Best & Worst of 2009: Part 1

2009 was a rocky year.

As far as quality of movies go 2009 could be one of the weakest on record.

Funny, that the Academy Awards picked this year to nominate ten movies for best picture.

Sure there were the surprises, early in the year you had Liam Neeson’s revenge film, TAKEN, the summer’s THE HANGOVER and late summer’s DISTRICT 9.

Then you had studio hits like STAR TREK, HARRY POTTER, TRANSFORMERS 2 and PIXAR’S UP.

But to find deep movies that said something or challenged you as a viewer, they were few and far between. I did find that 2009 was also a celebration of genres. Sci-Fi, Action and comedy all saw amazing resurrections.

Over the next two days we will take a look at the Best and Worst of 2009.

#10 Taken

The movie came out of nowhere and became the best straight action flick in five years.

Sure it was released almost a year before in France and trickled out across the world.

But Liam Neeson fighting back to save his daughter really resonated with audiences. For me, it was like the 80s TV show The Equalizer was back but on steroids.

Why it makes the list: It proved that the action genre isn’t dead. And that a character actor like Liam Neeson can hold an action picture.

#9 Sunshine Cleaning

Two of the best actresses (Amy Adams & Emily Blunt) working movies today play sisters who open a business to clean up crime scenes so that they can send one of their sons to private school.

The movie is a true story and shows how valuable or troublesome family can be. Adams and Blunt are also both brilliant.

Why it makes the list: It is one of those diamond’s in rough. The reason it makes my list is because it marks the sign of the times, the recession has hit us all really hard and this movie shows us if we adapt we can survive.

#8 Star Trek
To ignore that Star Trek was a miracle is to be silly. It took a franchise that had 28 seasons of TV and ten movies and made it fresh. You would think that every story had been told and every angle pursued. J.J. Abrams proved us wrong.

Why it makes the list: We all had dropped a tombstone on the Star Trek franchise but the new film brought it back. 2009 was the year for Sci-Fi so it was perfect timing for Trek to be back. Also has Chris Pine, breakout star of the year!

#7 The Princess & the Frog

Princess and the Frog marked the third era of Disney 2D animation, it felt like so many of the late 80s/early 90s classics. It was also a reimagining of the classic tale of fairy tale told over a bowl of Southern Gumbo.

Why it makes the list: It makes my list because it gave me faith that 2D animation isn’t just for DVD. Here’s hoping they keep bringing us more like this one.

#6 Zombieland

What a surprise, another movie that changed the face of a genre. And when it comes to zombies that isn’t an easy task. This horror-comedy hit sprang from a dead TV pilot to be one of the most entertaining films of the year.

Why it makes the list: Woody Harrelson’s dynamic performance was one of the most memorable heroes of the year.

Stay tuned tomorrow for PART TWO

NEW TV: Coming in January

Demons (debuts Jan. 9, 9 PM, BBCA)


What It Is: Yet another supernatural show, with vampires, werewolves and the like. The twist here is that Luke is a descendant of Van Helsing and has to go all Buffy on the underworldly beasties.


Should You Watch: Probably not. It could be fun, but it could also be ridiculously silly. Then again, we said that about Vampire Diaries, which also turned out to be surprisingly decent.

Archer (debuts Jan. 14, 10 PM, FX)


What It Is: An animated spy series. Sorta like Alias, but with people out to betray each other at every corner.


Should You Watch: Maybe. It’s by the creator of Sealab 2021 and Frisky Dingo, it’s got a great voice cast (Jessica Walter, Aisha Tyler, Chris Parnell) and FX does good work. But we’ve already seen Team America and all the Bond movies, so we’re not sure we need this ‘toon.

Human Target (debuts Jan. 17. 8 PM, FOX)


What It Is: Christopher Chance is a bodyguard who becomes a human shield for his clients. 


Should You Watch: Yes. It’s got potential to be a fun action thriller, and it has Mark Valley, Chi McBride and Jackie Earle Haley going for it. It’s got to be better than Heroes… at the very least.

Life Unexpected (debuts Jan. 18, 9 PM, The CW)


What It Is: A cutesy drama about two estranged friends who have their lives turned upside down when the daughter they gave up returns after she emancipates herself from her foster parents.


Should You Watch: Sounds a little sentimental, but it has an old school WB vibe to it that reminds us of Everwood or Gilmore Girls. Definitely worth checking out.

