The Desert Fox (1951)

THE DESERT FOX (1951)

By Ralph Santini - ***½

The Desert Fox is a WWII biopic that tells a rather interesting story about one of the most celebrated German generals in WWII, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, a Wehrmacht officer who chiefly commanded in the Afrika Korps unit in Northern Africa which Hitler conquered right after getting his hands on most of continental Europe and occupying it. But after the Afrika Korps was demolished by the Allied forces, Rommel was asked to command a German unit in Northwestern Europe for D-Day, which the Allies struggled to invade for a long time. But after the Allies managed to win the beachhead battles, Rommel was later suspected as a traitor to Nazi Germany and later died nearly a year before the Nazis surrendered. This film intelligently uncovers what exactly happened to the German patriot when he died and how Adolf Hitler accused him of treason against the citizens of the Third Reich.

The film begins when a group of British commandos raid a German military station rather unsuccessfully and after one of those soldiers got wounded he asks a German officer, Capt. Aldinger (a pre-Have Gun Will Travel Richard Boone) “did we get him?” and Aldinger retorts “are you serious, Englishman?”. This is one of those scenes that demonstrates that this film will become very enjoyable with a well-done screenplay and marvelous acting. We later cut to a scene where a group of British prisoners of war under arrest by German soldiers then they are later stormed by an Allied air raid and leads to a persuasion by a German Officer asking a British Officer, Desmond Young (portraying himself) to tell the R.A.F. to cease fire but refuses. This is a scene where are finally introduced to Erwin Rommel here portrayed with excellent results by James Mason. He absolutely delivers as the German general and his performance is nothing short of riveting. In fact, I think that’s what makes this movie so nearly excellent.

We later learn that Rommel catches Diphtheria and is treated in a German hospital for the disease but we later find out that the arrogant Führer insists that he returns to Northern Africa in spite of the illness. However, Rommel is unsatisfied to learn about strong supply problems and even bad reinforcement action. When Rommel even requests a retreat the cruel pretended Führer insists on Victory or Defeat, which angers the Field Marshal and that statement drives him mad causing him to even defy the Führer’s orders. After Rommel is once again seriously ill he is visited by his wife (Jessica Tandy, wonderful) and an old friend Dr. Karl Strolin (an equally excellent Sir Cedric Hardwicke) and he discuss with both of them all of Hitler’s ridiculous ideologies about winning the war. Eventually when Rommel recovers he is visited in his mansion by Dr. Strolin who suggests that it’s basically time to end the war by conspiring against Hitler. However we see that Rommel is actually reluctant simply because he considers that Politics are none of his business resulting in a rather unfriendly conversation between the friends. So, Rommel is given another chance to his active service, this time in Northern France, where there is a great debate on where the Allies will storm the beaches. When Rommel reports to Field Marshal von Rundstedt (another extraordinary role by Leo G. Carroll) outside of Paris he gets rather blunt with the commander in chief about German defenses being rather dubious. However, Von Rundstedt warns Rommel that Hitler is strictly responsible for any German military strategy and that he is under the influence of astrologers, and like the rest of the Wehrmacht leaders, he will be closely watched at all costs. After Normandy has been finally invaded by Allied forces Rommel feels that he’s had absolutely enough and Von Rundstedt somewhat agrees only he feels to old to participate against the Führer. Nevertheless he strongly wishes Rommel good luck.

