Da Vinci Code * *

I had a hard time following this movie. Although I have a decent handle on the history of Christianity, I have not read the book. Nor do I have any interest to, but merely because I rarely read fiction and the book has gotten lukewarm reviews from friends. So during the film, I had to keep asking my friends for clarifications. Who is that guy? What's that meeting about? Is the albino supposed to be the bad guy? After this latter question, my friends asked if I was watching the movie and had noticed that little part where the albino MURDERED someone. To which I replied that you can never tell in movies, 'good' guys murder people all the time in capers -- witness say Bond movies -- and a man that in his dying moments strips naked and writes symbols on his body in blood, well...it's not obvious that's the 'good' guy. Anyhow it didn't help that we were watching a Russian bootleg copy of the film. There were no subtitles for the french dialogues, although helpfully there were subtitles for the aremaic dialogues. Of course, the subtitles were in ... russian.

So the screenplay races through characters with little introduction, yet it belabors and explains historical stuff 3x and insults the intelligence of the audience. I'm not making this up -- the screenplay has a bit to explain who Mary Magdallen refers to. I'm surprised they didn't have a part to explain who Jesus Christ is -- for those in the audience who recently arrived from outerspace. The screenplay had other faults. It was so predictable that I was able to figure out the ending as soon as the Holy Grail expert came on and started analyzing the 'Last Supper' painting. This was a bit anti-climatic. I mean honestly, this woman?? She has negative charisma, for Christ's sake (ha ha)! Well, her acting fit with everyone elses -- subpar and uncharismatic. Seriously, everyone scrowls through the entire film. Even though I'm a Hanks fan, I think he was mis-cast. He just can't do action/caper movies. He is much more intriguing to watch when he is sitting on a desert island watching the grass grow.

As for the subject matter, I found it personnally a bit unsettling. I was raised as a Unitarian Christian, and the persecution of Christians who believed in a unitarian concept of God and the non-divinity of Christ is traced to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 when the divinity of Christ becomes orthodox doctrine and all other views were declared heresy. What followed were centuries of persecution of those with non-trintarian beliefs and in the 16th century, many people were executed for teaching against the concept of the Trinity. As a result, the followers of Arius (forebearer of Unitarians) were reduced to small hidden congregations. Today, these Nicene-tenets of persecution are so commonplace and accepted that most mainstream denominations and "non-denominational" Christian groups teach that any religion that does not adhere to the basic tenents formulated by the Nicean Creed, are not Christian.

Well, then again, it's not like I'm losing sleep over this part. Maybe if the movie had been more entertaining I would have been absorbed in it rather than mulling about history.

The Burbs * * *

The yard is unmowed, the windows shuttered, garbage stacked on the porch, and you never ever see them go in or out. Yes, it's the weird, slightly creepy, neighbors. Every neighborhood has a set. Anyone with an over-active imagination has wondered what they are up to. Hmm, maybe they are running a drug house. Then again maybe, just maybe, they are serial killers burying their victims in the backyard. This is a ludicrous and absolutely hilarious movie about what happens when a few neighbors get a little too suspicious of the odd folks living next door and let their over-active imaginations get the better of them. The five main actors do a great job with their characters. Most of the time, they all play their characters straight, and you will laugh because you have probably met people a little like them. Maybe even you will recognize some of them as your neighbors. There is the Vietnam vet who has all the 'toys' and gets a little trigger-happy when his neighbor's dog soils his lawn. There is the fellow who really believes that his neighbors are part of a demonic cult. There is the buddy-buddy neighbor that comes to visit unannounced at breakfast and helps himself to everything including the leftovers from the night before. There is the dottering old fellow -- who lets his poodle 'fertilize' everyone's lawn. There is the straight guy (Hanks) who thinks his neighbors are weird, but would rather just not think about them. I picked this up fully expecting another dud that I would have to peruse with judicious use of the fast-forward button. I was very wrong! Despite being stupid, really quite stupid with an inane plot, I nonetheless found myself laughing until my stomach hurt in many places. This is slapstick humor a little in the Coen brothers tradition, but without the vulgarity. So if you don't like that kind of humor, for example you didn't laugh during say 'Something About Mary' then you ought to stay clear of this. But if you do, this would be a fun movie to rent with friends for a night of light and meaningless comedy. Available on Netflix and your local video store.

