Broadcast News

Here in 2013, we have something called the 24-hour news cycle. If something major happens, it is reported in minutes (sometimes seconds) and channels like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and countless others keep on reporting until something new comes up. Kinda terrifying in a way, don't you think? How do they do it? How do they manage it? Well, it may seem a little dated now 26 years later, but 1987's Broadcast News gives quite the look into the world of television news.

Working for a major news outlet's Washington bureau, Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) is an up and coming producer working behind the scenes. She's knowledgeable about an endless line of subjects and when it comes to working on deadline under pressure, there are few that can top her ability. Jane is close with one of her reporters, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), a similarly very intelligent field reporter, the two forming quite the news team and friendship beyond the news. They both worry about the future of the business, focus turning more to looks, pandering and emotion over news, especially when the news outlet hires Tom Grunick (William Hurt), a young, handsome anchor who's good at what he does but without the education, the background, the desire to tell the news. Basically....he's nice to look at. Jane starts to worry about herself having met Tom. She likes him, is drawn to him, but will she stand by her morals and beliefs or what she thinks she wants?

Written and directed by James L. Brooks, 'News' still resonates now in 2013 for anyone who's ever watched a nightly news broadcast, a breaking news story or even just wondered how it all comes together. It is smart, well-written and well-acted, a rare blend of drama and comedy (of the romantic variety too....uh-oh!). Voted by the American Film Institute as one of the funniest 100 movies of all time -- coming in at No. 64 -- the best aspect of 'News' is Brooks' script. It covers a lot of ground in its 133 minutes, and audiences ate it up, not to mention during the awards season when it picked up seven different Oscar nominations (including all 3 starring roles, best director, best picture) although it didn't win a single one. I thought Brooks especially deserved an Oscar win, but that's just me. Any-hoo, here we go....

It is rare to see a movie with characters who are both sympathetic, believable and unlikable all at the same time. That's life, huh? None of us are perfect, but we rarely see that in films as scripts call for very broad strokes to bring characters to life. A bad guy is a bad guy, a good guy is a good guy. It's pretty black and white. Not the case here. Hunter, Brooks and Hurt do phenomenal jobs bringing these characters to life. At different points you do like each of them, hate/dislike each of them, and root for each of them. Hunter's Jane wants to stand by her beliefs, but she's also a woman and wants to be seen as sexy too. Hurt's Tom wants to be good at what he does, but he's got some other issues he's working with too. Brooks' Aaron wants the fame and respect, but he wants to earn it the right way. He doesn't want any favors done for him. He's going to make it to the top his way.

Now here comes the issue I had. No, it's not a dealbreaker although it did threaten to bring the movie down a notch or two. Great characters, really well thought out script, and it resorts to.....a love triangle? Is there a lazier approach in a romantic comedy available to a scriptwriter than a love triangle? It makes it all seem so trivial. Oh no! Jane has an epic crush on the very handsome but all style and no substance Tom? Oh no! She also likes Aaron because he's good at what he does and is her neurotic, intelligent equal? Oh, the horror! In a movie that delves into the world of television news and does it so well, the script resorts to a love triangle? Because we like the characters, it's a tolerable plot device, but I resented its use just the same. To Brooks' credit, he doesn't wrap it up in tidy fashion with a bow. The final scenes feature a few reveals that show everything doesn't end up the way you think it would.

Those three performances dominate the screentime, but watch out for some good supporting parts. Jack Nicholson is buried down in the cast listing for his smaller part as Bill Rorisch, the legendary nightly news anchor who everyone at the bureau respects and idolizes. Robert Prosky, Joan Cusack, Lois Chiles, Christian Clemenson and Peter Hackes all star as different personalities around the bureau, studios and bullpen.    

