Most who go to this movie will have an idea what it is about; A man loses his entire family and even his dog in a flight from Boston that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. What you probably won't know before seeing this film is this: How that would feel; What do you do with that; and how would that affect you and the way you relate to every waking day? The story unfolds painfully slow from the gate and then warms up nicely as it gains a little speed while the recently renewed relationship between dentist Alan Johnson, (Don Cheadle) and ex-college roommate Charlie Fineman, (Adam Sandler) solidifies and begins to take shape. Characters appear in this film whose presence initially seem obligatory and not well developed but in fact, stay with this story, and you find that the simplicity of each character is what makes this story believable - and accurate. Real people inhabit a real situation whereby they can do little but stand aside while one amongst them disintegrates. The pain inside Charlie's soul is subtly evident from first introduction and grows as we learn more about his character brilliantly revealed by Sandler, as layers of an onion  one layer at a time with lightness and weight combined. It's so subtle a performance that he sneaks up on you and gets inside your head while you are watching him on screen. Cheadle's Alan Johnson is equally subtle and very Don Cheadle. Always watchable, the ease that's apparent when Cheadle's on screen speaks to his consummate acting skills. Alan's relationship with Charlie Fineman is delicate in texture, just as the situation would demand. Fineman doesn't want friendship, nor anybody intruding into his cloistered life and yet, the likable quality that Alan owns is simple and honest enough to intrigue even a recluse like Charlie. It is Alan who has the task of gingerly opening up Charlie's carefully sealed life. There is inherent danger in the process. The more Alan nudges Charlie to open up, going so far as engaging the services of friend and psychologist Angela Oakhurst, (Liv Tyler) the nearer the danger of pushing Charlie over the edge. It's an abyss that Charlie teeters on each and every waking moment and one he has learned to navigate through sheer dint of denial. He has denied everything that priorly existed for him in order to exist with his loss. Unfortunately, his grief is one thing he cannot deny. Sandler withdraws so deeply into his character's pain during the story's unfolding that, by the time he meets his demons head-on, the viewer shares his pain almost equally. Alan stands beside Charlie throughout this exacting process at the risk of lousing up his own perfect home-life - run with admirable grace and efficiency by wife Janeane. (Jada Pinkett Smith) While tending to Charlie's recovery, Alan looks inward and recognizes his own silent screams at the death of the independence he once owned and the boy he has lost becoming a man. His reward for helping Charlie is helping himself reconnect with what he has lost. The theme is much like The Fisher King; another story of a man who isolates himself to the point of madness from sorrow and loss. Like The Fisher King, the story concludes with the traditional, there is someone for everyone theme. Reign Over Me's Lidia Sinclair, (played by the wonderful Amanda Plummer in The Fisher King) is Donna Remar, (Saffron Burrows) a woman on the verge of breakdown and sketchy patient of Johnson's, who turns out to be the just unstable enough to complement Charlie's borderline insanity. It's a good ending to the story, but the one element probably least likely to ring true. Then again, maybe there really is someone for everyone. Devorah Macdonald Vancouver, BC

Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".
The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.
This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.
Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.
As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.