But right now comes one of the most compelling scenes in the entire war drama and that is Rommel’s discussion with Adolf Hitler (a riveting performance by Luther Adler) about the declining strategies of winning the war. But the bombastic leader gets horribly riled and insists on acting very unreasonable because he refuses to lose the war. This scene is absolutely remarkable because we greatly depict one of the most dangerous lost causes engineered by one of history’s dirtiest and most psychotic leaders where he feels rather spoiled by a rather honest military officer who all he wants is a reasonable surrender who’s had enough of human carnage. Hitler has done a lot of human damage to the world and look how Rommel feels about the war, he was rather displeased on Hitler’s methods about winning a war by telling him his rigid tactics on how to win it. When we saw earlier back in the scene in Northern Africa, another respected officer, played by the mostly dependable George McCready, whom he ironically played a conversely nasty French officer in Stanley Kubrick’s excellent WWI Drama “Paths Of Glory” insinuates that the tactics are “sheer madness!”. He even compares the tactics to those used in the middle ages. I mean no wonder the war went a little on for a year after Normandy. We even use a depiction of the plot to kill Hitler, where the disabled officer, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg (Eduard Franz) initiates a bomb exploding the building the führer was present but the plain unfortunately failed and we then cut back to Rommel, months after being wounded in an air raid is resting rather peacefully at his home with his family, has been issued a call from Hitler and he is told that he is receiving a visit from Gen. Burgdorf (Citizen Kane’s Everett Sloane, again excellent) which turns out to be an arrest for Rommel for the crime of treason. Burgdoff informs Rommel that he’s got two choices, either appear before a court martial against him or take a sedative that might turn off his life forever. After Rommel leaves his family we are later informed with an excellent question mark ending.

This is one of those war docudramas, which was directed by Henry Hathaway who also directed the equally compelling “House on 92^nd Street”, that, in my opinion, honestly depicts a realistic portrayal of one of the most celebrated German generals in the history of World War II. The cast is excellent, the script is absolutely well done and the scene where Rommel bickers with Hitler needs no absolute introduction. WWII historians will love this film and I hope they agree with me. A near-excellent rare gem.

Strangers On A Train (1951)

STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951)

By Ralph Santini - ****

Two years after shutting down his independent production company, Transatlantic Pictures, the master of suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock, finally got back to his quintessential roots in his greatest movie in five years, Strangers On A Train. It contains every of his excellent trademarks, including especially the “wrong man” type who wants to clear his name to justice. The premise here concerns a young tennis player, Guy Haines (wonderfully portrayed by the underrated Farley Granger) who meets up with a lazy socialite, named Bruno Anthony (a riveting Robert Walker) and he gets an idea of wanting to take advantage to get rid of his domineering father (a brief but sill rigid Jonathan Hale) by swapping murders with him and Guy’s philandering, Femme Fatale wife (the viciously lovely Kasey Rogers, who gets credit from Warner Bros. as Laura Elliott) so that Guy can have better time with Anne Morton (the even more beautiful Ruth Roman) a woman he loves a lot more. Bruno thinks it’s a good idea because it’s about each person murdering total strangers; with Bruno ending up saying his iconic crescendo “Criss-Cross”.

The problem with that is, Guy only takes it as a morbid joke but nevertheless Bruno goes on by following Miriam Joyce Haines, the cruel pretended wife of Guy’s and suddenly MURDERS her. That’s right a murder has been committed and Bruno goes on giving his glasses to Guy and he is SHOCKED; he desperately yells at Bruno “YOU MANIAC!!!!!” but Bruno retorts Guy that they both planned it together but Guy wants to call the police and Bruno tells him that that won’t do any good because they’d “both be arrested for murder”. Although Guy would eventually be questioned by the police, his alibi turns out that it doesn’t work since the witness, college professor from New York, was drunk while Guy was taking his train from Metcalf to Washington. So the film would eventually put the character of Guy in a spot and that’s where we get to the exciting continuation of this brilliant story.

There are plenty of things that I love so much about “Strangers On A Train” that I should point out a few topics for my analysis of this great movie. First we have Bruno Anthony, this is one character that really needs a lot of merit because I believe that his portrayal by Robert Walker is extraordinary because I think he is this movie. Bruno is just a tortured character who obviously needs a lot of psychological help because he seems to think that murder is something very essential. And yet, murder is against the law, as there is a moment where Bruno talks to a judge about what should happen to all murderers, and the judge retorts that “when a murder, must be caught, he must tried, he must be sentenced to die, and must be executed”. Another great thing about Bruno’s opinion of the law is how Guy tells him that he may old-fashioned by telling him that murder IS against the law. But Bruno gets angry at Guy’s agreement with the Law telling him that a life or two doesn’t really matter and that some people should be better of dead. That is one of those Hitchcockian trademarks that worked as an outburst about “The Perfect Murder” that appeared in his first color film Rope; only I find Bruno Anthony a finer villain than the ones Farley Granger (ironically the hero of this film) and John Dall portrayed in that picture.

