions that men have many outlets for their creativity, women only have hats and dresses. Remember the recent auction of some of Diana’s gowns -- many of which will end up in museums? Georgiana entered the political arena, supporting candidates of the Wig Party who were proponents of enlarging the freedoms of men, though slowly over time and not to all. Perhaps this was selfish of her, hoping to someday have the personal and political freedoms that men enjoyed. She campaigned much as celebrities do now, introducing candidates, rousing the crowds, associating her popularity with politicians. Diana was the first in her situation to demand a divorce, and her political activism (for one, to get rid of land mines) continues to this day beyond her death.

Both were Spencers -- Diana being a member of the same family. Couldn’t she see this coming? The very tag line to the film is “There were three people in her marriage,” a direct quote from Princess Diana given in her famous TV interview after her divorce.

Yes, the institution of divorce was available to men at the time. King Henry VIII started a new religion in England just for that purpose -- because he wanted current mistresses to replace his perfectly good wives and the populace was getting tired of all the beheadings of former wives. Check out “The Other Boleyn Girl” (2008), with a very similar story: nobleman (this time the king of England) doesn’t love his wife, is very cold and taciturn with her, and has, not only mistress after mistress, but loves them all more than her. Divorce is not an option in this film, unfortunately for his then-wife, Ann Boleyn, but comes later in his life. “A Man For All Seasons” (1967) tackles that issue Academy awardingly®.

Going into see "Forbidden Lies," we all expected another "Shattered Glass" story, and I love a good expose of journalists, biographers, reporters and their ilk being revealed as frauds. A film about either fabricating a story from whole cloth or embellishing to the point of loosing sight of the truth in toto and being found out is always good fun. Take last year's "The Hoax", for instance. Actually, that didn't seem very good sport since it was too easy to out Clifford Irving as a liar regarding his authorized biography of Howard Hughes; Hughes was still alive and all he had to do, and did do, was call the publisher and say he didn't authorize diddly.

Khouri - did she think she could get away with it?

Not only does the documentary "Forbidden Lies" enumerate countless (oxymoron) lies in the book "Forbidden Love," written by Norma Khouri, but juxtaposes countless interviews of Khouri with other journalists and relevant individuals who counter her every assertion.

Okay, she stands up to the onslaught of criticism, even taking lie detector tests. She does not retreat. "I am telling the truth," she avers and holds her ground. The 73 factual errors and her responses to attacks are fascinating, and forming an opinion of her veracity is not so easy. The question becomes how far from the facts can an author stray before the work becomes fiction? For example, if I wrote a book about my grandfather leaving Russia before the onslaught of the pogroms by the Bolsheviks -- his "Painted Bird" journey at the age of 14 from Odessa to Bremen, including the people who helped him, the people who betrayed him, stole from him, beat him -- my only actually knowing there was a pogrom and doing some research about the extant facts, would that be a biography or a fictional excursion into a time and place using my grandfather's name? Oh, I'd also have to change his name to protect relatives still living in Russia. Food for thought.

But the real kick in the head is where the investigation leads. I wouldn't take the delicious shock away from the future audience by even suggesting where it will go, but go it does until we almost loose sight of the causal book itself. Filmmaker Broinowski obviously takes more pleasure in revealing the onion layers of facts than forming an opinion and trying to foist it on the audience. Just know that the description of the film I give is only half of what is revealed about Khouri and her life. Hold onto your seat; it's going to be a bumpy ride!

“The Traitor” is a propaganda piece directed to all Muslims who would be persuaded by terrorist insurgents through the use of intentional misinterpretation of the Koran and the promise of an afterlife with 27 virgins to follow said insurgents’ orders to the death, literally, while said insurgents live the high life eating pork and drinking champagne. Hope it works.

