Quinn (Demi Moore). Grappling with her hopeless attempts to climb the corporate ladder, sexism is a salient theme that profoundly frustrates the solitary heroine. As soon as the geriatric janitor named Mr. Hobbs (Michael Caine) enters the film, twists and turns abound as Hobbs reveals a scheme to eradicate the injustices of such sexual discrimination. Hobbs devises the collusion, convincing Quinn that the small heist will go unnoticed. The two agree that Hobbs will take home only a thermos full of diamonds, that is, as soon as Quinn provides him with the code for the vault.

Michel Radford, the award winning director who speaks four languages and has worked on films such as "Il Postino" and "The Merchant of Venice," does a remarkable a job of capturing the diamond industry and the time period. The film alludes to the Cold War and the struggle to outsmart the Russians in South Africa. Similarly, Radford adeptly demonstrates the security measures of the early 1960s, revealing how primitive and flawed the system systems once were.

Demi Moore's best attempt at a British accent is hardly convincing, but the narrative explains that she is in fact an American who was educated at Oxford before obtaining a position at the London Diamond Company. She is overlooked for a promotion that she rightfully deserves and upon hearing this, we see her writing a note to herself swearing to not give up no matter what. While the message on the card may seem a bit contrived, the performance by Moore is rather believable. As Moore explained in an interview, "(The character's) real fear is that she is replaceable." Moore's character is extremely ambitious and because of the fact that her work is not given its due credit, a sense of bitterness brews within her.

Sexual discrimination is ultimately what drives Quinn to violate the principles that she once steadfastly embraced. Radford noted that "not until 1972 in the realm of business was there ever a woman executive or even one in any kind of managerial position." The director clarified that such oppression is unfathomable when compared with modern day business practices.

In addition to Moore's corrupted character Miss Quinn, who is clearly the protagonist of the film, Mr. Hobb's story is one of intrigue. Caine commented that this film is "about the other 60s and the people you didn't see in the papers and on the telly." He continues, "A janitor wouldn't know the 1960s from the 40s or the 50s." Caine's character is vital to the operation as his position as the janitor allows him to carry out the robbery. Caine who claimed that audiences will love the character because he is an "underdog," was inspired by his mother for the role. His mother was a cleaning lady at the House of Parliament and always used to tell her son, "You never notice the cleaners."

The films greatest strengths are the chemistry between Moore and Caine as they are two desperate souls in different stages of life who reluctantly join forces. Caine is witty and charming; his cool and confident demeanor seduces Moore. Moore's character is lonely, exhausted, and longs to feel empowered and Caine reels her into a plan that seems flawless. Of course, Caine is not entirely forthright about the extent of the heist. Consequently, the massive swindle gives Moore's character ample reason to panic, especially as a friendly investigator begins to breathe down her neck.

While Radford's film is quite entertaining throughout, the infusion of morality and idealism is a superfluous touch that perhaps diminishes the film. Caine's character is rather dynamic as his likeable persona becomes belligerent and unscrupulous when Moore's character threatens to expose the whole operation.

Instead, Moore's character is first introduced in the movie as an elderly woman with an epic story to confess to a budding journalist. Much like the "Titanic," this sort of bookend treatment of the old woman who looks back on her own life is somewhat cliché and quite ineffective. Moreover, the idea that a caper film should turn into a Robin Hood tale of generosity ("Are you going to be a giver or a taker?") is certainly a stretch and poorly inserted at the end. These idealistic notions aside, the film is a no-frills heist film that entertains.

'FUNNY GAMES'
THIS YEAR'S MOST SERIOUS BUSINESS
By Sean Chavel

Shocking! Revolting! Sadistic! Sick! Funny Games is the most interesting movie experience I've ever had that's not necessary to sit through the entire thing. Because I have a morbid curiosity to see how things turn out, I'm too riveted to stop watching. Even if the closing scene is an arbitrary plot note. This film isn't about plot anyway, it's about artistic statement.

This is also the only time I've ever heard a director - in this case Austrian's Michael Haneke ("Caché") - declare that if audiences were sane that they should walk out early from his own movie. Haneke is a bit of a whack job, but he might actually be serving a good point. "Funny Games" is a domestic "thriller" where two preppy sociopaths, portrayed by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet as boys in white, tease and terrorize a family of three, led by Tim Roth and Noami Watts. Except this really isn't a thriller, it's a realistic nightmare of authentic sociopathic terror - in other words it's not fun. "Funny Games" is really an attempt by the director to make his audience look back at themselves and force us to consider why we're so drawn to blood-soaked entertainments.

