10sne1

This is a geopolitical thriller. It would be widely entertaining were it not for the fact that it is based on real events in very recent global history in which a corrupt White House coddled officials who were guilty of treason in outing a CIA official, leaving valuable American assets around the world twisting in the wind, and then getting the media to Blame the Victim by painting Plame as a low-level insignificant paper pusher and not the high-level agent she actually was. Yes, of course that's a biased statement. But no one comes to this film unbiased. Ideologies dictate how one will respond to this powerful denoument of sleaze and connivance at the highest levels of power. If you like Bush-Cheaney you hate this vile besmirching of their unimpeachable character. Of course you do. I fear the degree to which voting Americans are handing over their birthright to the loudest shouter or the richest contributor. As a line in the film reminds us, Benjamin Franklin replied to a woman that "I have given you a republic, madam. Now it's your job to keep it." We are in danger of losing it. And oh, by the way, Naomi Watts embodies Valerie Plame so convincingly that you have to blink twice at the end to realize you're watching Plame testifying before the congressional committee, not Watts playing Plame.

I rented this to watch Kevin Kline and discovered Paul Dano. He's the one you can't take your eyes off of, playing a really quirky character without a single wrong move. Don't expect the ending to wrap things up, however. There is no ending. It just sort of comes to a stop, nothing resolved, no pointing to any kind of future. And still I was oddly captivated.

Forget unpalatable Salt. THIS is the Angelina we all adore, in a comedy caper of delicious intrigue with Johnny Depp and a mouthwatering setting in stunning Venice. Don't think it's over till it's over. The next-to-the-last Jolie line is the best in the movie.

Yuck. Ebert says it has holes big enough to fly a 747 through (or something like that) and still loved it? The execution (pun intended) of the plot is so inane it's insane. Jolie (how could anyone that beautiful be less beautiful as a blonde?) is, what, the Terminatrix? The Bionic **** Goddess of Geopolitical Revenge? Please please please let there not be a Salt Two!

Okay, boys and girls, suspend your disbelief, fasten your seat belt, and get ready for a wild Cruise and Diaz roller coaster ride. "Who ARE you?" Cameron's June asks Tom's, well, somebody or other. Roy? Matt? This is one zippy comedy caper from start to finish. Is he really the good guy in all of this?" Oh, come on, he couldn't possibly be the baddy. Could he? Stick around. Who cares if the running of the bulls is in Pamploma, not Sevilla? Irrelevant. The point is, is Cruise going to have to wind up asking Diaz, "Who are YOU?"

Full disclosure: I met Secretariat, standing at stud at Claiborne Farm outside Paris, Kentucky, in 1974. Let me tell you, that Red was one very impressive horse. He bolted across the pasture to where we stood at the rail and tried to bite my wife's, um, well, let's not go into anatomical detail. But alas, Big Red was more impressive than the movie about him. Alas, I couldn't help comparing it (the film) with Seabiscuit (the film), and it doesn't nearly shine like that one did. Also I kept seeing Diane Lane as little Liz Taylor all growed up and dealing with a horse a whole lot more memorable than National Velvet. Plucky owner, plucky horse. Still, the film has its moments. I still remember seeing the Belmont live on TV in '73 and being absolutely blown away by Secretariat's unprecedented performance, so this flick made that experience come alive for me again. Kudos to John Malkovich and Margo Martindale (lately of TV's "Justified" fame) for entertaining supporting roles. I don't know how many nags played the role of Secretariat but frankly they just didn't quite do him justice. He was one awesome dude!

So, to begin with, you've got this screwball comedy starring Sarah Palinâ

This one is a real sleeper, one I came across quite by accident. Full disclosure: I'm a murder mystery addict. What fascinates me about The Oxford Murders is the smooth blend of mystery with cutting-edge philosophical theory centering on Wittgenstein, chaos theory, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Please believe me when I tell you these are integrated seamlessly into the seemingly serial murder plot. What is real? What is true and how do you know it? And just when you think you have all the answers, is there another alternative scenario you haven't even remotely entertained that is equally plausible? (Yes, by the way, but that's no spoiler.) Hurt is masterful as the pompous but brilliant Oxford don. The others all help make the movie work well enough. I don't know whether "Lorna" was in the original 2006 novel on which this is based but her character makes its own pleasant contribution as well.