Parenthood (debuts Mar. 1, 9 PM, NBC)


What It Is: Like Modern Family meets Brothers & Sisters, but based on the movie from the late ’80s.


Should You Watch: Yes. It’s got a great cast, including Lauren Graham, Peter Krause, Bonnie Bedilia and Craig T. Nelson, though Dax Shepherd makes us more than a little nervous. Here’s hoping NBC finally allows this be the hit it deserves to be!

The Deep End (debuts Jan. 21, 8 PM, ABC)


What It Is: Young, overworked lawyers trying to stay afloat and keep their jobs.

Should You Watch: Yes. Not the most original of premises, but it does star one Miss Tina Majorino (among others) and she’s got the potential to make this more fun than a typical legal drama. We hope.

Caprica (debuts Jan. 22, 9 PM, Syfy)


What It Is: A prequel of sorts to Battlestar Galactica, set on Caprica way back before the first Cylons were even created. 


Should You Watch: Yes. Even though the first preview episode that arrived on DVD over the summer was a little slow, this show should provide a BSG fix and shows just how evil humans can be, especially when they look like Eric Stoltz.

The Inbetweeners (debuts Jan. 25, 9 PM, BBCA) 


What It Is: A fish-out-of-water story about a teenager who has to transfer from private school to the crazy waters of public school. 


Should You Watch: This BBC show got good buzz overseas and we’re always curious about anything that could have a Freaks & Geeks vibe.

Past Life (debuts Feb. 11, 9 PM, FOX)


What It Is: A psychologist specializes in investigating the past lives of her clients along with her skeptic detective partner. 
Should You Watch: No. If we want to see The X-Files, we’ll just watch our old DVDs.

Sons of Tucson (debuts Mar. 14, 8 PM, Fox)


What It Is: Tyler Labine (who was recently Reaper’s resident slacker) is a schlubby guy who plays parent to a convict’s three kids for cash, in order to help keep them out of foster care. 


Should You Watch: No. It looks pretty generic, as far as sitcoms go, and while we enjoy Labine in sidekick roles, and we’re not sure we can handle him as the central figure.

Source: televisionwithoutpity.com

300 meets Rome in new cable show

Starz’s Spartacus: Blood & Sand looks basically a mix of Gladiator, 300 and HBO’s Rome. But probably more like Conan the Barabarian meets Gladiator.

Obviously, this has nothing in common with the classic Spartacus starring Kirk Douglas.

The network has so much faith in the series it has already green-lit a second season.

The series debuts January 22.

Weird Review: Darkness Falls

Ever wondered what happened to those teeth that you used to place under your pillow when you were a kid? Were they really taken by the “Tooth Fairy”?

As adults we know what really happens but in the sleepy town of Darkness Falls, a tooth fairy really does exist. Young Kyle Walsh even saw her one night and that almost cost him his life. But the light saved him. His mother wasn’t so lucky.

Flash forward twelve odd years and poor Kyle (Chaney Kley of Legally Blonde) has been ridiculed and bullied all his life about his Tooth Fairy claims. He has left Darkness Falls and tried to forget his life there but constantly on alert for the fairy. It takes a call from his childhood sweetheart Caitlin Greene (Emma Caulfield of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who asks him to come back and help her baby brother with his horrific night terrors. If Kyle is to resume his relationship with Caitlin, he has to face his greatest fear. The question is, is the fairy ready?

Darkness Falls plays a lot like a “Friday the 13th” or “Nightmare on Elm Street”. It is riddled with corny dialogue and jumpy scare scenes. The horror and fear, if there is any in this film, is in the sound and sound effects editing. If it wasn’t for that mastery this film would have been one of the corniest horror movies on record.

I was quite disappointed that even with Stan Winston’s genius the creature wasn’t at all impressive but almost as mundane as a black sheet on a wire. The final scene and the creature’s back story was all rudimentary and felt overtly contrived.

We need smarter and solider horror films are what we need. If one thing the horror series of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street taught us was that we need horror movies but you need to challenge a smarter audience each time.

With a running time less than 90 minutes I guess the filmmakers didn’t want to stick around very long. Now I can see why.

2 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: January 26, 2003

Retro Review: Flyboys

There have been so many movies made about World War II and so many of them are considered classics.