As good as the characters are, the most memorable parts of 'News' are the set pieces. We see Jane and Aaron out in the field, working in the studio to get a piece done under a ridiculous deadline so the national news can air it, the in-office tension over how a package lands. The best part though is obvious, a breaking news story in Europe about an American base being attacked. Rushing to report the news, Tom is sent to the anchor desk, Jane in his ear guiding him through it, and a disappointed Aaron still helping out from home. It's a great look into the inner workings of the business in all its adrenaline, chaos and up-to-the-minute developments. It's a really good movie that I think could have been a great movie. Still, I liked it a lot, mostly for the 3-D characters who actually behave and act like human beings. Go figure.

Broadcast News (1987): ***/****

This Is 40

Released in 2007, Knocked Up was a more than worthy follow-up to director Judd Apatow's surprise success with The 40-Year Old Virgin. It was an uneven if funny flick with a whole lot of talent assembled and a decent amount of laughs. Apatow takes a few key characters from 'Knocked' and hits us with a quasi-sequel, 2012's This Is 40.

Married for 16 years, Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) are about to hit a big milestone....they're both turning 40. Well, Pete's turning 40, but Debbie refuses to admit she could possibly be 40 years old. Their marriage and home life have hit a bit of a rough patch as Pete's record label is struggling to find a niche while Debbie's boutique losing money by the barrel. Back at home, teenager Sadie (Maude Apatow) is mad at everything while younger daughter Charlotte (Iris Apatow) is just trying to grow up and not get killed by her sister. Both Pete and Debbie are struggling to find any sort of norm and with a whole bunch of problems from marriage to family to finances to work, nothing comes easy, and their marriage is paying the price.

Do you notice anything about the plot description? Well, my first thought upon finishing the movie and then starting the review that nothing about it screams funny. I get it. Life's inherent goofiness, craziness and uniqueness can produce some laughs from a natural place. '40' does have its moments. The cast is far too talented not to get some laughs, even if it was by accident. Those laughs come mostly in the meandering first half of the movie that introduces a whole lot of characters and a whole lot of subplots. It is funny. Apatow does know how to write characters and a solid script, but it also goes down a very dark route in the second half. The laughs are left by the wayside, and '40' turns into one depressing, not so enjoyable movie in the second half.

Key supporting players in Knocked Up, Rudd's Pete and Mann's Debbie get their shots at the lead roles here. While it isn't always funny (far from it), the comedic duo does have a very believable chemistry together. That's not always a good thing though for this longtime married couple who has seen their marriage lose some of its luster. Both are talented actors/comedians, whatever you want to call it, but at a certain point this movie becomes Pete and Debbie screaming at each other over and over again. Oh, and again. I haven't been married for 16 years -- I'm 27 as I write this -- so I don't know about all the good and bad of a 16-year marriage. It feels authentic because obviously marriage isn't a walk in the park. As this marriage though hits a rough patch, it ceases to be an enjoyable film. '40' is too downbeat for its own good, and even talents like Rudd and Mann can't save it from its own darkness.

As a director, writer, producer, Apatow is a very talented guy, and people clearly want to work with him. The supporting cast in basically all his movies illustrate that point. Jason Segel returns as Jason, Deb's trainer who's got a way with the ladies. Albert Brooks is a welcome addition to the cast as Larry, Pete's father who keeps borrowing money, while John Lithgow plays Deb's estranged father. Megan Fox shows she's got some comedic chops as Desi, one of Deb's employees while Chris O'Dowd and Lena Dunham (of HBO's Girls) play two of Pete's record label employees. Robert Smigel is memorable as Barry, Pete's friend.

So obviously a lot of talent is on hand here. At a certain point I got the feeling Apatow just ran with the premise that 'Hey, I'm working with (Insert Star's Name here)!' and didn't know what to do with himself. Oh, and there's more names so keep on reading. It's almost schizophrenic in its entirety. Brooks and Lithgow are somewhat necessary to the story. Other than that? Not so much. Segel is a trainer who wants to hook up with Fox who may or may not be stealing from Deb's store. O'Dowd is a goofy quasi-stoner who wants to hook up with Fox. Dunham makes a couple snarky comments. Smigel is perfect in deadpan fashion. There are too many storylines going on here from Deb and Pete's financial troubles, to a subplot with British rocker Graham Parker, to a drug-laced weekend getaway, to problems with the kids at school. Is this life? Yeah, in some fashion, but that doesn't make it a good movie.

