gbill-74877

Whatever your beliefs are for an afterlife, I thought this film's embracing of reincarnation at a time when it wasn't that well known in America was a positive thing, particularly since a sizeable fraction of people around the world believe in it. It's probably a cursory take, but to explain how death shouldn't be feared and to show the footage of a funeral in India were nice touches. It's also got a fine performance from Anthony Hopkins before he hit it big, and holding up her end was Marsha Mason, who despite having a rather weepy character, got a great scene in after her character's husband had been out drinking with a work client.

Unfortunately, in addition to its spiritual statements, this also wanted to be a horror film, and that's where it failed hard. Despite the creepy potential in Hopkins' character stalking the young family, there was never any doubt that his character wasn't legitimate. The danger the child is in is also a little bit sketchy - she has nightmares, sure, but it felt like the "soul damaged in transfer" business was just a schlocky way of trying to get her into a position ala Linda Blair in The Exorcist. You'll also have to suppress your disbelief over things like Hopkins' character finding her out of billions all over the globe via a couple of clairvoyants, the child somehow burning her hands on a window, and a scene where she bizarrely crawls towards a fire instead of away from it, which was compounded by its only being seen by the nun inside the building when so many others were nearby. I hate to say it, but the performance from the child actor wasn't very good either.

Where the film really misses, however, is when it transitions into a courtroom drama, where it was absurd to see the "reincarnation defense" being allowed despite the things Hopkins' character had done. How the parents behave and how visible they are in the story is inconsistent, especially as the film gets into a ridiculously long hypnosis scene. The conclusion, with Hopkins beside the child instead of her parents, and then how it was accepted - despite what the film had said about reincarnation, bolstered with the quote from the Bhagavad Gita - didn't feel justified, because the foundations of torment never felt properly laid. It's not a terrible film by any means, but it felt like it could have done so much more with the premise.

This is quite watchable and impressive as Christopher Nolan's first film, especially given its limited budget. I liked the casting, how it was shot in 16mm black and white, and how lean it was at just 70 minutes. The story is pretty standard noir fare, with a guy getting in over his head after coming into contact with a burglar and one of the women he robs, but it's put through a bit of a blender with Nolan's signature out of order storytelling. Some of that is effective in heightening the intrigue while we piece together what's happening, some of it seems like a gimmick. Pretty cool to see that Batman sign on the door though.

"I'm not crabby. I'm pensive."

There is genuine sweetness in the relationship between a working-class mother and her prodigy son, but the story is pretty average, populated with thin characters, some melodramatic moments, and without a very deep exploration into what it means to be identified as gifted as a child. I loved the poetic bits like when Fred's responds to the question of Van Gogh's painting, "I wonder why he only painted one iris white" by simply saying "because he was lonely" much more than the insane math problems the kids solve in seconds, sometimes to cheesy visual overlays of numbers swirling about. The tension between the mom and the woman who runs the institute for gifted kids had potential, but it felt a little cartoonish, especially with how stiff Dianne Wiest's character was. The ending, which magically erased issues between them, between the boy and going to such a school, and the boy's solitude felt contrived and artificial. But it's not a bad watch, and helped significantly by the performance from 9-year-old Adam Hann-Byrd.