Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: How many of us wish that we could throw away social and cultural obligations and be free? Most of us, I suspect. Shall we dance? is not a movie about dancing. It is about learning about ourselves, recognising what we are looking for in life and having the courage to go in search of it. Mr Sugiyama is a middle-aged member of a Japanese society where ballroom dancing is viewed as unsuitable behaviour.

One day Mr Sugiyama sees a beautiful girl leaning out of the window of a dancing acadamy. he is fascinated by her and eventually signs up for dancing lessons. He is ashamed of his dancing and afraid of ridicule. He hides the fact that he is attending dancing classes from his colleagues and family.

There is a hilarious scene in the mensroom at the office when Sugiyama and Watanabe, a workmate who also dances, are interrupted practising some dance steps. There are many other funny and warm-hearted scenes.

The ending is not a fairytale, but it leaves the viewer feeling good.

This movie helped me to understand the Japanese people a little better. It is a warm and very worthwhile film to see.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, "I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it." but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, "That would have been funny in the early sixties." So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.

Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.

Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the "family business" leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.

As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.

But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of "Old Money" that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)

So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century.