This is a view of terrorism from the other side. Don Cheadle plays a stone-faced, Muslim, bomb expert, Samir Horn, whose father was a Sudanese and mother a Chicagoan, educated in the US and US military, and helping a terrorist cell that travels the world arranging for and committing acts of terrorism. Is he still a CIA operative, has he gone over to the other side? His reasoning and beliefs leave us guessing. I have to admit, I felt a little uneasy rooting for our hero as he blows up an American Embassy and develops ingenious plans for killing hundreds of people. Yet, I couldn’t wish him dead at the hands of FBI agent FBI Agent Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) either. Maybe Clayton could convince him to change his ways, maybe something, but I didn’t know what.

Any denizen of LGBT film festivals or those who seek out gay films have seen it several times before -- gay Asian guy in love with another guy is still forced by his parents to marry some poor, unknowing girl for appearances. We've also seen many films on male prostitution. It's possible that the Korean public is not as familiar with these themes as the larger population, so why not one more take on them? And this is certainly a strong contender for best in its sub-genre.

Han Lee and Young-hoon Lee working on their relationship

Song Jae-min (played by Han Lee) is a successful businessman from a prominent family who falls hards for, first, his limo driver, Su-min (played by Young-hoon Lee), whom he meets again the next day at Su-min's day job in the factory Son Jae-min's father owns, and then again at a male brothel where Su-min also works. This has to be kismet. Can't get him out of his face, can't get him out of his mind.

I have often wondered why any two people fall in love with each other in films other than to propel the plot. I don't get why Song Jae-min is obsessed with Su-min, who is a surly dude and not any more attractive than any of the other boys for hire. Maybe it's a Korean thing.

Anyway, Su-min is not allowing himself to fall for Song Jae-min. Between the difference in their socioeconomic status, education,career paths, and prevailing feelings toward gays in Korean society, Su-min knows any relationship with Song Jae-min is doomed.

There are a lot of issues in this film which keep the audience's interest high. It's interesting that the large influx of men from the country to Seoul can expect the only jobs available to them (especially in which they can earn a living wage) is prostitution. Hearing the other working boys' stories, one feels sympathetic toward these victims of a class/education caste system. There seems to be no social mobility, with education being out of the reach of rural or working class people.

It's pretty much the same all over when it comes to gays coming out, though. We in San Francisco forget that most of the world still won't accept homosexuality -- from family, to employment, to legal rights. If you want to see the worst cases of bigotry against homosexuals, check out "Jihad for Love," which is a documentary that explores the legal repercussions of being gay in Muslim countries. The Koreans have got it easy.

The plot of "No Regret" is not completely predictable. The denouement is thrilling, unexpected, and more than satisfying. It would be interesting to see how the Koreans respond to this film; where are they in the homosexual-acceptance scale? Since "The Host," a couple of years ago, I'm taking Korean cinema much more seriously. They have learned how to use techniques the masters developed in New Age French Cinema, they have developed a mature sense of plot and character, and they take chances. More, please.

I was blown away! I was expecting laughs and probably lots of low brow antics, but nothing like this. I was just going to girder my loins, sit through it like a trooper and enjoy the few jokes that weren’t based on the bathroom or human bodily functions. I couldn’t have been more wrong. It was really funny and not crass. Don’t worry, 17 year old boys and those who think like them. You’ll still love it.

Okay, so they all looking like they''re overacting here.
Top row: Downey, Black, Jackson. Bottom row: Baruchel, Nolte, Stiller

The plot is much more complicated and interesting than one might expect from the commercials and trailer. Egocentric, pampered actors in a Vietnam War action movie on location in the jungle get kidnapped. That doesn’t begin to tell all the facets and turns in their adventure -- and that’s not even correct.

It’s a spoof on Hollywood actors and their inflated sense of self-importance. Yes, but the subtlety and on-point satire of the humor is so many levels above Stiller’s previous works -- no jessum in the hair this time. And only one tiny fart. Stiller and Thoreux have matured into fine satiric writers.

Okay, the R word. Please, we can say retarded. It’s in the dictionary. The child’s pajamas were treated to retard flames. It means arrested, delayed, hampered, impeded, slowed down. It was an accepted medical term until nasty, little children in the school yard started using it as an insult. May more words go out of favor the same way, for instance -- bff. “You’ve got a bff, you’ve got a bff.” “Who’s your bff now, baby?” “Your mother is a bff!” See how easy it is.

