Michael-Keaton Movie Reviews

Director Michael Lindsay-Hogg is no stranger to films about politics, having made the Nixon era parody Nasty Habits . Here we get a Bill and Hillary Clinton-ish parallel featuring Ed Harris as a Presidential candidate and Diane Keaton as his fiance with a past. At first the HBO teleplay by A. L. Appling ( a pseudonymed Carole Eastman) is happy to present an amiable battle of the sexes comedy, giving Diane Keaton a wit which undercuts the perceived reactionary nature of politics as compromise. However things get serious when Harris' spin doctors uncover a pseudo-pornographic anti-Nixon film Keaton has participated when previously married to an "artist", which is seen as potentially damaging to Harris' position. When the film is screened the actress is clearly not Keaton and though it's a stretch to imagine Keaton doing the film, that is the point. When Harris is confronted by the "scandal" he delivers a speech to the media, denouncing their interest in Keaton's past activities as being irrelevant to his capability as a future President. Eastman here is touching on the perception of the voter, predating Clinton's Lewinsky scandal, and whether or not one believes the press' reaction to Harris' condemnation probably measures one's level of naivety/optimism/cynicism. The discovery of the film is a plot point which lifts the narrative when things threaten to collapse. The point of Keaton's outspokenness making her an inappropriate First Lady are sledgehammered home, with Keaton hating the media coverage until her personality begins to disappear. She is an author of children's books, The Frog Prince being her most awarded, which stands as a metaphor for Harris and his political ambitions. Harris is probably better being a player than romancing with Keaton, his splintered focus and shallow sincerity authentic. And although Keaton is charming and funny, the initial romance doesn't ring true, with she wearing sunglasses at their first meeting and he repeatedly commenting on how attractive she is. Even a speech Keaton gives to embarass him at lunch, which convinces him to hire her as a speechwriter isn't that particularly funny. Eastman however does come up with otherwise great lines - I liked Keaton objecting to Harris' scrutiny with "there's looking, and there's ocular invasion", her "How did I sink to these heights", and "Did you spring from the womb and ask the way to the oval office?". Lindsay-Hogg provides a nice cut from Harris delivering the same speech at a church and then a synagogue, though he doesn't do much to help Russ Tamblyn as the one who provides Keaton's film. Mention is made of Ed Begley, Jnr as Keaton's oddball brother, and the running gag of the Joe Cocker song You are so Beautiful.

Director Michael Lindsay-Hogg is no stranger to films about politics, having made the Nixon era parody Nasty Habits . Here we get a Bill and Hillary Clinton-ish parallel featuring Ed Harris as a Presidential candidate and Diane Keaton as his fiance with a past. At first the HBO teleplay by A. L. Appling ( a pseudonymed Carole Eastman) is happy to present an amiable battle of the sexes comedy, giving Diane Keaton a wit which undercuts the perceived reactionary nature of politics as compromise. However things get serious when Harris' spin doctors uncover a pseudo-pornographic anti-Nixon film Keaton has participated when previously married to an "artist", which is seen as potentially damaging to Harris' position. When the film is screened the actress is clearly not Keaton and though it's a stretch to imagine Keaton doing the film, that is the point. When Harris is confronted by the "scandal" he delivers a speech to the media, denouncing their interest in Keaton's past activities as being irrelevant to his capability as a future President. Eastman here is touching on the perception of the voter, predating Clinton's Lewinsky scandal, and whether or not one believes the press' reaction to Harris' condemnation probably measures one's level of naivety/optimism/cynicism. The discovery of the film is a plot point which lifts the narrative when things threaten to collapse. The point of Keaton's outspokenness making her an inappropriate First Lady are sledgehammered home, with Keaton hating the media coverage until her personality begins to disappear. She is an author of children's books, The Frog Prince being her most awarded, which stands as a metaphor for Harris and his political ambitions. Harris is probably better being a player than romancing with Keaton, his splintered focus and shallow sincerity authentic. And although Keaton is charming and funny, the initial romance doesn't ring true, with she wearing sunglasses at their first meeting and he repeatedly commenting on how attractive she is. Even a speech Keaton gives to embarass him at lunch, which convinces him to hire her as a speechwriter isn't that particularly funny. Eastman however does come up with otherwise great lines - I liked Keaton objecting to Harris' scrutiny with "there's looking, and there's ocular invasion", her "How did I sink to these heights", and "Did you spring from the womb and ask the way to the oval office?". Lindsay-Hogg provides a nice cut from Harris delivering the same speech at a church and then a synagogue, though he doesn't do much to help Russ Tamblyn as the one who provides Keaton's film. Mention is made of Ed Begley, Jnr as Keaton's oddball brother, and the running gag of the Joe Cocker song You are so Beautiful.

