Subject material wins over substance, and not the best of the year.

Rating: Null/10 (20 July 2006)

Often it's heard that style wins over substance or visa versa, yet here's a matter where the subject material wins hands down over that actual substance of the film, and in fact, style tops substance here as well. There are moments of genius and then these are tempered by some of the most inane and absurd scenes to be in any academy award winning best film of the year. There's great acting, great dialog, and a mastery of cinematic statement, then in the next moment there's trite scriptwork, flat cardboard characterizations, and ordinary visuals that could be topped by a TV production. I suppose this might have to do with the nature of the experience, the juxtaposition of the lives of the several challenged individuals, the involvement of the actors and possible non-involvement of some, and perhaps even the order in which scenes were filmed. While I enjoyed this film, I do not see in it the same power of statement that I saw in Boyz and the Hood, for example. I also see that some of it rings true and then much of it also rings false. Of course, there is always the big problem inherent in all motion pictures of using stereotypical behavior to send the big message, after all it is only a two hour or so experience and a lot has to be said, and stereotypes help us to GET IT?! quickly. That's a tough thing for a film intent on breaking down stereotypes to rely upon. If you think there's no stereotyping here, you'd better look at it again and pay close attention to the Asian portrayals, the temperamental Persian man, and Sandra Bullock and hubby. Oh, I almost forgot the gun shop owner, Hollywood's idea of every American male between LA and NY City. A very good, nearly great work, but not the best of the year. Of course that's purely "in my opinion", please do not take it personally. You should see this film regardless, and it is better than the other one it beat out.