First of all, the remarks made about retards were made to insult the speakers themselves and their insensitivity. Secondly, all of us, no matter what group, minority, disability we may have, should maintain a sense of humor about ourselves or we become pathetic. At least assess the context before getting insulted. I’m a Jew who has withstood the most foul, hateful language aimed against Jews by Nazis in movies since the subject was first broached (in TV reruns for the older films, of course). It was obvious the Nazis were the bad guys, not the Jews. I was offended by history and Nazis, not the actors, writers or film makers. This goes for all films exposing anti-Semitism or films with remarks made by anti-Semitic characters. Thirdly, the person who “portrayed” the retard was only revealing his poor acting skills. He was the brunt of jokes in the film, not the person he was trying to portray. Remember, as stated in the film, to do the job well, you will awards. He just didn’t and didn’t.

And sure, Robert Downey, Jr., was hysterical and point on as an Australian, multi-Oscar™ winning thespian playing a black soldier. Yeah, Downey is great. Okay. BUT Tom Cruise (unseen in the trailer or poster) is brilliant -- not because of his rampage, his diabolic manipulations of a situation, or even his “I’m on top, rich and getting richer” dance (all amazing), but because of a momentary gaze, eyes wide, mouth stuffed with a huge cigar, body frozen while assessing the situation and formulating a plan. Just one momentary gaze. It hushed the whole audience of raucous, over stimulated, sugar enriched, target audience members. I was impressed with all the actors, well, except Ben Stiller. He’s still doing the “comedy” acting schtick and it was funny. All the others, though, were really doing their characters, and doing them well. He had enough to do already, anyway and writer, director, producer. And Jack Black did tone it down a bit, but he was playing an over-the-top movie star famous for being able to fart on cue. How serious can he be?

There are lots of references to other films which are fun to find. Of course, Apocalypse Now. It’s hard to separate any war film from images of Apocalypse Now, but a few do stand out as specifically its own. Platoon. I found one for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I’m not a war movie fan and probably missed lots. See what else you can pick out.

Stiller has matured and his sense of humor, writing and directing skills were worth waiting for. This is one of the very few films I’d like to have a copy of for my archives.

My eyes were tacked to the screen the full 111 minutes. The breathtaking special effects were believable, or a tribute to the army of special effects crew who helped us suspended our disbelief. The action barely stopped for a breath, and it hardly repeated itself. You know what I mean -- high speed karate fight after fight, or beating up monster after monster. The variety and range of action never let the audience drift off into a hypnotic trance of flashing colors and repetitive violence.

A family reunion - mostly. Brendan Fraser, John Hanna, Maria Bello

Talk about being a minority; just as Kermit complained "it's not easy being green," it's even harder being red. And really, that's a major theme in this film. Unlike the mutants in X-Men, Hellboy and his cohort Abe, can't pass. When you see them on the street, you know they're there and you'd probably think they shouldn't be. And even if they're saving humanity from underworldly beings hell bent on eradicating from this tortured earth the ravages of wasteful, greedy, selfish mankind, not only is there no thanks, but they're subjected to outright antagonism. This time, Red is asked to make a choice -- beings like him who fester under the east end of the Brooklyn Bridge and Northern Ireland or the people who throw rocks at him. Hmmmm.

Hancock is a perfect name for a man suffering from amnesia. The nurse at the hospital where he was treated for a cracked skull and the ensuing amnesia asks him to put his John Hancock on the release papers and that’s just what he does -- a refreshing change from Doe. The odd thing about this Hancock is that the amnesia started 80 years ago and he hasn’t aged a day in all that time, and he can fly, and nothing can penetrate his skin, and he’s very strong.

This is a new and original take on the superhero, in this case, reluctant, anti-social and alcoholic. And he makes an awful mess when he goes about saving people in his usual booze-addled way. L.A. city government is thinking the cost is too high for the lives he saves - torn up streets, severely damaged skyscrapers, dozens of cars, many police vehicles, totaled. Hancock may only be liked by the few individuals he saves and hated by tax payers, police, politicians and the felons he apprehends.