The word that came to mind a lot as this movie wore on was 'self-indulgent.' '40' clocks in at a robust, far too long 134 minutes. With an episodic, drifting story, it goes on endlessly and could have been cut by about 40 minutes. The very funny Melissa McCarthy makes an appearance as a foul-mouthed mother, her improvised scene never ending (and uncomfortable to boot). Returning from Knocked Up, Charlyne Yi is ridiculously unfunny as the pill-popping Jodi, delivering a painfully awkward scene under the drug influence. Did Segel or O'Dowd even need to be in the movie? I wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't get on board with it. A huge disappointment.

This Is 40 (2012): **/****

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Airing for five seasons on CBS between 1959 and 1964, The Twilight Zone is one of the all-time great television shows. A mix of horror, science fiction, paranormal and all sorts of wackiness, almost all the episodes were able to deliver some shocker/twist in the end. It's been revived several times in TV reboots, and even received a big screen adaptation, the much-maligned 1983 Twilight Zone: The Movie, a film shrouded in controversy even before its release.

The story is broken down into four separate segments, including a prologue. The first segment follows Bill Connor (Vic Morrow), a despicably racist middle-aged man who finds himself in a variety of different situations where he's the one being prejudiced against. The second takes place at a retirement home where one of the residents, Mr. Bloom (Scatman Crothers) offers his fellow residents a chance at a new life of sorts. In the third, a young woman, a teacher, Helen (Kathleen Quinlan), is on a road trip west when she meets Anthony (Jeremy Licht) with a strange hold and ability to control his family. And last, John Valentine (John Lithgow), a man who hates flying, is on a cross-country flight and struggling mightily as the plane flies through a storm. Looking out the window, Valentine is absolutely convinced that something is out on the wing, tearing up the engine. No one else on board sees it though. Is he nuts?

I loved the original Twilight Zone episodes from creator/writer Rod Serling so I went into this movie with some at least modest expectations. As a result, I was more than a little worried as I watched the prologue, two men (Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd) driving at night on a road trip out in the desert. The tone was okay -- feeling like a set-up -- if a little odd, but a really stupid twist (supposedly a shocker?) comes completely out of left field. If it was supposed to be a shocker, it came across as laughable. Thankfully, it wasn't a complete harbinger of what was to come. For the most part, the movie does what it's supposed to do. It's creepy, unsettling and plays like a tribute to the original show. Is it perfect? No, not at all. Of the four segments, one is really good, two only good, and one really bad.

Beyond the actual movie, 'Zone' is known for a horrific accident that claimed the lives of three cast members on-set, including star Vic Morrow. Filming the movie's opening segment, Morrow and two child actors were killed when a helicopter crashed onto them after several explosions sent the helicopter out of control. There is actually some horrifically brutal footage of the accident via Youtube if you're curious. It's sickening stuff. The accident put the film in limbo, producers and the studio debating whether to continue with the film. The first segment's director, John Landis, took a ton of heat for the accident (understandably so), even getting through a lawsuit that ruled no one was at fault for the accident. With absolutely no disrespect meant to Morrow or the two child actors, a cloud hung over the film's production and eventual release. The opening segment with Morrow is one of the "only good" segments, but it's difficult to watch it without thinking about what actually happened in bringing this portion of the film to life.