Films like “The Guns of Navarone”, “Midway”, “Dirty Dozen” and “Saving Private Ryan” are all considered classics of the war genre. But where are the classics when you talk about World War I and why hasn’t Hollywood given us more brilliant films about that conflict as well.

You have to go really far back before you can see classic films about World War I. The real classics about World War I were made before World War II struck American shores. You have classics like 1929’s “Wings” and 1930’s “All Quiet on the Western Front”. Both are fondly remembered as Best Picture winners but especially “Wings” since it was the first film ever to win an Oscar for Best Picture.

Like “Wings”, the infamous Howard Hughes directed epic “Hell’s Angels” from 1930 also electrified audiences with aerial combat sequences involving flying aces of World War I. But since those two films, flying aces from World War I have never really been explored again for mainstream audiences.

This brings us to “Flyboys” which reawakens the fascination with the flying ace and puts us back in the cockpit with the pilots as they struggle in death-defying aerial combat.

“Flyboys” tells the true story of the Lafayette Escadrille Flying Squadron who defended France during the early stages of World War I. The squadron recruited men from around the world to become fighter pilots.

Some of those men were Americans like Texas rancher Blaine Rawlings (played in the film by James Franco).

The film chronicles the story of the squadron as many men died as the newly invented airplane was commissioned as a war machine.

I have always been a fan of epic movie making. I marvel at the scope, grandeur and execution of films made in that scale. Hollywood seems to have lost the art of making the epic without bombarding it with an all-star cast, goops of CGI and no heart. Basically in recent years, many epics have been transformed from a grand-scale adventure film to a brainless popcorn movie.

For me, “Flyboys” reminded me of all those epics of yesteryear and how I used to embrace what they were. I also loved the fact that the film didn’t star any Hollywood heavyweights like a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and wasn’t directed by Michael Bay. The film felt quaint and passionate opposed to crisp and stylized. I loved the film’s vision and what tried to accomplish. If it were me I would say that it accomplished everything it set out to do in spades.

Except for James Franco and Jean Reno, I would say I found a lot of the acting to be wooden and sometimes forced but it also added to the flavor the film was trying to accomplish. Does it really matter if these actors aren’t professionals as long as the mood and passion is there?

The star of the film are the out-of-this-world aerial dogfight sequences that electrify the screen every time they are on. I know there is a lot of CGI up there but it didn’t really matter because it showcased how thrilling, daring and crazy those pilots truly were.

The film is directed by Tony Bill, who seems to be quite the Hollywood player. Bill produced the Academy Award winning film “The Sting” in 1973, has acted in everything from “Bonanza” to “Less Than Zero” to “Must Love Dogs” and has directed such underrated films like 1990’s “Crazy People” and 1993’s “Untamed Heart”. Bill has literally been doing everything in Hollywood since he arrived in the early 1960s.

I really loved “Flyboys” and I really think that Howard Hughes would have been proud if could have seen this film.

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Showtime

Do you remember those great “buddy-cop-movies” of the 80′s?

You know the kind of movies where there is always this “by-the-book” cop is partnered with some heavily flawed comic relief partner. In the 80′s, they tried this formula every which way they could.

There were styles on the genre ranging from totally comedic to heavy-action content. The ones that succeeded were the ones that were able to blend comedy and action seamlessly. Some of those success stories included “Lethal Weapon”, “48 Hours”, “Red Heat” and “The Last Boy Scout”.

In “Showtime”, it’s a new millennium and Hollywood has decided to revisit the genre with a new spin. Why not partner up the old reliable “buddy-cops” on a “reality-based” TV show and let the sparks fly.

In “Showtime”, Robert DeNiro stars as Mitch Preston, a “not-always-by-the-book” cop who finds himself front-page news when he shoots the camera out of the hands of a news channel cameraman.

Preston impresses Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), a news channel producer with his no nonsense and attitude to police work. Renzi pitches her idea to her boss and then begins to sculpt a show around Mitch.

The only problem is that Mitch needs a partner on the show and in steps “aspiring-actor-and-cop” Trey Sellers (Eddie Murphy). There is a lot heat between Mitch and Trey which makes Renzi drool. We have the perfect setup for a classic “buddy-cop” movie.

“Showtime” revisits the classic formula of “buddy-cop” films but with unique direction. This new direction comes from the reality-based angle and chemistry associated with DeNiro and Murphy. This chemistry is the foundation for the film. The film also capitalizes on a cameo appearance of William Shatner who pokes fun at his 80s cop series “T.J. Hooker”.