I would have liked to understand why this gifted man stooped to the alcoholic depths to which he succumbed, but that’s asking too much of an action flick. It’s enough that he feels isolated due to his amnesia and super powers. Actually, Wolverine from “The X-Men” also suffers from amnesia and is anti-social. So, perhaps Hancock is not so unique. Except he’s black.

Years ago, Robert Townsend of “Hollywood Shuffle” fame once told me he was very disappointed because there were no black superheros. A black superhero would be a giant step in a more equally represented society and give a solid role model to black children. There was Damon Wayans “Blankman,” and in 1993, Robert Townsend fulfilled his dream by writing, directing and starring in “Meteorman.” There’s also Halle Berry’s Storm in “The X-Men” series -- strong, independent, fighting for right, but with the smallest part and no storyline of her own.

Now the biggest summer blockbuster star, Will Smith, gets the budget necessary to bring a black superhero to the fore. The world will finalize recognize, appreciate and add to the pantheon of superheros a black man! Hallelujah and amen.

Just having Will Smith portray the superhero in a megabuck summer blockbuster gives a bit of immortality to Hancock. Hancock will not soon be forgotten as were his brother predecessors. Probably only “Wild, Wild West,” out of all Will Smith films will be forgotten. Not a bad record. So, now Robert Townsend can rest easy. Sure, Hancock is a social misfit, blunderer and loser at the beginning of the film, but you must surmise he will do himself proud by the end. It is a Hollywood film.

The Hulk, either incredible or prosaic, is all about anger, rage and violence. That’s it. That’s what the audience, rich in testosterone, is lining up to see. Bruce Banner hiding out in Brazil and studying local marshall arts and diaphragm breathing to control his anger is going to get nowhere in his attempt to stop his “incidents” of hulkiness. If it did help him control is anger, rage and violence, you’d be watching an American version of “Dalai Lama Renaissance.” Also, there is absolutely no point in fettering the movie with plot. So, here’s the plot: The U.S. Army is going after Bruce Banner who is hiding from it. The extended plot would add the line: One of the soldiers wants some of the juice Hulk is on and gets it.

Bruce Banner (Edward Norton)
practicing techniques of control...

The contrast between the Hulk and his non-pumped counterpart is brought into sharper relief than ever. Edward Norton is truly the guy the other guys kick sand in the face of (pardon my grammar). Actually, so is his nemesis, Emil Bronsky played buy ever-so-slight-of-stature Tim Roth. No Eric Bana this time, just one slap in the face away from becoming the Hulk; even Bana’s facial features were still distinct in the green giant.

On the face of it, this is a documentary about a group of 40 innovative Western thinkers who come together under the banner of Synthesis to help the Dalai Lama solve the problems of the world. Really! And who are these people? Having seen this film, I still don’t know who they are. Sure, their names come up on the bottom third of the screen and probably a lot of people in their fields know and respect them, but in their positions today in world society, can they even influence those who have power? We have the publisher of Yes! magazine, not Time magazine. We have a theoretical scientist who is not Stephen Hawking or anyone who has won a Nobel prize. I was hoping to see a CEO who has turned green after a trip to the Arctic and has seen the error of his ways. Maybe a political advisor who has the ear of powerful public figures… But no. Even if this group came up with some good ideas, they couldn’t possibly effect change. And that is what bothers me about all Think Tanks. I’m sure all the world’s ills have been put to bed in theory, but people in power don’t want to hear about it and certainly won’t act upon them.