Almost as a novelty, the four segments were divided by four different directors, Landis, Steven Spielberg, Joe Dante and George Miller. The odd part? Spielberg -- the most accomplished of the four by far -- delivers the weakest segment of the film by far. Apparently Spielberg was greatly affected by Morrow's death and debated even continuing the film. He did stick with it, but biographies claim the director just mailed in the effort, and it shows. While Crothers does a good job in his part, the segment plays like a happy go-lucky after school special. In other words? Nothing like the best Twilight Zone episodes, not even the average ones. Directing the prologue and the opening portion, Landis' parts are hit or miss. The Morrow story is good, but it had to be edited on the fly following Morrow's death. The end result is a rather abrupt ending.

Thankfully, the final two portions make up for the somewhat slow start. The Joe Dante portion is based off a Zone episode titled 'It's a Good Life' with the original star, Bill Mumy, making a quick appearance. Quinlan does a fine job as Helen, the young teacher thrust into something she can't even comprehend at first. 12-year old Licht is incredibly creepy as young Anthony, a boy with special powers. Also look for Kevin McCarthy and William Schallert in key parts. The highlight though is George Miller's segment, based off maybe the most well known and classic Twilight Zone episode ever, 'Nightmare at 20,000 Feet' starring William Shatner. Lithgow's performance as an obsessed, possibly paranoid airline passenger is the best performance in the entire movie. It is a truly unsettling segment, also delivering the biggest and best twist of all the four stories.

In the end, the TV show turned movie is a mixed bag. More than a movie that stands on its own, it plays like a tribute without a whole lot originality. Wrapping up at just 101 minutes, it covers a whole lot of ground. Could 15-20 more minutes have aided the cause? Maybe not, but it couldn't have hurt. Also listen for Burgess Meredith as the narrator, transitioning from story to story and keeping us mildly informed....as much as the Twilight Zone will allow!!! Imagine a dun-dun-duh!!! at the end of that statement.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983): ** 1/2 /****

Lost in America

Albert Brooks is a smart, funny guy. He's a writer, director, actor, comedian and producer, but there's one thing he ain't, and that's Hollywood. He goes years without acting, without making a movie, and he makes films and projects that he is interested in and wants to do. Take 1985's Lost in America, a comedy that grossed $10 million upon its release but has become a cult classic in the 20-plus years since.

Living in Los Angeles with his wife, Linda (Julie Hagerty), 30-something David Howard (Brooks) is living a pretty decent life. He's got a good job at an advertising company, is ready to buy a new house with Linda, and is confident he's about to get a well-deserved promotion and raise. Well, sort of. He is being reassigned to the New York office, and to be honest, David wants nothing to do with it, especially when he finds out a less-qualified co-worker received the promotion. He freaks out and is fired, but it's not all bad. With a nice little nest egg to their name, David convinces Linda to quit her job as they undertake a new adventure; RVing across the country at their own speed, the American dream. Well, that's David's plan at least. Almost immediately, things start to go poorly. Is the couple's dream going up in smoke?

This is an odd comedy to review, and I think 'odd' in a good way. It reminded me of some other classic comedies -- think combination of The Out-of-Towners and National Lampoon's Vacation -- but it's also very much it's own movie. For lack of a better, more specific description, it is a different road movie. At various points in the story, 'Lost' takes some almost bizarre turns. The tone is darkly funny, but there's also that part that is just....well, dark. If anything, I thought it was a little short at just 91 minutes. A whole lot of ground is covered in that somewhat short run-time, but there was a lot of potential for more. Maybe it's just because I liked the movie a lot and wanted to see more, but it felt like the movie was over far too quickly.

Much -- if not all I suppose -- of that intensely dark humor is from star-director-writer Albert Brooks at the helm of just about everything. His humor is different, no doubt about that. It is far from obvious and usually hinges on an audience appreciating his line deliveries or his facial reactions. His humor and laughs are both subtle and underplayed and big and aggressive, but they work both ways. How is that? A really subtle delivery, like his epically perfect scene with casino boss Garry Marshall, could not have been done any better. At the other end of the spectrum is the scene where David is reassigned and flips out. It's not a quiet, subtle response, but instead an explosion. It works though because it isn't aggressively loud. It's a smart explosion. Not Vince Vaughn ranting, but a controlled burn instead.