The Man with One Red Shoe *

Well, unbelievably this was worse than Volunteers. I really did not think Tom Hanks could have been in something more inane than that, alas I was wrong. The Man with One Red Shoe is a very weak comedy based on the idea of a FBI chief who is trying to be ousted by a rival. The rival successfully implicated the chief in a cocaine scheme, and now the chief tries to set his rival on a wild-goose chase. The idea is to have the rival think there is some witness who is going to spill the beans at a Senate hearing and vindicate the chief while also implicating the rival. Ok, it's weak. Anyhow, they pick this 'witness' randomly from people coming out of the Wash DC airport, and they pick a violinist with the Wash DC symphony (that's Hanks). Various weak slap-stick comedic events ensue as the rival and his cronies try to figure out what the violinist knows. That's it. I don't suggest you see this, but Star Wars fans may find it amusing that one of the supporting actresses (Carrie Fisher) in this movie was Princess Leia in the original Star War movies. Here she wears a leopard skimpy bikni and tries to seduce the violinist (Hanks) into a 'Jane and Tarzan' sexual tryst (did I mention the screenplay is weak?). The only other actor I recognized was Dabney Coleman who plays Hanks father in 'You've Got Mail'. Coleman is a sucessfull B-grade actor, but I'm surprised that in his 40+ year career, he never broke out of B-grade movies and TV. As for Hanks in this movie, well, watching this performance, I am amazed that over the next 20 years he transformed himself into the top-grossing US actor. There is nothing in this movie to suggest the Oscar worthy performances in Gumps, Philidelphia or Castaway.

Volunteers *

I thought that Splash would be the bottom of the barrel for my Hanks retrospective viewing, but I was wrong. Volunteers marked a new low. In Volunteers, Hanks plays an upper-crust NE yankee, newly-minted Yale grad who gets in some gambling trouble (to the tune of $26,000). When Dad refuses to bale him out, he switches places with his roommate who was just about to get on a plane to Thailand with the Peace Corps. He heads off to Thailand with a gung-civil engineer (John Candy) and a sincere nurse (Rita Wilson). Now, I find John Candy funny even though his brand of slap-stick humor is not really my type, and I like Rita Wilson a lot (she plays Sam's sister in Sleepless in Seattle). In my opinion, the few funny bits in this film were given to Candy and Wilson. But Candy and Wilson get a lot less play in this comedy than Hanks, and I'm afraid that Hanks' character just isn't funny. I think Hanks does better playing the straight-guy in a comedy (Splash, Big, Sleepless in Seattle) than playing the comedic character (Volunteers, Ladykillers, the Terminal). On top of that, Hanks is supposed to affect an upper-crust NE accent, and he doesn't pull it off. Interestingly, the only other films that I've seen where Hanks does an accent is the Terminal and Ladykillers, and his accents are atrocious there too.

Splash *

More B-grade Tom Hanks viewing. This one is about an over-worked New Yorker, who as a child was rescued from drowning by a mermaid-child. Fast forward 20 years, he falls over board again (different boat) and the same mermaid saves him (again). She decides to leave the water (for 3 days) and together they find true love of sorts.

This movie was Tom Hanks' first big break -- the first movie where he played the lead. It is also the start of a series of films where Tom Hanks played comic characters that were pretty much stamped out of the same mold. There's a lot of similarities between the way he plays the lead here in Splash (1984) and his character in Big (1988) and in Joe Versus the Volcano (1990). By 1993 and Sleepless in Seattle, he started acting uniquely for different roles. What did I think of the movie? I found it fairly painful although my 8-year old liked it very much.

Big * * *

We think of Tom Hanks now as a dramatic actor, but back in the 1980s when he started, he was almost strictly a comedic actor. He did a long string of entertaining, but not terribly memorable, comedies: Splash, Bachelor Party, Volunteers, Money Pit, and the list goes on. Big is one of his most memorable and critically-received comedies in this era. Wikipedia even says that it is still considered the gold standard for the "child trapped in an adult body" movie. Hmm, are there really that many movies of that type....Probably everyone knows the plot: kid wishes he was Big, gets his wish, has adventures being an adult, and then....well, you'll have to see the movie. For me, Big holds a special place. It is the movie after which back in the 80s, I decided that "You know, I really don't like Tom Hanks as an actor. He's a curly fluff-head." I think it was not until Saving Private Ryan that I begrudgingly changed my mind. So I rewatched Big in 2006 with some curiosity.