This brings me to my next point - hubris. Not to disparage this group of notable thinkers, and I say this with compassion. The idea is that when 40 really smart people from various disciplines like eastern and western religious studies, biology, philosophy, publishing, writing, etc., get together, their total will be greater than the sum of their parts. To imagine that any 40 people can solve the world’s problems in 5 days is, I repeat, hubris. Instead, we get to watch “big egos as fragile as egg shells.” By the end of the first day, they’re arguing over the hierarchy of the group and the structure and format imposed by the facilitators. It seems the loudest contributors get the most said. By the way, no one has yet to mention what the problems specifically are or what the questions should be answered. I never heard the words: greenhouse effect, totalitarianism, hunger, disease, greed. Days pass in varying degrees of conflict. When they get tired of talking about solutions to problems they haven’t yet defined, they argue over who gets to talk directly with the Dalai Lama. After all, they’ve all come a long way and don’t want to leave without at least voice-to-voice contact with His Holiness.

Fortunately, during these long, tedious conflicts, we get to hear wonderful Tibetan music, see traditional dances, wallow in the gorgeous vistas of this area, and familiarize ourselves with the culture of this exiled population.

Okay, finally there’s a meeting with the Synthesis group and the Dalai Lama. A couple of proposals are made: let’s boycott all Chinese products until Tibet is back in the hands of the Tibetans; let’s all fight evil in the world with the Dalai Lama as our leader. Let me just say, till this point, I was a little

There is always the risk when delving into the lives of women that the stories turn into soap operas or Lifetime movies. Once-prime-time stars and starlets past their primes find the only work now available involves plots in which, without warning, a husband leaves, almost always for a younger woman (though not in this case), our heroine can’t have a child or looses one, she finds her birth parent and has to adjust to this new personality she feels ambivalant towards, a new and perfect man intrudes upon her misery with passionate and politically correct, if not unconditional, love. So, I sat in the theater, arms folded across my chest, chin thrust forward with an attitude of “do better than that or go directly to cable!”

Salman Rushdie, Helen Hunt, Colin Firth and Matthew Broderick

What saves this film is really good portrayals by all the stars of charming personalities who are intelligent and witty. This is not a roller coaster ride, but a jaunt, a stroll, if you please, through a portion of a very nice lady’s life. Stability crumbles with painful disappointments and exhilarating new opportunities. This is how life goes, usually not all within a few short weeks, but movies tend to condense experiences. I care about April, played by Helen Hunt. I’m

Helen Hunt, always the love interest, the lead’s understanding help mate, the mother of the exception child, the constant and common sense of so many films in the last decade, has finally taken the reigns of her career now that she is of a certain age. She directs, co-produces, writes the screenplay for “Then She Found Me,” based on the novel by Elinor Lipman, and stars as a 21st Century Pauline, facing the perils so many women of our generation have to deal with: abandonment, the desire to have a child, mid-life dating, adoption and reconciliation with parents. There are no great insights here, no edge-of-your-seat moments, no guffaws, one tear (on my part).

This is the fodder of “women’s networks,” minus the disease, abusive husband, kidnappings, and revenge. This film is not out to do anything but show the daily occurrences in the life of an ordinary woman, a kindergarten teacher trying to have a family. The question is: is this an entertaining gimps or a boring rehash of what we all already know? Don’t believe Leonard Maltin who says men will like this movie. Don’t drag them kicking and screaming into the theater. Go with your girlfriends.

Like El Lawrence atop his camel, dressed in flowing white robes,
Spurlock seeks the ultimate enemy in the war on terror.

Along the way, Spurlock interviews many Muslims, all intelligent, charming, calm, lucid. Some are poverty stricken, some middle class, some educators and some government representatives. He approaches people on the street and makes appointments with officials None are suicide bombers, none call him heathen infidel and attack him with a saber. Almost all say they hate the government of the United States, but they don’t hate the people. Occasionally, we get the anti-American viewpoint, in response to which Spurlock looks pensive and contrite. Almost all reassure us viewers that they’re good people, just like us, who want to live in peace, who pray to the same God as Christians and Jews, who interpret the Koran as a peace loving doctrine that preaches love of ALL people as the children of God. I believe we got the majority opinion, if not representatives of the terrorist side. I couldn’t help wonder what was left on the cutting room floor.