Playing longtime spouses, Brooks and Hagerty play off each other well. There is a believable, and more importantly, likable charm between the two actors. At different points, you want to slap both of them for their interactions and actions, but through all the craziness, they come across as a believable couple. Hagerty is nice incarnate, her Linda making one crucial mistake as the couple heads out on the road, Brooks' David responding in volcano-like, fireworks diatribes. Marshall's quick appearance is a highlight while Art Frankel has a small but memorable part as an Employment agent who sits down with David late in the movie. 

Sometimes the best comedy is the worst comedy. In other words, when the worst possible thing happens...it's damn funny. So picture this...a successful married couple leaves their stable lives behind to pursue an American dream of sorts. Surprising when it doesn't go according to plan (at all)? Nope, and that's where this Brooks-directed comedy rises above the rest. One thing after another gets thrown at the Howards to the point it becomes surreal. Brooks has a knack for making movies -- not just in the humor department -- and uses his camera in interesting ways that include long tracking shots and some perfectly edited cuts, including one that has the movie's funniest reveal late. The ending comes together quickly, but it works. The whole movie does. I just wish it had been a little longer.

Lost in America (1985): ***/****

Drive

Some movies defy descriptions. Is that good thing or a bad thing? It could go either way, but 2011's Drive most definitely leans in the positive direction. A throwback to the film noirs of the 1940s, a throwback to the crime thrillers of the 1970s, a love story, and one of the most graphically violent films I've ever seen. However I describe it though, I can say I definitely loved it.

Working for his friend, Shannon (Bryan Cranston), at his mildly successful garage, Driver (Ryan Gosling) lives in Los Angeles and leads an almost monk-like life. He works for Shannon, doubles as a stunt driver for Hollywood productions, but that's just the start. He also provides a unique service to any would-be criminals, working as a getaway driver with a very strict set of rules and demands. Driver more or less drifts along from day to day, that is until he meets Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, Benicio (Kaden Leos), his next door neighbors. His brief reverie is broken up though as Irene's husband is paroled from jail, and Shannon cuts a deal with a mobster, Bernie (Albert Brooks), to buy a used stock car so Driver can utilize his driving skills on a race track.

From Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, 'Drive' makes a risky choice that ends up paying huge dividends. This may sound odd, but this is a film that tries to be cool. It wants to be cool. It wants you as a viewer to think it's cool, and it tries really hard to get to that point. I usually resent movies that try so ridiculously hard to be so stylish, but for Refn, he succeeds on just about every level. It is cool. It is stylish. It's a freaking ridiculously cool movie. Drive is a film noir, a crime thriller, a love story, and an ultra-violent film that rips you out of your seats. I debated for months whether to check it out -- having heard some lukewarm reviews -- and I'm glad I finally sought it out.

Let's delve into that style some. Originally intended as a big-budget, blockbuster film, Drive was eventually released as a lower budget, far artsier film. Refn filmed on location in Los Angeles, and the visual look of the film is a stunner. This is where the art house tag applies to 'Drive.' It's colorful but takes advantage of shadows and light like a noir from the 1940s. Slow motion is utilized to startle and upset, to build tension in an insanely simple way. The opening title card is in hot pink, and oddly enough, it works. The soundtrack from composer Cliff Martinez has a New Age, ethereal feel to it (a la so many 1980s soundtracks). Listen to a sample HERE. 'Drive' also features a theme song of sorts, an odd but perfectly appropriate indie rock song called A Real Hero. It shouldn't work in the context of the story, but it does. The whole soundtrack has an odd appeal to it, a techno-electronica sound that feels like a throwback to the 1980s (yes, again), but it works. I loved the look, loved the music.