I thought this movie was boring and when they do the 'clone of a clone' thing it was a cue for some jokes at the expense of the mentally impaired that really are in very, very poor taste.

Aren't comedies supposed to be funny?

This is a very funny movie, and I liked it a lot more than most of the reviews about it did. I liked how the clones were different parts of his personality, as one is a burping, smoking, slob, but a workaholic, and the other is his almost feminine side. He seemed to really have a blast as #4 (a clone of a clone), which is a role that Jim Carrey would probably have been too embaressed to play. The only real down is it's length. Two hours for such a simple plot. I really enjoyed Groundhog Day (a movie not to different to this) and I found that to be a bit too long, and that was twenty minutes shorter. Otherwise, thoroughly entertaining.

I love this one!!! Michael Keaton is hilarious in this wonderful movie about cloning. He clones himself once, so he can have more time for his wife and children by sending his first clone (named "1") to perform his construction job. Then he clones himself again, so he can have more quality time with his children - instead of doing all the daily chores (cooking, cleaning, bathing the kids, running errands, etc, etc.) Then ultimately the clones perform one more clone from one of the clones and creates a "special" clone to perform some of the duties they didn't have time for.

Ultimately Keaton's character and clones realize that quality time is doing the daily chores life requires. The more clones, or help, a person has... doesn't get them any closer to their goal. Each clone is different, as they are an exaggerated version of their cloned purpose... "1" is exceptional in business (the reason he was cloned), "2" is very domestic (as he was cloned to take care of the cooking and cleaning), and "3" is a clone from a clone... so he turns out "mentally challenged."

This movie is very funny, and carries a strong moral within a highly entertaining storyline.

I thought this movie was boring and when they do the 'clone of a clone' thing it was a cue for some jokes at the expense of the mentally impaired that really are in very, very poor taste.

Aren't comedies supposed to be funny?

This is a very funny movie, and I liked it a lot more than most of the reviews about it did. I liked how the clones were different parts of his personality, as one is a burping, smoking, slob, but a workaholic, and the other is his almost feminine side. He seemed to really have a blast as #4 (a clone of a clone), which is a role that Jim Carrey would probably have been too embaressed to play. The only real down is it's length. Two hours for such a simple plot. I really enjoyed Groundhog Day (a movie not to different to this) and I found that to be a bit too long, and that was twenty minutes shorter. Otherwise, thoroughly entertaining.

I love this one!!! Michael Keaton is hilarious in this wonderful movie about cloning. He clones himself once, so he can have more time for his wife and children by sending his first clone (named "1") to perform his construction job. Then he clones himself again, so he can have more quality time with his children - instead of doing all the daily chores (cooking, cleaning, bathing the kids, running errands, etc, etc.) Then ultimately the clones perform one more clone from one of the clones and creates a "special" clone to perform some of the duties they didn't have time for.

Ultimately Keaton's character and clones realize that quality time is doing the daily chores life requires. The more clones, or help, a person has... doesn't get them any closer to their goal. Each clone is different, as they are an exaggerated version of their cloned purpose... "1" is exceptional in business (the reason he was cloned), "2" is very domestic (as he was cloned to take care of the cooking and cleaning), and "3" is a clone from a clone... so he turns out "mentally challenged."

This movie is very funny, and carries a strong moral within a highly entertaining storyline.

I thought this movie was boring and when they do the 'clone of a clone' thing it was a cue for some jokes at the expense of the mentally impaired that really are in very, very poor taste.

Aren't comedies supposed to be funny?

This is a very funny movie, and I liked it a lot more than most of the reviews about it did. I liked how the clones were different parts of his personality, as one is a burping, smoking, slob, but a workaholic, and the other is his almost feminine side. He seemed to really have a blast as #4 (a clone of a clone), which is a role that Jim Carrey would probably have been too embaressed to play. The only real down is it's length. Two hours for such a simple plot. I really enjoyed Groundhog Day (a movie not to different to this) and I found that to be a bit too long, and that was twenty minutes shorter. Otherwise, thoroughly entertaining.