We've been long desensitized by digestible violence that it takes something extreme like "Funny Games" to jolt us. At the beginning, one of the sociopaths (Corbet) comes over to the wealthy family's lake house to borrow some eggs. He accidentally breaks them, as well as the house phone, and continues to find ways to protract his stay. His accomplice (Pitt), really the leader of the two, comes over to intrude. They overstay their welcome, obviously, but when Watts asks the two boys to leave they flip it around and accuse her of being rude. Before they are all too aware, one of the boys uses a golf club to paralyze Roth's leg. It's really a planned-out charade as the boys continue to harass their family, occasionally using violence to placate the family.

"Funny Games" is a shot-for-shot remake of Haneke's 1997 film, and it's the most identical remake that I've ever seen - every composition and agonizing pace of the movie is the same, ditto the dialogue, plus it's shot at the exact same lake house location. The main difference here is that you get to watch the movie in English, and that Susanne Lothar is a superior actress in the part of the mother - she had flushed eyes that were unforgettably swollen when she was victimized and humiliated (at one degrading moment, she is asked to disrobe by the boys so her body can be judged).

Watts nonetheless is an efficient actress that has all the abilities to play vulnerable, terrified, and empathetic towards her family's safety. Still, I'm bemused as to why Watts would want to take on such a difficult, aching and unrewarding part where she's reduced to being a guinea pig. The 10-year old son in the film, played by Devon Gearhart) delivers one of the most realistic child performances I've ever seen, even though he's reduced to just being a terrified boy uncertain how to defend his parents.

The family is toyed around, mostly just subjected to the boys' jabbering, certain that it's just an instance of them being robbed. But the sociopaths make a bet with them: That they'll be dead by 9 a.m. the next morning. Can they survive the night? There's no motive behind the contest, the boys consider killing games is for kicks. But they give the family a fighting chance. Nevertheless Haneke warps our expectations - he has actor Pitt break the fourth wall and talk to the audience about what he thinks our idea is of decent plot development. And there's even an occurrence of Haneke rewinding the film so we can watch the "dread" a second time.

For a film this upsetting, it's sort of amazing that all the extreme bloodletting is done off-camera. That's right, we don't see the first pivotal moment of blood drawn first-hand. There's even a case of the boys deliberately stepping out of the house to let the family dwell on their mistakes. It's an important sequence where Watts basically holds our attention for approximately eight minutes, just wallowing in despair. It's agonizingly long, which is the point, that real grieving in real life isn't done quick and then a cut to new plot scenery. Real grieving can take several agonizing long minutes before a person can pull it together. At the audience I sat with, there was hardly a whisper as the audience sat there riveted, maybe numbed, for several long minutes of nothing happening.

Once in awhile a film comes along that severely punctures its audience and wakes them to how violence really is horrible ("Elephant," "The Pianist," "Audition" are other examples of violent films that shake you up). "Funny Games" is another one of those wake-up calls. Action stars like Jet Li, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis serve up entertainments where violence is palatable. "Funny Games" subverts the thriller genre by showing how media portrayal of violence is not something to laugh about. "Funny Games" is a fascinating endurance test for anybody with a high tolerance level.

See How Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
By Crystal A. Johnson

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is delightful, sophisticated and boasts of a brilliant cast. Academy Award winner Frances McDormand provides a subtle and vulnerable performance. Amy Adams is solid, but the high pitch of her voice kept bringing visions of her performance in Disney's "Enchanted" in mind. The only other minus in regards to the film is one slow talky section near the beginning by McDormand who plays Miss Guinevere Pettigrew and Adams who plays Delysia Lafosse. The scene was stagnant and the dialogue was a bore. After one gets through the 10 minute stretch of lackluster dialogue, the rest of the film is quite enjoyable. It will transport you to pre-World World II England where the threat of war is in the air. McDormand is a governess, who stumbles into Delysia's high society world for a day.

In the world of the beautiful Delysia, an aspiring actress by day and lounge singer by night; there are men. She can't resist them. Thus, she employs Miss Pettigrew under the decoy of "social secretary" but she really needs her as a bodyguard from her own insatiable desires. Three handsome and talented actors play opposite Adams. Newcomer Tom Payne plays a powerful young producer with Delysia's professional fate in his hands. Payne is fresh faced and easy on the eyes. Then a mature leading man is found in Mark Strong. He is the resident bad boy night club owner. However, the true stand out among the bunch is Lee Pace who plays Michael the nightclub pianist. He manages to engulf the viewer with an array of unspoken emotions. His eyes pierce into Delysia's soul but he is the only poor suitor in the lot. When he opens his mouth with witty yet endearing banter, he confounds Delysia as she tries to juggle three men which suit her in different ways.