It would have been even funnier if they could have thrown in Heather Locklear with Shatner to keep the Hooker jokes going. There should have been more Shatner moments.

Eddie Murphy shines as Trey Sellers as he returns to his “delightful-in-your-face” comedic presence that probably hasn’t been seen since “Beverly Hills Cop 2″. Murphy does what he does best when he fleshes out Trey. His panache and “on-screen” energy has never been fully explored in the past five years and it’s so refreshing to see him return.

Most of his greatest moments come when he starts showing off for the camera. It is totally “classic” Eddie and I have so missed “classic” Eddie.

If you love Axel Foley or miss the Eddie we lost in the 90s then you will love “Showtime”. Now if only he could drop the “Dolittle” and the “Professor”.

DeNiro’s continuation into comedy doesn’t make him the showcase of this piece but it does make him one of the better straight men in comedies today. DeNiro plays it straight a lot like he did with the gangster he played in “Analyze This”. I have enjoyed all his comedic turns but I have always thought that “Meet the Parents” was his best comedy.

With sequels to “Analyze This”, tentatively titled “Analyze That”, and “Meet the Parents”, tentatively titled “Meet the Fockers”, DeNiro has carved himself out a new career.

I will be excited to see how DeNiro will be able to flesh out his characters more in those sequels.

The plot and scenario of “Showtime” reminded me a lot of the 1991 “cop-buddy” movie called “The Hard Way” which starred Michael J. Fox and James Woods.

Fox played an actor researching a part for an action movie and is teamed up with hard-boiled and tough-as-nails street-cop Woods. The chemistry of Fox and Woods in the film is very much similar to Eddie and DeNiro in “Showtime”.

“The Hard Way” didn’t work as film because the film went way to serious and drowned out a lot of the comedy.

It was more of a wake-up call for Fox’s character then a comedic adventure. This failure is cured in “Showtime” because of the comedic side of the “reality” series in the film.

In some ways I liked the “The Hard Way” more but “Showtime” really does take this style of plotline and do it justice without killing the film by taking itself too seriously.

I liked “Showtime” mostly because it returned to a genre I have always loved. Then throw in the return of “classic” Eddie and you have a comedy is well worth your bucks.

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: March 18, 2002

Retro Review: Dreamcatcher

Horror-meister Stephen King takes another stab at science-fiction with a tale about aliens among us. With an unpredictable director like Lawrence Kasdan at the helm of the film it could be anywhere from the brilliance of the first two “Alien” films to the idiocy of Ed Wood’s “Plan 9 from Outer Space”.

“Dreamcatcher” refers to the Native American charm that wards away nightmares while its owner sleeps. Four childhood friends, Henry (Thomas Jane), Jonesy (Damian Lewis), Pete (Timothy Olyphant) and Beaver (Jason Lee), reunite for their annual weekend in a hunting cabin. The foursome reflects back upon their lives and their unbelievable encounter with a “special” friend named Duddits (Donnie Wahlberg).

When a half-frozen hunter stumbles into their camp, Jonesy and Beaver try to nurse the hunter back to health. Unbeknownst to the guys, an evolving evil is swelling within the hunter that is surely to seal their fate.

Meanwhile Henry and Pete encounter a woman with the same symptoms as the hunter and the whole situation could be connected to a contagion sweeping the surrounding area.

Military officials Col. Abraham Kurtz (Morgan Freeman) and Capt. Owen Underhill (Tom Sizemore) have been summoned to contain the contagion before it spreads.

What do the woman and the hunter have to do with the contagion?

And furthermore what does all this have to do with an alien presence?

“Dreamcatcher”, the film jumps all over the map as it seems to suffer primarily from a massive identity crisis with way to many characters.

Where the previous Stephen King theatrical adaptation, “Hearts in Atlantis”, had to little characters this one has double and in some circumstances triple the amount of characters it needs for this film’s running time.

You can plainly see that this should have been one of those giant multi-night King mini-series adaptations not this two-hour version.

The film is non-linear in its execution which makes it hard to follow. For most of the film you have to scratch your head to follow what is exactly going on.

Why is this connected to this? How does this element meld with this part? Where or what exactly do all the people come from that the army rounds up? Does Kurtz know more than his dialogue allows? The largest question you will probably ask yourself is, “did I miss something or is it just me?”