I love this one!!! Michael Keaton is hilarious in this wonderful movie about cloning. He clones himself once, so he can have more time for his wife and children by sending his first clone (named "1") to perform his construction job. Then he clones himself again, so he can have more quality time with his children - instead of doing all the daily chores (cooking, cleaning, bathing the kids, running errands, etc, etc.) Then ultimately the clones perform one more clone from one of the clones and creates a "special" clone to perform some of the duties they didn't have time for.

Ultimately Keaton's character and clones realize that quality time is doing the daily chores life requires. The more clones, or help, a person has... doesn't get them any closer to their goal. Each clone is different, as they are an exaggerated version of their cloned purpose... "1" is exceptional in business (the reason he was cloned), "2" is very domestic (as he was cloned to take care of the cooking and cleaning), and "3" is a clone from a clone... so he turns out "mentally challenged."

This movie is very funny, and carries a strong moral within a highly entertaining storyline.

I thought this movie was boring and when they do the 'clone of a clone' thing it was a cue for some jokes at the expense of the mentally impaired that really are in very, very poor taste.

Aren't comedies supposed to be funny?

This is a very funny movie, and I liked it a lot more than most of the reviews about it did. I liked how the clones were different parts of his personality, as one is a burping, smoking, slob, but a workaholic, and the other is his almost feminine side. He seemed to really have a blast as #4 (a clone of a clone), which is a role that Jim Carrey would probably have been too embaressed to play. The only real down is it's length. Two hours for such a simple plot. I really enjoyed Groundhog Day (a movie not to different to this) and I found that to be a bit too long, and that was twenty minutes shorter. Otherwise, thoroughly entertaining.

I love this one!!! Michael Keaton is hilarious in this wonderful movie about cloning. He clones himself once, so he can have more time for his wife and children by sending his first clone (named "1") to perform his construction job. Then he clones himself again, so he can have more quality time with his children - instead of doing all the daily chores (cooking, cleaning, bathing the kids, running errands, etc, etc.) Then ultimately the clones perform one more clone from one of the clones and creates a "special" clone to perform some of the duties they didn't have time for.

Ultimately Keaton's character and clones realize that quality time is doing the daily chores life requires. The more clones, or help, a person has... doesn't get them any closer to their goal. Each clone is different, as they are an exaggerated version of their cloned purpose... "1" is exceptional in business (the reason he was cloned), "2" is very domestic (as he was cloned to take care of the cooking and cleaning), and "3" is a clone from a clone... so he turns out "mentally challenged."

This movie is very funny, and carries a strong moral within a highly entertaining storyline.

This 1983 comedy is a real gem. No matter what the one star reviews below so ignorantly say. It's definitley one of the best jobs Michael Keaton has ever done. The movie has funny written all over it. It's too bad the people down below have no sense of humor. Keaton stars as Jack Butler, a man who is laid off from his job. As soon as he is, his wife(Teri Garr)decides to go back to work and gets a great job. Poor Jack is now home dealing with all of the normal,everyday things that you usually do. He is raising the kids, doing the dishes, laundry, making dinner. He has even started to watch soaps and hang out the neighborhood ladies. Grocery shopping is a nightmare for him. The review on this page stated that the movie is sexist. Please. People make arguments over something that's not even there. Sigh. This movie has many classic scenes as well as dialogue that you can repeat over and over. The supporting cast includes a number of familiar faces : Martin Mull, Jeffrey Tambor, and Christopher Lloyd. This is a wonderful family comedy that deserves a lot more attention than it got. Don't let the negative reviews sway you from seeing a sweet,charming comedy. Good and funny.

This is a GREAT film. It truly is. The role reversal is terrific. Keaton is awesome as is Garr. The kids are cute and deliver a great performance. Every bit of it is plausible and possible and a delight to watch! If you haven't seen it, see it now. If you have, check it out again. You'll be surpised by how good it still is!

i'm a newbie dj from ny, i recently started remixing old songs like Heart and Soul, Stand by Me, etc.. and i was wondering what song was playing during the credits of the soap opera Michael Keaton was watching during the kitchen scene(while he was on the phone) -- thx much, please email me if you can

It's easy to see why DESPERATE MEASURES got bad reviews. The plot might have holes large enough to sail a barge through, and yes, it is quite implausable, but it's hard to completely diss a movie with performances and direction as good as this.