Despite trying to steer the young Delysia in the right direction in the love department, Miss Pettigrew bumbles and fumbles in the area of love. Although the apple of Miss Pettigrew's eye is engaged to the devious fashion maven played by Shirley Henderson of the Harry Potter films. Henderson is a scene stealer in her wickedly snobbish portrayal as the on and off again fiancé of Joe, a successful women's lingerie designer. The incredibly charming Ciaran Hinds plays Joe. The understated performances between McDormand and Hinds are some of the best in the film. The chemistry emits tenderness between two people who couldn't imagine ever finding true love at their age. It is so refreshing to see a developed love story provided for seasoned actors.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day also accomplishes reflecting the timeless traditions of the entertainment industry. Sleeping your way to the top, vanity, and the concept of trying to be something that you are not are the running themes. Instead of focusing on Hollywood, London's West End of 1939 is where the story takes place. A some what honest decent type of person like Miss Pettigrew is a novelty.

Beyond the actors, the music provides an authenticity to the feel of the movie. Adams lends her vocal talents to this movie as she did in Enchanted. Her star seems to be getting brighter and brighter. The big band music is also a treat. The sounds of drums and horns lend to layering a sense of the period. The music also seems to heighten the adventure of Miss Pettigrew's day.

Although, somewhat predictable the film still manages to execute curves in the story well. The story takes time to build. In spite of many of the supporting characters being written as flat characters, the cast performances flesh them out beyond what is written. The casting is extremely well done. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is worth your day at the movies to see how she lives out her day.

Shutter
By Staff Writer

Ah, the dead. They’re just so vindictive and oh so predictable, aren’t they? Of course it’s probably not the fault of the angry spirits that they seem to always show up in exactly the same manner (long dark, disheveled hair, anyone?) or the fact that they all seem to be young woman in their late teens to 20s. After all, once you die and has to fight through hell to get back to the world of the living, trips to the local stylist is not exactly in the cards. That said, there is nothing remotely original about the new Thai horror film “Shutter”, the umpteenth variation on the Long Dark Hair Ghost Story movie, which comes to us complete with generic, “You better find out what’s got her so pissed before she gets you!” storyline.

“Shutter” opens in breezy fashion, and by the fifth minute young lovers Tun (Ananda Everingham) and Jane (Natthaweeranuch Thongmee (Can I buy a consonant, Pat?)) are in their car heading back from dinner with some friends, only to (literally) run into something on the dark road. The lovers spot the body of a woman laying in the road behind them, but before Jane, the driver, can get out of the car to check, Tun has convinced her to drive off. Days later, it’s revealed that the only accident on that particular road on that particular night was that someone had run their car into a billboard — Jane and Tun’s car. But what of the dead — or hurt — young woman?

The most unintentionally humorous thing about “Shutter” is how easily everyone grasps the concept that there’s a very angry female ghost stalking them via Tun’s photographs. A photographer by trade, Tun always carries his trusty camera with him, snapping pictures whenever he gets the chance, and it’s through this vessel that the ghost seems to be making her presence most known. In the aftermath of the accident that may or may not have been real, Tun starts seeing odd over exposures in his photos. Without missing a beat, Jane immediately surmises that a spirit is haunting them, using the photos as a means to pick her victims.

With Jane’s shockingly accurate (but inexplicably insightful) hypothesis in hand, the duo runs to a tabloid reporter for answers. Required by Movie Law to provide exposition, the reporter informs us that spirits have always appeared in photographs throughout history. He’s so helpful, in fact, that he even keeps a photo album of these photos. Real photos, apparently, because at the end of the movie the producers hedge their bets and “thanks” the respective owners, whose photographs they had used, according to the text, without permission.

Long story short, the ghost turns out to be Natre (Acita Sikamana), Tun’s ex-lover, who had gone missing while in college with Tun. The rest of the film involves Jane and Tun doing that predictable thing all haunted characters do in these Long Dark Hair Ghost Story movies, namely tracing the ghost’s past. They end up at her family home, of course, where they inevitably meets (can you guess?) the woman’s mother, who fills in the gaps.

It’s really not “Shutter’s” fault that its plotting is strictly by the numbers. With so many similar Asian horror films coming out in recent years, and all, it seems, raking in big bucks from naïve cinemagoers, what is the impetus to change? Taking the current sad, sad state of the international horror industry into consideration, what co-writers/directors Banjong Pisanthanakun and Parkpoom Wongpoom have offered the world is no better or worst than your average “Ring” copy.

Although highly derivative from the word go, “Shutter” is nevertheless a rather entertaining experience, not to mention technically competent. The use of sound, while a tad irritating in that they cheat (you can startle anyone, during any movie, by suddenly turning up the volume 500% when they least expect it), is nevertheless efficiently done enough to be effective. And the ghost, while looking very generic as can be, offers the audience one minor detour from conventions — she likes to stalk her victims while upside down. Other than that, she’s no different from the 500 other Asian ghosts with long black hair.