If this film takes the pressure off Muslims in this country while seeking true solutions to the conflict, it’s more than done its job. Spurlock keeps the tempo fast and the jaunt fun and positive. You can’t ask more of one lone hero.

All you corporate heads, let this be a warning to you. Don't mess with the lady. The glass ceiling that limits the potential of women in the work place can cut you in the ass. As they say, "We're not going to take it any more!"

And here lies the backbone of the plot of Flawless. It's the early 60's, and Llaura Quinn (Demi Moore) is a loyal, talented and hard working employee of Royal Diamond, thinly veiled cover for De Beers. She has been skipped for promotion several times only because she's a woman, with lesser men taking the prize. Her ideas for company policy are so good, they have to fire her since only upper management should know them. She's even being blackballed from any company that has ever done business with Royal Diamond. Well, backed against the wall as she is, she has no alternative but to rob them of a few well-chosen diamonds and make a life for herself elsewhere. She reluctantly agrees to helpMr. Hobbs (Michael Caine), a janitor in the building who as devised a working plan for the heist.

There are requisite plot twists, tense moments of near exposure, a suave, a cunning insurance detective, and a lots of the unexpected turns, emotional and well as plot. Interestingly, the background tension is caused by protests by the public condemning the company for the exploitation of African miners, blood diamonds, inhumane conditions, monopolism, backroom deals with the Russians and even control of the British monarchy.

Michael Caine as the janitor and Demi Moore as
the corporate manager with no future conspire.

Obviously, times haven't changed. De Beers still controls the artificial price and sales of all diamond in the world. Queen Elilzabeth still only wears diamonds in public, having stored her rubies, emeralds, sapphires and other colored stones in a closet per agreement. Third world peoples who mine and cut diamonds are still being exploited. And women still don't earn as much as men for the same jobs nor proportionately hold high level jobs. Perhaps another heist is in the coming.

Just yesterday I was having a discussion with Kevin Robinson, the executive director of Medium Rare, about actors, and all people for that matter, who come from mixed racial families including Black, but identify with only the Black community. Kevin suggested that as a persecuted minority, Blacks are always looking for "brothers and sisters." True, but I also suggested that the white majority would segregate and/or identify people as Black if they had any Black blood in them, and to continue to identify oneself as Black with only partial Black heritage was to continue this racist practice.

The object of their affection, Thandie Newton.

Case in point: When Halle Berry won the Academy Award for "Monsters Ball," she held the Oscar high above her head and claimed this was for all black women. Quick cut to her white mother in the audience. I couldn't help but feel bad for her mother, nullified as a contributor to the talent, beauty and whole person Halle Berry is on International television to an audience of one billion. To ignore that she is half white is to not only be proud of being an African American, but also to submit to the guidelines drawn by plantation owners 300 years ago who would deny the kinship of their slave-mothered children.

Hank Azaria and Simon Pegg train for the big race.

Here's where I'm going -- "Run, Fatboy, Run" costars Thandie Newton (whose previous works include "Jefferson in Paris" in which she played Thomas Jefferson's slave mistress who bore him several children whom Jefferson freed after his death though did not publicly claim them as his children) as Libby, a pregnant woman left at the alter by Dennis, a slightly overweight and out of shape Fatboy played by Simon Pegg. In the wedding party are her Black mother, White father and white cousin. We skip to 5 years later and see Libby with her 5 year old son, apparently White. There is no mention of race, mixed marriages, social implications... nothing. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with inter-racial couples, their offspring and social ramifications of such. The characters just have that background. What a wonderful breath of fresh, unfettered air!