Michael Keaton is eerily menacing as Peter McCabe in this film. He's smart, dangerous, and unpredictable, just like the character requires. Keaton easily does his best work yet as a serious actor. Andy Garcia proves once again that THINGS TO DO IN DENVER WHEN YOU'RE DEAD was not a fluke, and that he really is capable of turning in one fine performance after another. While a couple of the supporting performances aren't up to the level they should be, it doesn't pull down the film.

The direction by Barbet Schroeder is brilliant. THe noir style that the film was shot in works extremely well for the type of film this is. His odd camera angles and dark, brooding shots work perfectly with the dark story. The look of the smoke and fire is perfectly shot, and he should commend his cinematographer.

The suspense, however, is what keeps this film kicking. Even though the lack plot tends to drag down a little bit of the film, it's still a guessing game most of the time, and Schroeder knows how to play this up. It's a shame that critics like Leonard Maltin couldn't look past the implausability at the truly excellent moments of the film. After all, they give truly implausable movies like CON AIR good reviews, and this film is FAR more realistic.

DESPERATE MEASURES is a greatly underrated film that deserves a look. It's decently smart and a hell of a lot more entertaining than a lot of the drivel that Hollywood produces nowadays. *cough, Pearl Harbor, cough*

Peter McCabe (Michael Keaton) is in jail for several murders. He is one of the most dreaded criminals in his prison. However, a cop, Frank Conner (Andy Garcia), finds out that Peter is the only one who can save his son by giving him a bone marrow transplant. Peter agrees to do so after getting several of his privileges, such as smoking, back. However, things take an interesting twist after Peter somehow escapes while in the hospital. Frank can't allow anybody to kill Peter because that would kill Frank's son, but he also doesn't want Peter to do what he is known for, being a murderer.

I can't believe that "Desperate Measures" isn't getting a lot better ratings than it's getting. I thought it was a great movie. I like for movies to have a plot, and I'll admit that this movie is choppy in that department, but it does feature one of Michael Keaton's best job as an actor and it has great suspense. That's why I really liked "Desperate Measures." If you can put up with a movie that doesn't have one of the best plots in the world, but one that has good acting and great suspense, I recommend getting "Desperate Measures."

This is a good movie.Not classic but not stupid a good suspence/action flick.Andy Garcia is a good actor

It's easy to see why DESPERATE MEASURES got bad reviews. The plot might have holes large enough to sail a barge through, and yes, it is quite implausable, but it's hard to completely diss a movie with performances and direction as good as this.

Michael Keaton is eerily menacing as Peter McCabe in this film. He's smart, dangerous, and unpredictable, just like the character requires. Keaton easily does his best work yet as a serious actor. Andy Garcia proves once again that THINGS TO DO IN DENVER WHEN YOU'RE DEAD was not a fluke, and that he really is capable of turning in one fine performance after another. While a couple of the supporting performances aren't up to the level they should be, it doesn't pull down the film.

The direction by Barbet Schroeder is brilliant. THe noir style that the film was shot in works extremely well for the type of film this is. His odd camera angles and dark, brooding shots work perfectly with the dark story. The look of the smoke and fire is perfectly shot, and he should commend his cinematographer.

The suspense, however, is what keeps this film kicking. Even though the lack plot tends to drag down a little bit of the film, it's still a guessing game most of the time, and Schroeder knows how to play this up. It's a shame that critics like Leonard Maltin couldn't look past the implausability at the truly excellent moments of the film. After all, they give truly implausable movies like CON AIR good reviews, and this film is FAR more realistic.

DESPERATE MEASURES is a greatly underrated film that deserves a look. It's decently smart and a hell of a lot more entertaining than a lot of the drivel that Hollywood produces nowadays. *cough, Pearl Harbor, cough*

Peter McCabe (Michael Keaton) is in jail for several murders. He is one of the most dreaded criminals in his prison. However, a cop, Frank Conner (Andy Garcia), finds out that Peter is the only one who can save his son by giving him a bone marrow transplant. Peter agrees to do so after getting several of his privileges, such as smoking, back. However, things take an interesting twist after Peter somehow escapes while in the hospital. Frank can't allow anybody to kill Peter because that would kill Frank's son, but he also doesn't want Peter to do what he is known for, being a murderer.