Unfortunately there are also some rookie mistakes in “Shutter”. The narrative, in particular, is so predictable and by the numbers that you can’t help but wish the three credited writers could have injected just a little bit more originality into the film. The script also stumbles when it comes to delivering the goods. There’s only really two deaths in the entire film, which while not bad in and of itself (horror movies like these seldom require a large bodycount to work), there are three deaths that take place not only offscreen, but completely beyond the scope of the narrative. As such, we don’t even know the ghost has killed someone until a character mentions it offhandedly to our leads, stunning them and, perhaps more importantly, us. Apparently the directors missed film class on the day the professor explained, “Show, don’t tell.”

A plus for the film is the character of Tun. So often these Asian Ghost stories leave it to the young pretty girls to be haunted at every turn. As played by Everingham, there’s a very convincing ambiguity to Tun that is strangely engaging. As the de facto hero, you expect him to be sympathetic; then again, you have to remind yourself that he convinced his girlfriend to leave the scene of a hit and run and then pretended like nothing happened afterwards. As the other lead, Jane mostly drifts in and out of the film, appearing whenever the script needs someone to prod the narrative onto the next plot point. Which is probably for the best, as Thongmee is either shockingly untalented as an actress or so talented that she is utterly convincing as a character with no personality, not to mention a singular facial expression that is a cross between perpetually scared and perpetually confused. I’m going with the latter.

“Shutter” is not the best or the worst Asian horror film involving an angry female ghost with long dark hair out there right now. Its Thai origins don’t impact the story very much, and its stab at relevancy (the long exposition regarding the history of supposed spirits in photographs) is little more than a mild distraction from the film’s mostly derivative nature. Even so, there are some nice scares, and the film actually features a hero that isn’t squeaky clean. Which, if nothing else, could very well be a first for the genre.

Sleepwalking
By Stephen Holden

Filmed mostly in winter, "Sleepwalking" sustains a mood of unrelenting bleakness, wearing its aesthetic of desolation like a badge of integrity. Integrity and quality, unfort-

unately, are not synonymous. "Sleepwalking" may linger in downscale territory where few movies dare to tread, but it has far too many flaws to make it a likely candidate for awards consideration.

Set in northern California and Utah but filmed in Saskatchewan, the movie, directed by William Maher, evokes a depressed environment of ugly, cramped apartments and flimsy shacks, junk furniture, muddy backyards and chain-link fences. As its characters eke out a marginal existence, they are defined by this oppressive milieu. When they break the rules, the police, social service agencies, and debt collectors are poised to crush whatever hopes they have left.

How is an 11-year-old girl brought up in such conditions to find a better life? That's a question Tara Reedy (AnnaSophia Robb) hardly dares ask. As the film begins she and her reckless, slatternly mother, Joleen (Charlize Theron), have been evicted from the house where they were staying with Joleen's latest boyfriend, who was busted for growing marijuana. Tara has no choice but to trail along glumly as Joleen is reduced to begging her meek, ne'er-do-well younger brother, James (Nick Stahl), to take them in.

No sooner have they moved into James's dingy apartment than Joleen runs off with a truck driver, leaving Tara with her uncle, who works on a road-building crew. After missing one too many days on the job, he is fired. He and Tara end up crashing in the basement of his married best friend, Randall (Woody Harrelson). It isn't long before Tara lands in a foster home.

In a last-ditch effort to put down roots, James snatches Tara from foster care, packs them into a car, and drives to the childhood home he and Joleen fled many years earlier. The scenes of James and Tara, who agree to pose as father and daughter, developing a familial bond while on the road give the movie its only glimmer of sweetness. Once they arrive at the Reedy homestead - a run-down cattle and horse farm that is an American gothic house of horrors - they are immediately put to work as unpaid slave labor by the monstrous paterfamilias (Dennis Hopper).

"Sleepwalking" is the kind of movie in which every tic and nuance of dialogue has to be perfectly calibrated. In the early scenes, a careful attention to detail leads you to hope it might succeed. But as Mr. Maher, in his feature-directing debut, brings in surreal touches and puts on literary airs, the film's grip loosens.

James, describing his life, uses the movie's title in a baldly inserted statement. A clever fantasy sequence in which Tara is observed by two young boys while lounging poolside at a motel, wearing pink sunglasses and roller skates, seems to belong to another movie. "Sleepwalking" metamorphoses from meticulous social realism to horror thriller.

If the performances are strong, the casting isn't quite right. Mr. Stahl's James is a little too sensitive and well spoken for the role of a born loser. Ms. Theron's Joleen should have been closer to Amy Ryan's crude, careless mother in "Gone Baby Gone." Ms. Robb's Tara is the best thing in the movie. This tense, wary Lolita - albeit one with no inclination to play teasing games - understands her lowly station in life. As much as she cares about her mother, she is determined not to follow in her footsteps.