There are some scary and brilliant horror elements in the film like the infamous “bathroom” sequence. The sequences that did make sense and when the film allowed itself to be purely horror or sci-fi were quite enjoyable. There just wasn’t enough of those to really warrant devoting yourself to care about anyone.

Kasdan tries desperately to be clever with his characters but he should have decided which he wanted to come off as 2-dimensional and what others were the main ones of his film. I felt that it really wasn’t solely the director’s fault because you can plainly see huge chunks missing in making it an understandable story.

This film is a pure example of a novel-adaptation that has been diluted into an insane running time.

2.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Written: March 28, 2003

Retro Review: Secret Window

Macabre master Stephen King always loves to play with our minds. One of his infamous headshrinker short stories has been sculpted for the big screen.

In his short story, “Secret Window, Secret Garden”, author Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp) is going through a miserable divorce and even worse he is crippled by a mean streak of “writer’s block”. Rainey can hardly concentrate until a stranger appears at his front door.

The man is John Shooter (John Turturro), an infuriated Southern writer who claims that Rainey is guilty of plagiarism and he will stop at nothing to set the record straight. How can both their manuscripts be identical? Furthermore how far is Shooter willing to go to torment Rainey into submission? Are Rainey’s ex-wife (Maria Bello) and her new lover (Timothy Hutton) at risk? Does Rainey care at this point?

The sculptor behind “Secret Window” is veteran screenwriter David Koepp who has penned huge blockbuster franchises like “Jurassic Park”, “Mission: Impossible” and “Spider-Man”. What seems to be the key to Koepp’s success is how he is able to breakdown a novel or graphic-novel into a strong screenplay which such finesse. Some of his treatments have been utterly brilliant.

His adaptation for “Secret Window” is one of those brilliant scripts. He has laced the main character Rainey with a sarcastic, explosive wit that is sure to tickle anyone’s funny bone.

I also loved how the script called for Depp to be alone a lot of the time but we never got bored with him.

This gave the film an almost live theatre presentation. I also really enjoyed the script for its embracing of the writing process.

The script reminded me so much of my own pitfalls and successes as a writer. That was quite fun.

In the mid-90s, Koepp even directed some of his own scripts like “The Trigger Effect” and the much underrated “Stir of Echoes”. Koepp’s eye and fluid sense of direction seems to grow with every project.

In “Secret Window” that flowing direction breaks new barriers. I loved how Koepp was able to blend a lot of elements seamlessly as he would cascade around a room. Koepp’s attention to detail is so interesting to watch.

Watch for little details like what the Rainey character has half-open on his coffee table. Aside from the interesting work of Koepp and a once more brilliant performance from Depp, “Secret Window” does have some flaws.

As the film progressed I found that the plot of the film reminded me of another Stephen King adaptation, 1993’s “The Dark Half” which uncannily starred “Secret Window” co-star Timothy Hutton. Was it on purpose that Hutton was cast?

The reasons for my recollections were mainly due to the fact that the stories seemed to mirror each other in some ways.

Both of the stories starred an author who is having troubles with his past and family. Without giving the films away the endings are quite similar in a lot of respects.

The crazy thing is that both film adaptations were vastly different, “Dark Half” was very dark while “Secret Window” is quite light with creepy undertones. I did like“Secret Window” better because of how the project was approached. We actually like the lead character in this story.

According to Stephen King’s website, King wrote “Secret Window” after “Dark Half”. Do these two stories have a common thread on purpose? Did one influence the other?

Aside from the strong case of déjà vu, I really enjoyed “Secret Window”. The humor, cinematography and crafty direction made it a joy to watch. Depp and Koepp make for an interesting viewing.

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Retro Review: How the Grinch Stole Christmas

One of the most beloved Christmas tales is updated so it can become a live-action extravaganza.

Will Hollywood destroy the classic tale or bring new depth and delight to this fairy tale?

Jim Carrey stars as the “Grinch” an angry confused being who perches atop a mountain looking over the small town of Whoville. As the classic story goes the Grinch despises Christmas and one Christmas he decides that he will spoil it for all the people of Whoville by stealing all their Christmas goodies.

As a child, I always enjoyed the classic cartoon telling of the Grinch and I was quite skeptical when I saw this modern adaptation. As far as I can tell this film can be broken down into four sections. The first being the film’s core story, the second and third are the good and bad parts added to that story and finally the overall look of the film itself.