Well, you know, Big was fun. Mindless fun, but fun. Tom Hanks does do a great job of being a 12-year old in a 30+ year-old body, and the film has some good scenes. I now want a trampoline in my house. But you know what struck me most.... How that woman responded after finding out she'd been having intimate relations with a 12-year old (in a 30-year old body, but whatever). Do you remember that scene in Friends where Monica has a fling with a young fellow and then finds out he's like 16 and in high school. She has the normal reaction of a pushing 30 woman to this situation: "Ick, ack, help get me the memory-modifier. I need to erase this memory. Ug, this is so icky!" The woman in Big at least stops the relationship, whew, but then treats him like an aunt -- gazing fondly and kissing him on the cheek. This is not normal. I couldn't help thinking that woman must be a pedophile.

I know, you're rolling your eyes. This is a movie, a fantasy. The plot is based on a boy that magically transforms into a man's body, and you have problems with the woman's response not being realistic?! Yeah, yeah, I know this is every adolescent male's fantasy. It's just that his adolescent fantasy translates into 5-10 years of incarceration and eternal damnation.

MONICA: Ethan, focus. How could you not tell me?
ETHAN: Well, you never told me how old you were.
MONICA: Well, that´s different. My lie didn´t make one of us a felon in 48 states. What were you thinking?
ETHAN: I wasn´t thinking. I was too busy fallin'--
MONICA: Don´t say it.
ETHAN: --in love with you.
MONICA: Really?
ETHAN: Sorry.
MONICA: Well, fall out of it. You know, you shouldn´t even be here, it´s a school night. Oh god, oh god. I´m like those women that you see with shiny guys like Chad. I´m Joan Collins.

Forrest Gump * * * *

I avoided seeing this film for many years. In large part because of that oft-repeated line, "Life is a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get."[1] Any movie with a syrupy tag-line like that was certainly a movie I would hate. I was wrong. I liked this movie a lot. Somehow it's a little like the song "American Pie" -- it distills an American generation. Robert Zemekis, the director, said that he made the film for his generation (baby boomers). He figured that no one born after 1960/70 would like this movie, and no one outside of the U.S. would either. Funny thing is, this movie was hugely popular with non-baby boomers and oversees [although it was criticized by movie reviewers for glorifying a certain stereotypical American niavete]. I'm kind of with Zemekis on this though. Why do people like this movie? I can't even quite say why I liked it so much. Tom Hanks has been asked in various interviews what this movie is about [for example on the Castaway DVD]. He has said it's a fairytale of sorts, but he doesn't know what it's about. If the main actor can't say what it's about, far be it from me to try. It follows a curiously charismatic idiot savant through the 1960,70s and 80s and major events of that generation -- those events for which everyone knows where they were when it happened (like when Kennedy was shot). Beyond that I surely can't say what it's about. I will say the ensemble cast is superb. Hanks definitely deserved the Oscar for this performance, and I would love to see the outtakes for some of the 'how did he manage that' scenes -- like the one in Jennie's dorm room. I also liked the child actors. The boy who plays young Gump is perfect. That was his natural way of speaking, according to Zemekis (the director), and Hanks copied it to get the adult Gump's sing-song way of speaking. The DVD extras have some casting takes where the actors were reading lines in a studio, and Hanks doesn't have the Gump speech pattern yet in those. [1] The movie is based on the novel, Forrest Gump. That "box of chocolates" tag-line is a rather liberal revision of the line in the book, "Being an idiot is no box of chocolates". I think we can safely assume the movie is not a faithful rendition of the novel.

Philidelphia* * *

I was bruised and battered -- I couldn't tell what I felt
I was unrecognizable, to myself -- I saw my reflection
in a window and didn't know my own face
Oh brother are you gonna leave me
Wastin' away -- on the streets of Philadelphia
-- "Steets of Philadelphia" Bruce Springsteen
Click here to listen to the Philidelphia theme music

I suspect that Philidelphia is one of those films that everyone has heard of, but few have actually seen it. Why is this film even in the pop-culture consciousness? Well, here are my suspicions: a) Tom Hanks' Oscar acceptance speech, b) this was a very PC and very topical film at the time as it came out when AIDs was coming onto the national scene, and c) it was one of the first big Hollywood films starring a Big name (pun intended) on a gay couple. At the time, the story of a young lawyer fired because he has AIDs and successfully defended by a homophobic lawyer was a courageous bit of filmmaking, and Hanks taking on the role of a gay man in a film where he gets all cuddly with Julio Banderas (yes, that actor) was a courageous career move too. And yes, this film probably did some good at softening popular views about gay men with AIDs. So I think as a film making a social statement, it is very good, and yes I cried at the end.