I can't believe that "Desperate Measures" isn't getting a lot better ratings than it's getting. I thought it was a great movie. I like for movies to have a plot, and I'll admit that this movie is choppy in that department, but it does feature one of Michael Keaton's best job as an actor and it has great suspense. That's why I really liked "Desperate Measures." If you can put up with a movie that doesn't have one of the best plots in the world, but one that has good acting and great suspense, I recommend getting "Desperate Measures."

This is a good movie.Not classic but not stupid a good suspence/action flick.Andy Garcia is a good actor

Unstrung Heroes is one of my alltime favorite books, and I was deeply disappointed how the filmmakers homogenized, pasteurized, de-ethnisized and generally watered it down. Granted, paring is a function of filmmaking - but the treacley script fails to capture the memoir's honesty, humor or dark irony. Unlike the book, the film wallows in sentimentality. Gone are 2 of the uncles - most missed is Uncle Leo, whom the young boy visits in the asylum that's been his home for more than 30 years. Instead of being genuinely mad and edgy, the two remaining uncles play out like Oscar and Felix on The Odd Couple. (They've been Disneyfied, like the rest of the major characters). And the boy's profoundly evil best friend - Ash - is reduced to a sort of Eddie Haskell. This film loses a lot - mostly an urban edge - by shifting locales from New York City to Pasadena (!!!) On top of that, the father (John Turturro) is shorn of all humor - the Sidney Lidz portrayed in the book was an extremely witty (though deeply flawed) man. Turturro does a fantastic job with a badly scripted, unplayable part. He transcends this disappointing adaptation and warrants 5 stars. And Disney has added all kinds of dopey capers (like the boy "saving" his uncles from eviction) to "move the action along." Really dumb and insulting to the viewer! My advice: Buy the book! It's richly rewarding, still in paperback and dirt-cheap.

I liked this movie a lot, until I read the following by Franz Lidz, the book's author (now I like it a lot less) (The book is great!):At the other end of this decade I wrote a childhood memoir ("Unstrung Heroes") that recounted my mother's six-year struggle with breast cancer. From my ninth birthday, in Year Two, almost every step she took was a step going down. "Her hospital stays were becoming longer and longer," I recalled. "I measured them by the nights that she was away. And I didn't like it now when she was home. She had become unpredictable. She wasn't dying like some movie heroine. She could be sullen and bad-tempered. I resented her." And yet when Disney adapted the book for the screen in 1995, my mother, Selma, was shown dying EXACTLY like a movie heroine. No anguished outbursts. No unkind thoughts. No endless days lying mute and tubed and suctioned in grim hospital rooms. My mother's celluloid counterpart (Andie McDowell) was a secular saint whose main cancer symptom was that she tripped over furniture. What I had described as a long, painful, ugly death was made quick, painless, almost pretty. On film, the more the cancer spread, the more luminous my mother became, as if she were pregnant, not ill. The way Disney spun cotton candy around my mother's suffering reminded me of Ali MacGraw's blissful description of her six-minute struggle with cancer in "Love Story" (1970). "It doesn't hurt, Ollie, really it doesn't," Ms. MacGraw, as Jenny, told her husband (Ryan O'Neal). "It's like falling off a cliff in slow motion. Only after a while you wish you hit the ground already." The way Disney killed off my mother -- after fixing pancakes, she praises her kids, plants a perversely passionate kiss on her husband's lips and, to soulful strains of "You Are My Sunshine," drifts off to die in a comfy armchair -- reminded me of Mad magazine's send-up of "Love Story." Instead of cancer, the diagnosis for Ms. MacGraw's character was Old Movie Disease. "In the old days, they used to die beautiful glamorous deaths!" a cartoon oncologist tells O'Neal. "Your wife is going to die such a beautiful death, it'll take your breath away before it takes her breath away." The Big C has always been a fruitful subgenre of Old Movie Diseases. Actresses from Bette Davis ("Dark Victory," brain tumor, 1939) to Debra Winger ("Terms of Endearment," lymphoma, 1983) to Diane Keaton ("Marvin's Room," leukemia, 1997) have received Oscar nominations for playing cancer victims. The latest Hollywood divas to brave cancer on the screen are Meryl Streep ("One True Thing") and Susan Sarandon ("Stepmom"). Both play well-off, middle-aged domestic goddesses, but only Ms. Streep is made to look ravaged by the disease. Her skin pale gray, her eyes rimmed red like a Kabuki's, she becomes so gaunt and frail that in the film's most affecting scene, she has to be lifted out of the bathtub by her daughter. Reduced to a miserable shell, she weeps, rages, endures Bette Midler songs and yet -- inevitably -- maintains her nobility. "Terminal illnesses can inspire voyeurism," Jackson Peyton, a public health consultant in Washington, said in a telephone interview. "Unable to find meaning in their own lives, some people seek it through the drama of the fatal sicknesses of others. But the hard reality of dying is brutally disappointing. For the most part, the deaths of cancer victims don't play out like characters in 19th-century novels or 20th-century films. The truth is that most suffer terribly, and many unload their bitterness on their loved ones." Old Movie Disease-driven films support their romantic agendas by evading and overlooking hard realities. The chaos and horror of cancer are papered over with sentiment and sanctimony, then packaged as a higher state of being. Hollywood cancer mutates ordinary people into angelic beings who straighten out the lives of all the mixed-up souls around them. In "Marvin's Room," the selfless Ms. Keaton draws on an inexhaustible fund of goodness to teach her selfish sister (Ms. Streep) to be more humane. In "One True Thing," the upright Ms. Streep is sacrificed so that her icily ambitious daughter (Renee Zellweger) can learn "life lessons" and turn compassionate caregiver. In "Stepmom," cancer works curative wonders on Ms. Sarandon's prickly perfect homemaker. She remains hostile toward her ex-husband's trophy wife-to-be (Julia Roberts) until, succumbing to the dynamics of the honeyed plot and repeated dosings of her own cancer theme song ("Ain't No Mountain High Enough"), she wearily slouches toward canonization. The more advanced the cancer, the more potent its redemptive powers. Terminal cancer trumps a relatively benign strain in "The Doctor," a 1991 tearjerker in which William Hurt sinks from lordly physician to lowly patient. Stricken with a treatable form of throat cancer, the chilly, insensitive heart surgeon befriends a fellow patient (Elizabeth Perkins) with an inoperable brain tumor. This doomed (and, of course, radiant) young woman guides him on one of those journeys of self-discovery that can begin and end only in Hollywood. Along the way, he learns to appreciate sunsets, desert dancing and rooftop pigeons. Watching this once heartless cardiologist transform into a benevolent St. Francis, replete with birds, I was reminded of another exchange in Mad's spoof. The oncologist tells a shaken Ryan O'Neal: "I'm afraid it's out of our hands." "You mean medical science is powerless?" O'Neal asks. "What medical science!? I'm talking about CINEMA science! Think back! What have we got so far? A corny soap-opera plot! Unbelievable dialogue! A schmaltzy piano music background! Can't you see? If the producer doesn't have a tragic, sobbing ending to make all this garbage seem meaningful, he's got absolutely nothing!" Someday somebody may find a cure for cancer, but the terminal sappiness of cancer movies is probably beyond remedy.