My second topic is Guy Haines, whom, like I said, Farley Granger portrayed in reverse to his character in Rope. Guy however is very much a law abiding citizen who wants to make himself respectable in his sports career in Tennis, though sometimes when is angry at his no-good wife he does feel like terminating her by making an outburst on a phone call he has with Anne saying “I could break her foul useless neck!”. But after Miriam is murdered he is still shocked at what Bruno did to his wife and he feels that it’s his duty as a citizen to deal out justice against Bruno only the psycho keeps warning our hero that he still be turning himself as an accessory. That’s why Guy must keep on surviving by doing his best to clear his name or otherwise it’ll too late for him to be innocent in the eyes of the law. This Hitchcockian “wrong man” trademark is absolutely puzzling even though the police here are not used as that rigid compared to especially Hitchcock’s previous works concerning this theme e.g. The 39 Steps or master’s underrated 1942 thriller Saboteur. 

My next topic in this film is the incredible amount of shots used by Alfred Hitchcok with cinematographer Robert Burks. The opening shot of this film contains a rather funny use of both Robert Walker and Farley Granger’s walking feet clashing with one another as both of their characters are on their way taking the train. That still really chills me because we don’t know whether something terrible will go on during the train scene or not. Another equally fun shot in this film is when we see the first tennis game which Guy plays where we see the audience concentrating on the game while Bruno only stares at Guy. Another great shot for this gem is the way Bruno stares at a character portrayed Alfred’s daughter Patricia Hitchcock every time Bruno encounters her. But the most compelling shot that comes to my mind is the one where after Guy decides to visit Bruno’s Mansion. This is one the scariest scenes I’ve ever seen in the history of thriller filmmaking because it reminds me of one those childhood nightmares I had in the past. I also love how Guy and Bruno’s dog interact with each other because at first we suspect that the dog may harm Guy but it actually doesn’t since it knows how Bruno has a deep affection for Guy in spite of not being so, vice-versa. After Guy approaches Bruno’s father’s room we seem to be presumed that is talking to the old man, while it turns out that the man asleep is Bruno himself and he warned Guy that his father was really leaving from Washington D.C. to Florida.

This is basically one Alfred Hitchcock’s greatest post-war thrillers in his career because it has a great spirit to the Master of Suspense roots in both the interwar period in his career in British cinema and his World War II period in Hollywood. It’s got a great blend of eerie suspense and black comedy and that’s why I absolutely adore it. I never get tired of watching it especially because of Robert Walker’s extraordinary portrayal of the psycho villain with great ideals about the perfect murder.

Albuquerque (1948)

ALBUQUERQUE (1948)

By Ralph Santini - ***

Albuquerque is another of the various independent productions that Randolph Scott was concentrating on at the time and this one is his second western filmed in Cinecolor. For more information of the minor cinematic process see my review for The Cariboo Trail.

Again I must discuss my own methods for criticisms in for this kind of production; story rather than process related. Cinecolor may not please every movie lover but that still doesn’t prevent me from recommending this movie since I also see effective writing here. This could well be another of the better Cinecolor westerns that come to my mind because of the storyline. This time Scott plays Cole Armin, the nephew of a corrupt businessman named John Armin (veteran character actor, George Cleveland) , who ordered an organized gang of cutthroats to assault a stage hold up in which Cole himself was present in. This resulted in the robbery of $10,000 a woman, Celia Wallace (the beautiful Catherine Craig) was carrying and even the murder of a bystander which shocks the driver Juke (the ever lovable Gabby Hayes) whom he befriends with Cole and has an obsession with not wanting to cut out his whiskers that his fiancée barber (I’m not kidding) Pearl doesn’t want to have. Worse yet, this crime has been reported to Albuquerque’s equally corrupt Sherriff Linton (Bernard Nedell, always despicable in westerns as far as I’ve seen). After the emergency arrival, Cole is at first rejected by Celia’s brother Ted Wallace (B-movie Icon Russell Hayden) because he suspects that he is too loyal to his evil uncle, until Cole finds out from one of the John’s henchmen that he now understands his elder’s wrongdoings and decides to give the Wallace’s money back and form a partnership against wicked Uncle John.