Thing is, I tend to be very critical of films that make social statements, and I think that if you have an agenda it is very hard to do good, honest art and story-telling, which for me is at the core of great films in the dramatic genre. Philidelphia had an agenda and as such is full of too many compromises for me to not be critical. Some of the instances of Hollywoodification:

**The homophobia of the lawyer (Washington) defending Beckett (Hanks) is revealed as simply prejudice. By that I mean, he just didn't know any gay men or have any gay men close to him (friends, family). By defending Beckett and seeing his suffering, he loses the basis of his prejudice. I didn't buy that. This idea of people transforming from intolerance to tolerance so easily is a Hollywood plot crutch -- along with knights on white horses.

**In the plot, Beckett gets AIDs by going ONCE to a gay-porno theater and having an anonymous quickie. The 1980s were a hayday of promiscuity in the gay community and HIV-infection was highest in the bathhouse frequenting segment. So by choosing as the protagonist a man who was otherwise monogamous is both subtly misrepresentative and panders to a particular visciousness that was being pedelled on the AM-radio talk-shows: "all people with AIDs are promiscuous perverts and thus deserved what they got". This is a logical argument of the form: if A then B, if B then C therefore if A then C. Philidelphia countered the argument by saying it's not true that if A then B. But it never, never asks the viewer to question the fundamental and pernicious 'if B then C' argument.

**Beckett and his partner never kiss, nada. It's not that I feel any particular interest whatsoever in seeing such a scene, it's just that this was a major cop-out. Yet another example of softening the edges of this film.

**The scene where Beckett is holding and cuddling the baby is over the top. I felt like I was watching a propaganda film. Over the speakers: "You cannot get HIV by touching." Ok fine, fine, I got Reagan's brochure on AIDs.

I was in college in the 1980s in the San Francisco Bay area. The AIDs epidemic was a huge event in my young adulthood. I did not know anyone personally who died of AIDs at the time (although I learned later of men I knew at the time who did) and I don't even remember talking about it much with friends -- except maybe when Reagan sent out the AIDs brochure to every family in America. But I was certainly reading the weekly newspapers out of SF, and AIDs was a huge deal. I did feel like I was witnessing a human tragedy. It felt very real. It did not feel like an abstract news story.

I think this is why I feel angry that Philidelphia painted Beckett as monogamous with a loving long-term partner whom miraculously he didn't infect. By never challenging the viewer to question whether promiscuous homosexuality in any way deserves a death sentence, it is implicitly saying, let's cherry-pick the names off the AIDs-quilt.

Ok, that's my not sugar-coated and excessively critical review. I think it is as much a critique of Hollywood's protrayal of social issues as anything else.

Ladykillers * *

Ok, I think this film has perhaps stopped my Tom Hanks run. This was quite painful. In the past, I have liked some of the Coen brother's films (Fargo, O' Brother Where Art Thou, Raising Arizona), but this one seemed pointless and uninspired. Part of the problem, for me, was that it was based on a previous story so there was little opportunity for the Coen brother's insprired plots. The plot was pretty simple: guy rents room to get access to cellar to dig hole to vault and steal money, and complications arise. What's funny about that? Also there were no inspired comic characters like the lead in Fargo and in O' Brother Where Art Thou. I suppose, Tom Hanks character could have been that, but he came across as a stock comic character in a B-grade Hollywood comedy. What I liked about some of the Coen brothers other characters in other movies is that they were hilarious, but were not acting funny. The whole incongruity of the character was funny without the actor being comic. Oh, there was a good bit in Ladykillers, the music. There is some great gospel music in the movie. Wow, black churches seem like a lot more fun than any white one I've been to.

Hanks' acting: The whole point of seeing these films has been to see how Hanks has changed his acting over time. Well, this was uninspired. His acting is solid; he's good at what he does, but there didn't seem to be anything special, mesmerizing, charismatic, whatever about this performance. He used a few of his characteristic mannerisms, specifically the eyebrow raise and the weak smile that he uses in comic films.