As for star Ryan Gosling, I'm not a huge fan of him as an actor, but this is a great performance from him. I think it's more than just the acting because in terms of words actually spoken, Gosling says about 121 words the entire movie. It's all reactions and expressions, physical movements and saying as much as humanly impossible with his eyes instead of speaking. I loved this character. We know basically nothing about him other than that he's a freaky talented driver and he utilizes in weird ways; as a getaway driver. His rules are simple; you get 5 minutes to pull the job -- no more, no less -- and he'll make sure you get away. He bonds instantly with Irene and her son, seeing potential for something there. What? Who knows. Other reviews point to Gosling's performance reflecting similar performances from actors like Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood. I'm hard pressed to disagree. You can act without giving huge, grandiose speeches (McQueen and Eastwood certainly proved that), and Gosling's acting is understated and simple. When he sees Irene and Benicio threatened, he comes to life. Does he see a release, an out, a happiness in them? Yeah, probably, but it's also easy to see himself. Maybe he was that little boy years ago.

Gosling's nearly silent, monk-like lead performance is clearly the role that makes this film special, but I loved all of the performances. Mulligan is a great counter to Gosling, a similarly understated, emotionally torn apart performance with young Leos representing himself well. Mulligan's Irene loves her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), recently paroled and owing some nasty people a lot of money. Enter Driver.  Brooks isn't a typical choice to play a villainous mobster, but his unlikely casting is a gem. His Bernie is typically an unwilling killer, but he'll do it just the same. Cranston's Shannon is probably the most human of all the characters, maybe Driver's only true friend. Ron Perlman is not surprisingly very intimidating as Nino, Bernie's partner in all sorts of nasty mob stuff. James Biberi is Cook, a gangster who gets set up with Driver and Standard with Christina Hendricks as Blanche, his moll. Also look briefly for Russ Tamblyn as Doc, helping Driver out of a jam. 

One of the more impressive things about this movie is the job Refn (and Hossein Amini's script off James Sallis' novel) does in completely throwing the viewer for a loop. The first 45 minutes almost lull you to sleep with long, quiet scenes that feature little dialogue. And then here comes the VIOLENCE! As fellow reviewer David J. Fowlie says, this movie is Michael Mann meets Walter Hill meets Sam Peckinpah. We're talking gory, over the top violence that is both startling and uncomfortable to watch while also hard to look away from. Heads exploding courtesy of a shotgun blasts, impalings on all sorts of brutal, blunt and sharp instruments, and several other deaths I don't want to spoil. I think this violence lands in heavier fashion than some ridiculously over the screen violence is that it's personal. I was stunned by how much I came to like these characters. The violence may be incredibly graphic (even cartoonish), but it is visceral in the same way. Go figure, but it ain't for the squeamish.

This is a film that could be analyzed scene-for-scene, but I don't want to get into the gory details from one scene to another. It reminds me of so many other movies, but it manages to create its own identity in the process. The story reflects a film noir, the style reflects so many crime thrillers, the music the 1980s, and Gosling's main character is straight out of a French crime story from Melville (specifically Le Samourai). I loved everything about it, and I like it more two days later having thought about it some more. The only thing I had an issue with is the final scene -- open-ended for your consideration! -- that is rather ambiguous. It's up to you for your decision so it's not a deal-breaker by any means. It all comes back to the Driver though, an anti-hero with no past, no real ties to the world, doing something because he thinks it's right.

A late scene spells it out, a bloodied Driver standing on the top level of a parking garage on the phone to set up a meeting to wrap up all the loose ends. It's filmed in the dead of night, the lights from Los Angeles lighting up the background as the two characters (no spoilers about who's at the other end of the phone) hash it out in a meeting that will no go smoothly. His Driver is a doomed character if there ever was in a great movie that flies out of the gate, settles in nicely and then sets you up time and time again before that ending. I loved it. Glad I caught up with it.

Drive (2011): ****/****

Out of Sight

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley.  They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/****