This review refers to the DVD edition(Hollywood Pictures Home Entertainment) of "Unstrung Heroes"......

In the mood for something just a little different? Try spending some time with Michael Richards and Maury Chaykin. They're about as different as you can get. They are Danny an Arthur Lidz, the two very eccentric brothers(not too far removed from Richard's 'Kramer' character on "Seinfeld")who take in their young nephew Steven when things at his house are a little tough to take.

Steven Lidz has always been a bit different from the rest of the kids, this no doubt due to the fact that his father is a bit of an eccentric himself.He is learning to deal with his father's way of life, but when he learns of his mother's terminal illness it's more than he can handle and runs away to stay with his uncles. Uncle Danny and Uncle Arthur are not the ideal choice for baby-sitters, but may be able to teach Steven and his father what's important in life.

The story based on a book by Franz Lidz(the now grown Steven), set in the 1950's, will evoke many emotions. It is touching, at times poignant, sometimes funny, but most of all, I found it to be very heartwarming. It a story of love and family.

Diane Keaton directs this emotional film, and gives us a look at her terrific behind the camera talents.Richards and Chaykin are perfectly cast in the roles of the uncles. Nathan Watt plays the young Steven(Franz) and holds his own with seasoned veterans Andie MacDowell and John Turturro as his parents.The music by Thomas Newman is as moving as the story, and was nominated for an Oscar.

The DVD is a good buy for the price. It has a nice clear picture, with good color and is presented in widescreen.The sound in Dolby Dig Surround(stereo) is very good.It may be viewed in French and has subtitles in Spanish only.There are no other features.

For a few smiles, a few tears, and lots of love, check this one out and enjoy.....Laurie