Castaway * * * *

This is one of my favorite Hollywood movies (as opposed to an indie movie). It's actually different cinematically and makes you think about the curves life sends you -- but being a Hollywood movie is based on a big-name star, has some exciting action, and loads of CGI. The airplane crash scene is extra "WOW"; try not squirming on the edge of your seat during that! The plot is easy: Modern Man from Memphis crashes in a FedEx plane somewhere over the Pacific, survives on a tiny island for 4 years, then makes it back to Memphis and tries to figure out 'what now?'.

This is the second film where Zemekis explores the questions of 'Is life governed by destiny?' or 'Are we just a bunch of feathers buffetted by the erratic winds of chance?' (think opening credits of Forrest Gump, which he also directed). It is a type pop-culture nihilism:

From www.apologetics.org: "Nihilism is a pessimistic view of reality which results from "God is dead" thinking. In the words of Nietzsche, since there is no God, "there is no one to command, no one to obey, no one to transgress." Often, nihilists deny that life is meaningful or purposeful in any way, resulting in a sort of anarchistic worldview. As the French atheistic nihilist once said, "It matters not whether a man is a drunkard or a ruler of empires; in the end, both men will suffer the same fate" (Sartre). In the works of Franz Kafka and Albert Camus, nihilism is reduced to this sort of abusurdism as well, as they explore the themes of meaningless, despair, hopelessness, and the trivial nature of life itself."

In this film, like Forrest Gump, Zemekis seems to come down on the side of hopeful nihilism. We're just feathers, but that's not so bad. You make the best of what you have, and that's that. 'Why keep going?' There is no answer, and Zemekis doesn't offer one. You just keep going. You just do. But notice, there is no God, there is no grand destiny, order, rhyme or reason. As Chuck Nolan says at one point, 'I decided I just had to make it through each day, because perhaps tomorrow the tide might bring in something new.' The rest of this dialogue is a challenge to this idea; the idea of that there is something a little more hopeful than pure nihilism, but it would be a huge spoiler to put that dialogue here.

Much as I like Castaway, I tend to resist being moved by a Hollywood movie. I feel a little like I do with advertising. I feel compelled to resist the message since I know they are trying to manipulate me. That is, it's not honest art, it's purposely manipulative commerce. I'm supposed to be entertained not reflect on life. I was entertained. In fact, this is what I hate about Hollywood movies. Come on, say something honest about something, anything! Hmm, well that doesn't sell I'm sure. Soon I'll get over my entertainment break and go back to difficult subtitled movies.

I must share someone else's hilarious review of castaway. If you enjoy satire on many levels and are not put off by somewhat explicit humor, you'll probably find this funny, otherwise skip it: Castaway satire.

Catch Me if You Can * *

Catch Me if You Can follows 6 years in the life of teen con-man, Frank Abagnale, Jr. (Leonardo Di Caprio), as he successfully pulls off posing as a airline pilot, emergency room doctor, and lawyer, supported financially by his real profession as the biggest check frauder of the era. The story focuses mainly on the cat-and-mouse chase between him and the FBI agent (Tom Hanks). The story itself was ok, and the acting ok. I kind of believed Hanks as a nerdy FBI-agent, and I kind of believed Di Caprio as a emotionally-scarred but very charismatic and ballsy teen. But there is something wrong with the plot when a true edge-of-your-seat story doesn't get you on the edge of your seat. I never felt nervous wondering if he was going to pull of his latest caper and get away. I never felt sad by his life story. It was more like, 'oh, this is interesting'. The most interesting thing is that it is based on a true story. That in and of itself is incredible. Of course, the only reason I saw this was my continuing quest to watch Tom Hanks films that I have avoided, and to see how he has worked to change himself into a character actor. In this movie, he's hidden behind nerdy 1960s thick rims, so he doesn't exactly look like Tom Hanks. There were only one or two places I noticed where he used distinctive mannerisms from earlier films. But to be honest, his role didn't really call for much acting and he just did his job, nothing more. I didn't get the feeling that his character was a real person. Actually, Di Caprio's acting surprised me. At least 25% of the time, his character seemed real. That was much more than I expected. He pulled off the scenes with his 'Dad' quite well. I still hate his acting though.