Yes I know, this film is yet far from another masterpiece but I think still contains a satisfying story. I really like how brave Randolph Scott’s character of Cole Armin is as he is willing to defy a greedy and treacherous uncle who will stop at nothing to get the Wallace siblings out of business even if he hires a seductive henchwoman, Letty Tyler (The stunning and demure blonde Barbara Britton) by tricking Ted into falling in love with her. Also Britton demonstrates that she is not only of the most underrated beauties of Hollywood’s golden age but also a very underrated talent by an actress standards. Her Letty Tyler role is simply irresistible and whenever she appears in this film, I’d say Britton does steals the show. I also a have soft spot for the underappreciated talent of Russell Hayden. Granted I have not seen a number of western featurettes he has made for independent film producer Robert L. Lippert, but in this film he seems to know how to act too because his character is often tortured by his fear of failure of battling against John Armin’s somewhat near-successful attempts of acquiring a monopoly in the freight mining business. But Mr. Wallace is thankfully helped by the bravery and confidence he has with the Randolph Scott hero of Cole Armin, who can be a minor but effective variation of Hamlet anytime. Sure there are some occasional formula scenes like when Scott is actually imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit and even another long fight scene he has with Lon Chaney, Jr. who plays John Armin’s bullying henchman as if he would nearly kill Cole before it’s conclusion. I also don’t mind the silly nature of a young girl named Myrtle, sure she is a little kid with very little adulteration but, still I think she’s a rather cute kid who would help Cole anytime with support by her likeable father (the always good-natured character actor Irving Bacon).

“Albuquerque” is another good example of those Cinecolor westerns that does contain a decent storyline, despite it’s flaws. As I mentioned in my review for “The Cariboo Trail” other westerns may not match good premises with decent executions like neither that one nor this western. Again, even if you don’t care about this kind of film, you should also give this one a second look. But still this also another film for die-hard Randolph Scott fans and Cinecolor historians alike to enjoy passionately.

Space Jam (1996)

SPACE JAM (1996)
By Ralph Santini – ***

                Delightfully entertaining since seeing this film myself at age 9 going on 10, the NBA (Michael Jordan, specifically) meets the Looney Tunes extravaganza “Space Jam” is still a fun family film with plenty of excitement. Joe Pytka, the film’s director has basically been directing mostly music videos and I think it’s stand to reason why this film still holds up as a feature length music video about basketball and Warner Bros. cartoon characters. This movie, clearly set in 1993, mixes the true story of Michael Jordan switching from Basketball to professional Baseball, a sport his father excelled at, with a fantasy story sharing an alternate reality on the lives of NBA players and the Looney Tunes cartoon characters where they find out that space aliens are about to kidnap them to a moon called “Moron Mountain” (isn’t that a funny name?). The aliens consist of a scheming villain Mr. Swackhammer (voiced by Danny DeVito) engineering his henchmen known as The Nerdlucks to get the Looney Tunes after his business is faltering with complaints of costumers on how the theme park is declining one by one.

                When The Nerdlucks confirm the beloved cartoon characters that they will be their slaves for the amusement business Bugs implores them that he and his pals must need a chance to defend themselves and what do they do? The Tunes themselves challenge the clumsy creatures to a Basketball game. Things don’t go right however when the little darlings steal the talent from 5 famous NBA players; Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Shawn Bradley, Larry Johnson and Muggsy Bogues. Worse yet, the players’ talents transforms the cute little Nerdlucks into scary gigantic “Monstars”. And that’s where The Looney Tunes’ plan to bring Michael Jordan into their animated reality begins. All they have to do is have Yosamite Sam drag Mr. Jordan from his golf game and let Bugs in charge for asking Michael for his help for his coaching into playing Basketball. Jordan and his animated pals would be eventually joined by his rather imprudent but loveable fictional publicist Stan Podolak  (Wayne Knight) and an attractive new-to-Looney -Tunes-fans character named Lola Bunny whom Bugs falls in love with.