The main problems I had with the film were the “Hollywood additions” to the story so that the film would be extended to a feature running time.

Some of these additions blended perfectly into the Grinch mythos while others left me wondering if they were really necessary. Some of the additions that I liked were baby-Grinch, and some of smaller Jim Carrey jokes. The Baby Grinch is adorable and in some circumstances it was delightful for the film to uncover the origins of the Grinch. I liked that whole idea except for one circumstance involving a female Who which I will get into later.

My favorite part of the film was young actress Taylor Momsen, who plays Little Cindy-Lou Who. She is adorable and precious. It’s through her eyes that we see the Grinch and Whoville. She is the heart of the picture and in some scenes I am not sure the film-makers remembered that. I loved seeing how much depth one so young can give forth and on top of that she can also sing too. She is definitely the hi-light of the movie.

The one of the additions that left me scratching my head were the idea of the Grinch having a love interest. Was it necessary for the film to add a childhood sweetheart to the Grinch? I think this whole idea robs the story of its purity and adds a more realistic side to the idea of Whoville. This is a fairy tale, people!!

It was cool to show why the Grinch hated Christmas but why link it to an old flame. What’s next giving Jolly Saint Nick an ex-wife? Or Rudolph, an illegitimate son? Other addition problems included a lot of the slapstick scenes that didn’t have anything to do with the fairy tale idea. (ala Grinch running from tiny exploding car. Why was that necessary?) Most of those scenes were vintage Jim Carrey but definitely not Dr Seuss.

My final comments surround the whole look of the picture and how it tried so hard to captivate the world of Dr Seuss.

I loved the aspect that they made the people of Whoville a cross between an elf and a rat. They are Whos not people. Also you have to commend Rick Baker for coming up with all the magical characters to fill this fairy tale world.

He definitely nailed the look and brilliance of what Dr Seuss dreamed up. In the cartoon all the Whos are naked fuzzy people but in some ways the special effects team added to those characters by giving them houses and clothes. Wonder what the Doctor would have thought of these Whos?

To wrap up, I have heard from some people they have a problem with Jim Carrey being completely covered in latex but if he wasn’t it probably would have made the whole Who world a little weird. Carrey’s springing, obnoxious and multi voiced ability did allow the actor to rise above all the latex in his performance. Was it just me or did the Grinch’s voice sound something like a bad Jimmy Stewart impression?

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: November 17, 2000

Retro Review: Family Man

Is it a revisiting of the classic Jimmy Stewart “It’s a Wonderful Life” or a brilliant attempt at making one of the most engaging Christmas movies?

“Family Man” tells the story of a stuffy Wall Street investment banker (Nicolas Cage) who believes he has everything he could possibly dream about.

On Christmas Eve, he gets a phone call from his college sweetheart which he ignores.

Upon walking home from the office, Cage runs into a man (Don Cheadle) who confronts him on his beliefs (It is basically fate). Cage returns to his luscious penthouse and falls asleep.

When he awakens he is shocked. He has a woman (Tea Leoni) wrapped around his waist and two rug rats running into the room. He jumps up and runs out the door. He vigorously drives back to the city where he tries to get back to his penthouse.

A familiar man (fate again!) asks him to take a ride. Fate tells him what he is experiencing is a “glimpse” at what could have been. What life would have been like if he would have made a life with his college sweetheart. How will this experience change his life? Would this life have been better? Could the two worlds coexist together?

This little film could be the greatest relief this Christmas season has to offer.

It’s enduring, captivating and it will make you smile and cry at the same time.

It’s really nice to see Cage leave his action and dramatic roles for something this enduring. I also do have faith that Tea Leoni may have a longer career than her husband, David Duchovny. She is so full of life here.

The film’s clichéd ending is a little predictable but from the moment the “Fate” character spoke you knew it would end up this way. I liked the subtle change between the two worlds and this aspect made the plot a little more realistic. I could feel the audience cringing and screaming for the “family” world to never leave the Cage character.

While watching the third act of this film I was reminded of the fantasy film, “Somewhere in Time” where a man wills himself back to the 1920s to be with the woman he loves. That film ended brilliantly and shockingly.

I cringed at the thought “Family Man” would do the same. The ending “Family Man” has now celebrates the holidays but was it really the best ending.

Enduring and subtle is the best way to describe this little movie. It’s nice to see that Hollywood can still make holiday films with heart.

4 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: December 4, 2000