Tom Hanks reviews

Tom Hanks is one of the few American actors that I like. Part of it is that I like character actors over 40, and I think there are relatively few good American character actors over 40. The few that there are seem to tend to specialize in playing psychos. I'm thinking DeNiro. He's a good character actor, but I just can't get into movies about people I would never want to meet, much less know, in real life. So anyhow I've been working through Tom Hanks films. This has been fun since he's been acting for 30 years+, so you can really see how his acting has changed over time. Try watching Big and then Castaway. That's a shock. Here are the films I saw or re-watched recently. *** repeatably watchable **** well-loved by many or highly regarded ***** one of the top movies of the era [classic] widely regarded as one of the best of the era Big *** Joe versus the Volcano ** Philidelphia *** [highly regarded] Forrest Gump ***** Sleepless in Seattle *** [on many best romcom lists] Saving Private Ryan [classic] You've Got Mail **** [this film is on many 'best romcom' lists] Apollo-13 **** Castaway ***** Catch me if You Can ** Ladykillers ** The Terminal * [ug] Splash * Volunteers * League of Their Own *** The Man with One Red Shoe * The 'Burbs *** Nothing in Common * [very uneven] Bonfire of the Vanities ** [only part I found interesting was Melaine Griffith's performance] To see list Road to Perdition Band of Brothers Seen but won't review Green Mile [great movie, but I can't bring myself to see it a 2nd time or review it given the subject matter]

Joe versus the Volcano * * *

I have been working through a few Tom Hanks films that I have actively avoided in the past. So I finally got around to watching Joe versus the Volcano. The plot is fairly simple: guy works at abysmal job, finds out he has a terminal illness ('brain cloud'), he get hired to go jump into a volcano (it's complicated), and he goes off to do that. That's about it really. Oh, wait he falls in love, too. Of course.

This film falls into the genre of over-the-top movie fairytale. It's meant to be unrealistic and cartoonish, and it beats you over the head with symbolism. To me this film did only a mediocre job of pulling this off this genre. The movie starts off firmly establishing the cartoon style with the grey masses marching into work: the 'Home of the Rectal Probe'. But the film did not maintain this style and visual starkness. About a third of the way in, it degenerates to standard B-minus grade camp. Part of the problem, I think was the casting of Tom Hanks. He just wasn't able to do 'cartoon' very convincingly. Too much of his 'everyman' screen persona came through and also he's got a lot of mannerisms that he used in Big, which I found annoyingly familar. Meg Ryan played 3 characters. You won't recognize her as the first two. I had to check the listing to believe that she was the first woman. In these first 2 roles, she's pretty good as cartoon comic characters. But the last character is stock "Meg Ryan playing the love-interest in a romantic comedy". I've seen this character in at least 5 films now. Boring. It was especially annoying since after the first 2 characters, one realizes that she can protray different characters.

Summary: I personally cannot imagine any reason for someone to see this movie except that they are interested in Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Even then, it seemed mostly interesting to see how Hanks has modified his acting over time. About 3 years after this film, he finally got rid of most of his early stock mannerisms -- something that anyone aiming to be a character actor has to do. But that said, there are lots of people who find deep meaning in this film, and this film has a cult following of sorts. People write essays on the symbolism of this film and make websites dedicated to this film -- I guess there are a lot of people who empathize with Joe's mind-numbing boring job and 'spiritual' awakening.

You've Got Mail * * * *

[This is a post I wrote for epinions.com. I was playing around with fluffy writing. See, I don't just watch subtitled movies]

There’s something about falling in love through the written word, and nowadays that means e-mail. Ah, the way one does a happy little jig on discovering an e-mail from some particularly witty pen-pal – especially if romantic. The way one will write sappy, reflective things one would never say face-to-face. The way one gets wrapped around a particular turn of phrase. "You’re right, I hear nothing. Nothing. ‘Not a sound on the city streets just the beat of my own heart’. I think that’s how it goes." Says a giddy Joe quoting a line from Shopgirl’s e-mail. You've Got Mail is a rom-com about all that – with complications thrown on top. Two people, Kathleen and Joe, fall in love through writing each other anonymously on the internet, while in real life, they are horrid to each other on account of Joe (Tom Hanks) being the owner of a big chain bookstore that is putting Kathleen (Meg Ryan) and her little independent bookstore out of business. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have a lot of chemistry in this film -- both together and alone. Even watching them typing on a laptop is a joy here. However, this film is not for everyone. People tend to fall into two distinct camps: they adore it or they despise it.

Here is an easy test to determine if you will despise this movie:

(Yes/No) Did you like Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle? Liking him in Saving Private Ryan and the Green Mile doesn't count. You need to have liked him in a romantic comedy.
(Yes/No) Do you like Meg Ryan?
(Yes/No) Do you like romantic comedies?