                This film is not exactly one of the great movies but it’s nevertheless a fun joyride that I still find entertaining after all these years. I mean come on, Basketball and Looney Tunes? I think that’s really a terrific premise. It’s true Michael Jordan is no actor, but I understand he’s got a very nice reputation for being a philanthropic gentleman and I can really dig that. I also love Bill Murray’s amazing cameo as himself where he eventually gives our heroes luck into becoming their fifth player after several misfires in the game. It’s also really nice to see most our favorite characters from The Looney Tunes universe ranging from Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, Tweety Bird, Sylvester, Yoseamite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Wile E. Coyote, Road Runner, etc. make their official feature film debut, after their previous ones consisted of mostly compilations of cut cartoons for them.

                It’s also fun to see the cameos made by Larry Bird and many other Basketball personalities including the victims of having their talent stolen from the Nerdlucks. Mind you, I must admit previously not liking several scenes when they are trying to cope with themselves with no talent from when Charles Barkley is rejected by a group of girls playing basketball pegging him as a wannabe and then they are trying to recover themselves in a hospital, Barkley going church, and the players trying to see a psychiatrist. However now that I’m grown up I think I will take that all back, because well, growing up, I became more and more familiar with Sports figures even though I am not quite the sports fan many people are. The point is that Space Jam is, regardless, a fun movie to watch since I basically love seeing Michael Jordan team up with The Looney Tunes both of them being gigantic cultural phenomenons.

The King's Speech (2010)

The King’s Speech (2010)

By Ralph Santini - ****

One of the most compelling films of this ongoing decade, “The King’s Speech” delivers one of the richest dramatizations in the history of biography filmmaking. It is also one of the finest period pieces of this century so far. This film won four academy awards including Best Picture of 2010 along with Best Actor by Colin Firth, Best Director by Tom Hooper and even Best Original Screenplay by David Seidler. Whether I agree with the academy or not, this remarkable British drama contains a triumphant performance by Firth as King George VI and he followed the rules quite brilliantly with the help of Tom Hooper’s fantastic direction.

The film centers on the true historical facts about King George’s uncomfortable stammering and he tries finding plenty of therapists but most of them are unsuccessful until one with a rather notorious reputation turns out to be quite possibly the best he will use even if George doesn’t like it at the beginning. Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush doing a terrific job himself) a veteran actor from Australia doesn’t get much attention from casting directors in the British theatre but since he has to earn a living he works as a speech therapist and decides to help George in spite of his constant pain. The main problem for George V in life is that his older brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce also excellent) is doing a sacrilegious plan to marry a twice divorced American woman named Wallis Simpson (Eve Best from Showtime’s Nurse Jackie) and it disgruntles King George V (a brief but still brilliant job by Michael Gambon) strongly.  George V, aside from handling quite an adventure with Lionel, is also constantly supported by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter, with well-done acting herself) and she will do anything to help her loving husband become a successful King by battling his strained stammering.

My first topic for my analysis of this modern British gem is going to be the characterization of King George VI by Colin Firth in one of the very best roles in his long career. King George VI had a very bad upbringing when he was a 4 to 5 years old and that very much affected his speech for the rest of his life. He comes from a family that became part of The United Kingdom’s monarch three years before World War I started. We all know that the period between the World Wars is often called by Historians “The Interwar Period” and it was a very risky time in the West because since Germany’s loss for World War I many Germans felt they wanted revenge on the allied countries that won the war. Enter Adolph Hitler, with the Nazi party his sympathizers founded in 1920, he took over the party a year later so in twelve years’ time he could take over The Weimar Republic and turn it into The Third Reich. The United Kingdom was one of the Reich’s most perfect targets for Hitler’s plan to destroy it. That very much affected George’s Family and this made it difficult for them to raise him good. George at the beginning looks like he can’t make it to make a good speech for a horse racing event and that’s where it all begins with his search for a perfect therapist. It’s not easy for George because the last therapist he attends before Lionel is an old crackpot with a hoary old method in which even Elizabeth complaints that it only worked with an ancient Greek politician. This old therapist also claims that cigarette smoking can calm a man’s nerves before he prescribes George to put some balls in his mouth for his speech impediment. The main problem with smoking (particularly cigarette smoking) is that those things can kill people and even Lionel knows it’s dangerous. It’s no wonder why George VI died in real life of Lung Cancer at age 56. Another frustrating obstacle George faces is when George V gives the Royal Christmas speech of 1934 he decided that because his infidel elder son is unfit for coronation he gives his decision to give the throne to George rather than Edward. George obviously thinks that’s not fair to him at first but when he does notice Edward still being strongly in love with Wallis he has no choice but to snitch the British parliament (who in fact have been more in charge in politics for years than the Royal Monarchs) of Edward’s sacrilege and then they abdicate him, making George VI the new king of England.