The movie is about Dennis, spurred on by Libby's relationship with a new man, successful, confident and loving Whit, played by Hank Azaria, to try to finally become responsible and hopefully get Libby back. The ultimate test is a running marathon between Dennis and Whit, and 10,000 others, along the Thames in London. Ergo, Dennis has to get in shape to run. David Schwimmer of TV's "Friends" fame does a very convincing job of capturing the flavor and humor of British comedies. I wouldn't have guessed a Yank, and a New York actor, yet, had directed. The movie is humorous, though not as hysterical as "Shaun of the Dead" (2004) or "Hot Fuzz" (2007), but it's hard to imagine what could be. All three films star and are co-written by Simon Pegg -- obviously a filmic power to be reckoned with. Perhaps zombies flicks ("Shaun") and murder mysteries ("Hot Fuzz") can follow more plot twists and turns than romantic comedies, but I found "Run, Fatboy, Run" pretty predictable, though the characters, especially Dennis, endearing. Special kudos to Dylan Moran as Gordon, Dennis' best friend and Libby's cousin. His performance as the gambling, womanizing rogue was in perfect counterpoint to Dennis' cloddish sincerity.

How little we know about the ones we love. In this post WWII suburban American, environment, long time married couple Harry and Pat seem to know nothing about each others true feelings and hidden lives. Harry (Chris Cooper) is deeply in love with a younger woman, Kay (Rachel Adams), but fears if he tried to divorce Pat (Patricia Clarkson), it would destroy her. Pat also has a younger lover (David Wenham) who truly makes her happy in a way Harry never could, but she knows Harry needs her. Let us not forget that Harry and Pat are a loving couple who are respectful of, and have deep feelings for, each other.

The perfect couple -- or are they? Cooper and Clarkson

How do they resolve their problems? Pat will keep her relationship a secret and just continue as she is -- secretly meeting her lover and being a good wife to Harry. Harry will save the pain and suffering Pat would face without him and poison her. Hmmmm. Dare I say typical gender solutions? By the way, I’m not giving anything away; the movie trailer says it all.

Add to the mix their best friend, Richard (Pierce Brosnan) who, though he’s been close to the couple for years, he is immediately taken by young Kay and forgoes any sense of loyalty to his friends to get her. Through “good advice”, “helpful, selfless acts” and maneuvering, he makes sure he gets what he wants. And even Kay, Harry’s naive, smitten lover, deceives and disappoints. Keep in mind, these are civilized, upper middle class, well adjusted, people who never raise their voices, and always try to see the other person’s side on every issue.

Brosnan, on the make for best friend's mistress, McAdams

This would be a very funny film, if it weren’t directed in a suspenseful, straight-faced manner. That is consummate dry wit. It’s brilliant! I will never trust anyone again because “Married Life” makes it clear to me that everybody lies so convincingly, everybody’s out for him or her self, and will say and do what’s necessary to spare the feelings of others while getting what he or she wants. Still, all the characters were so charming, genuine and good-intentioned, you have to love them all and hope that in the end, they’re all happy - the whole deceiving, murderous, manipulative, adulterous lot of them.

It couldn’t have been easy for this wonderful cast to play such low characters while maintaining the audience’s favor. Kudos to all of them.

Sayles has done it again -- writing about times and places of which he has no direct knowledge and doing it convincingly and compassionately. Back in 1983, Sayles looked into the heart of a Lesbian who finally understands and accepts herself and changes her life accordingly, decades before Lesbianism in films was accepted and certainly before the girl-on-girl kiss was mandatory, as it seems to be now. He also delved into Harlem and it’s day-to-day life, ironically through the eyes of an alien, in “Brother from Another Planet,” in 1984. Topics that have interested him have included government corruption in an industrial city, women seeking babies to adopt in Mexico, a doctor traveling through a revolutionary-torn country of no specific name (Spanish language film), exploring the Irish myth of seal people, giant albino alligators in the sewer system of New York City, the 1919 World Series Black Sox scandal, coal mining unionization, and many more diverse themes. He was even one of the screen writers on “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” His genre is all genres, and all with impeccable scripts (Sayles won the MacArthur Fellowship Foundation [genius award] in 1983) and sensitive, actorly directing.

“Honeydripper” is no exception. I get the feeling that this is a very respectful look into a community from the outside. Even if I didn’t know a white man wrote and directed this film, I would think an outsider had made it: maybe because the true anger by blacks towards whites isn’t there or the gritty approach taken by most black directors is softened and takes on a my lyrical quality.