If you answered No to any of these, you might want to reconsider watching this, unless of course you fell in love on-line, in which case it might make you feel sentimental enough to overcome your natural dislike.

However, if you answered Yes to all three questions, then you will likely ADORE 'You've Got Mail'.

Kathleen: Confession. I have read Pride and Prejudice about 200 times. I get lost in the language, words like thither, mischance and felicity. I'm always in agony over whether Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy will ever get together...

Yes, I love this movie. In fact, I confess that I have watched this movie so many times that I have large chunks of the dialogue memorized. Me, a person who mostly watches artsy, historical or noir foreign films. Go figure. So many lines remind me of fun and funny snapshots in life, love and relationships. "What are you doing? The caviar is a GARNISH!" Yes, yes this is a shallow silly rom-com, that I freely admit. But I think a rom-com has to resound somewhere to be so entertaining. I know, the cynics will roll their eyes and groan:

You don't want to be in love, you want to be in love in a movie. [to quote from Sleepless in Seattle]

Oh, I disagree. Sure, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are way prettier than the rest of us, but I'd guess anyone who has ever had the pleasure of falling head over heels in love remembers the way one's tongue seems to stop functioning properly, how one for some reason cannot stop foolishly staring at the other person, and then that knot in your throat when you realize this is the person with whom you want to say "for as long as we both shall live". You've Got Mail, in its clichéd, sappy way captures those moments entertainingly well -- for this closet romantic at least.

The songs are one of the great things about You've Got Mail. Here we revisit the way songs were used in Sleepless in Seattle. The particular words in the songs at the song cues are meant to say something about what is going on in a particular scene. Throughout the film, they are as much a part of the screenplay as the dialogue.
Joe: Um, is that you in the photograph? What are you doing?
Kathleen: Twirling. My mother and I used to twirl. Anyway, she left the store to me and I'm going to leave it to my daughter.
Joe: Oh, how old is, um, your daughter now? [out of the corner of his eye]
Kathleen: What? Well I don't have a daughter. Huh?...oh. [a smile and a gulp] No, I'm not married, but eventually.
Ah, she’s in trouble now. And here comes the song cue: "Never smile at a crocodile. No you can't get friendly with a crocodile. Don't be taken in by his wealth and grin..." Where does Nora Ephron find these songs?

There are a number of ideas, or funny topics of conversation, that are also revisited from Sleepless in Seattle. For example, there’s the idea that men and women bond to different types of movies. Remember that scene in Sleepless in Seattle where Sam's sister is crying over an 'Affair to Remember' over the dinner table and her husband mock cries over ‘the Dirty Dozen’. Well, You've Got Mail plays with that idea too, and this time with the Godfather.
Joe's IM: Go to the mattresses. It's from the Godfather. It means you have to go to war.
Kathleen's IM: Oh. What IS it with men and the Godfather? Hello?
Joe's IM: [to himself, Huh? Oh, come on. Hello?] The Godfather is the I-Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question. What should I pack for my summer vacation. Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
[and Tom Hanks goes into another one his funny Godfather soliloquies.]

That Fox Books puts The Shop Around the Corner out of business is something many reviewers have commented on. "How can Kathleen forgive Joe so easily for that!!", they cry. Nora Ephron's commentary suggested that she felt it was not so black-and-white. There's a scene where Kathleen finally visits Fox Books. She had consoled herself with the idea that Fox Books is an evil book warehouse. But we see it's not so clear. Kids are enjoying books. But it's heartbreaking. There is really no way she can compete with the glitz, the selection, and the lower prices. I'm mean I hate to admit it, but a well-designed big and glitzy bookstore with a latte bar and deep cushy leather couches sure is a lot of fun to hang out at on a Sunday. Oh, shoot me, but it's the truth.

Nora Ephron also talks about how people tend to say things like "I could never be with someone who [fill in the blank]", but actually what it is that makes you fall in love with someone is a lot more mysterious than a check list of compatible political views, hobbies, musical tastes, and material possessions.
Joe: Hey, he could be the zipper man.
Kathleen: What?
Joe: The zipper man. He repairs zippers on Amsterdam Avenue.
Kathleen: Would you cut it out.
Joe: You'd never have to buy new luggage.
Kathleen: [laughing] Cut it out.

And yes, in the end, Kathleen and Joe get together. But we knew that, didn’t we. And the movie fades to the tune of "Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dared to dream... really do come true".

Well, it doesn't get much more sappy that that. Ah, but what a treat.