My second topic for my analysis is George’s relation with Lionel Logue, a speech defects therapist who is willing to help in every way for George to become a competent King. George like I’ve said previously, doesn’t even want the sessions with Lionel and firmly distrusts him. The main reason George would go on with the sessions is because of a surprise gift he received from Lionel about a self-recording of reciting Hamlet’s famous “To Be Or Not To Be” soliloquy while hearing Mozart on a pair of headphones. That seems like a very good way to lead George into helping him trust the good-natured Lionel and things do get better and better, in spite of future disagreements between the patient and the therapist. The difference between George and Lionel is that George’s life is surrounded by tradition and high society in the UK, while the Australian-born free thinking Lionel has a life where he can be more flexible and more comprehensible to humanity. That’s why I enjoyed the great chemistry between Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush’s respective performances as the rigid Monarch and the liberal-minded therapist. The chemistry is not only the film’s greatest asset, it’s the story. The true story of a rich monarch who needed help from a humble therapist to become the King of England during World War II where Firth gives a great reenactment of his speech concerning the War.

This is a very important film, especially when it comes to the history of the interwar period, because it tells us about the dynasty of Monarchs that go beyond just the stories of Lady Di and the Royal weddings of the century. It’s about their role in their contribution to World War II one of my favorite subjects of history. It also contains one of Colin Firth’s greatest performances in the history of his ongoing career and he is very well supported by especially Geoffrey Rush who is absolutely terrific in the role of the speech therapist who sacrifices plenty for the sake of humanity in which a great portion has been destroyed in World War II.

Isn't It Romantic (2019)

ISN’T IT ROMANTIC (2019)

By Ralph Santini - **

The opening of the most recent mainstream romantic comedy “Isn’t It Romantic” contains Roy Orbison’s classic romantic ballad “Pretty Woman” then we cut to a young girl watching the film itself inspired the 60’s classic that starred Julia Roberts and Richard Gere, somewhere in Australia. Her drunken mother (Jennifer Saunders) advises her that romantic comedies are not like real life and that happy endings are not worth her kid’s time. 25 years later she has ended up as a parking architect (Rebel Wilson, the star of this film) and after living those years she does agree with her mother that the cinematic genre isn’t basically worth it. Frankly I don’t blame Rebel Wilson’s character in this film, because in my opinion a huge percentage of romantic comedies (particularly since 1990) have gained a reputation of being formulaic and ridiculously clichéd. How possible is it for me can it be to make a good romantic comedy, I’m not sure, but this film contains a wonderful tribute to the nowadays tired genre and an effective performance by the Australian born funny woman, Wilson.

The story’s conflict however begins when Wilson is actually struck in accident after being mugged by an aggressive thief and later finds out that she is in a parallel universe where everything seems like a PG-13 rom-com and she gets involved with some characters she already knows from the more realistic universe, like Liam Hemsworth’s character is an Australian rather than an American, and she is in the rich side of New York rather than the poor side of New York, a gay neighbor of hers is a good pal rather than an indifferent neighbor, Adam Devine is falls in love with a yoga instructor (the charming Pranka Chopra), an old friend (the sexy Betty Gilpin) is an old nemesis rather than an old friend, and worst of all she can’t say bad words do to the fact that the world is PG-13.

Anyway, what I really like about the movie is how funny Rebel Wilson is here and how she always gets crazy the more she seems stuck in a romantic comedy. What really makes me indifferent, however is how the movie gets much more predictable ever since the universe Wilson’s heroine grew up with has changed and that in my opinion spoils this film. To those of you who live in the USA, Canada or Puerto Rico (where I continue to reside) my advice is to wait until it comes to streaming. To those of you live elsewhere feel free to see it until you might get tired, who knows, as long you be the judge of this film.  

About A Boy (2002)

ABOUT A BOY (2002)

By Ralph Santini - ***½

The Weitz’s brothers third film, the romantic comedy-drama, “About A Boy” is quite possibly one the better lighthearted movies of this century.  It contains pleasant screenwriting by the directors themselves, and co-developed with Peter Hedges, as well as remarkable performances by Hugh Grant and then 12-year old Nicholas Hoult, both of them especially. I’ve never seen better chemistry like this and I think they really deserve it. They are also surrounded by a terrific supporting cast, including Toni Collette as Hoult’s suicidal but caring mother who sometimes get concerned with her son’s friendship with Grant. 

The story concerns both a lazy man in his late thirties, Will Freeman (Grant) who has nothing to do ever in his life except watch too-much tv, listen to too many records, watch videocassettes/dvds ,etc and a more ambitious 12-year old boy, Marcus Brewer (Hoult) who eventually meets up with Grant after meeting up with, Suzie (Victoria Smurfit), a friend of Marcus’ mother (Collette), whom Will met at a club concerning single parents just to meet women and Grant initially likes at the beginning. Suddenly, Marcus apparently kills a Duck by mistake not knowing that a loaf of bread being already stale and they decide to carefully take him home after being questioned by the zoo security unit whom Grant successfully lies to them as being already dead for longer so as not to scare the rest of the children in the zoo. 

When they later arrive at the house Marcus lives with Fiona, his mother, they find out that she is attempting suicide and later they take her to the hospital in order to save her life. And then a miracle happens when Fiona does survive her suicidal attempt and Marcus decides to befriend Will because he has a special interest in him. But Will doesn’t seem sure at the beginning, until he decides to help Marcus in teaching him how to battle constant bullying at the school he attends. But things however get worse when Marcus is mugged by the bullies, resulting in stolen new pair of shoes and after this Fiona gets suspicious of Marcus’ friendship with Will and it’s not pretty between them. Time passes and Will eventually meets a single mother named Rachel (the cute, sexy Rachel Weisz) while Marcus has a huge crush with a teenage Goth Girl (the very hot Natalia Tena) and eventually it’ll be up to our heroes’ friendship to see whether love conquers all or not. 

This is a good example of the irony within age because the movie shows a sharp difference of maturity between both Will and Marcus. While Will is just in late thirties and all the time being lazy, Marcus seemingly wants to become more and more grown up than ever before. Will can sometimes get very cantankerous when can’t get his way, while Marcus can handle most of the danger concerning his future. But that’s exactly why this light hearted film holds up so well because unlike the traditional rom-coms from around this period, it takes the story very seriously about the chemistry of a immature man and a ready-to-grow-up boy. 

The actress who plays Marcus’ mom, Fiona, Toni Collette, gives a terrific supporting performance as a truly concerned mother who always wants the best for her son. Fiona is a character who knows what is and what is wrong, but at the beginning she is presented as a rather tortured woman who is fed up with life itself but after her recovery becomes more and more concerned about the troubles her son might face. She is even concerned about Marcus listening to hip-hop music, which had it’s strong peak at the time this movie was filmed, after all that happened to every parent who gets concerned with their future and influence on the music. 

“About A Boy” demonstrates that sometimes it not impossible to make a good romantic comedy because it tells a truly realistic story that helps people how to adjust themselves to the life that’s not about a certain individual, but everyone’s. It also contains some of the most memorable motion picture chemistries ever told in the history of new millennium filmmaking. It’s that pleasant.