Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: People criticise Disney's animated features of the 1950s for being overly glossy, set in landscapes that are much too pristine. That criticism is just. And yet it can't be the whole story, because the two least glossy - "Alice in Wonderland" and "Peter Pan" - are also the weakest. "Cinderella", on the other hand, set in a world in which the very dirt sparkles, is clearly the best.

It DOES look good. The backgrounds are subtle and consistent; the colours are pure without being too bright. The animation varies a bit. I'll swear that some of the humans are rotoscoped - but then, the rotoscoped humans (including Cinderella herself) aren't full-blooded characters in the script, so this approach works well enough. It's really the animals that make the movie. I think the studio had never quite used animals in this way before, as totems rather than sidekicks. The mice, for instance, are the creatures who draw us into the story; but they are really representatives or allies of the more colourless Cinderella. The cat, Lucifer, is a kind of witch's familiar to the Wicked Stepmother. (The cat is brilliantly conceived and animated - one of the best feline creations of all time. The supervising animator was Ward Kimball and he modelled it on his own cat. I wonder how he put up with the animal.) This approach allows the animals to steal the show without drawing our attention from the main story. Their actions are of maximum interest only in the light of the main story.

Among the supporting cast the notable humans are the King and the Grand Duke. The King is a one note character - he wants grandchildren and appears to have no other desires at all - but the note is struck in a pleasing fashion. The Grand Duke is a put-upon character who deserves to be lifted out of his sphere as much as Cinderella does. (Although he, of course, is richer.)

"Cinderella" is Disney's return to features after an eight-year hiatus, and neither with it nor with any subsequent movie would he recapture the raw brilliance of his early years. Moreover he made things hard for himself by picking "Cinderella". She's a passive heroine and there's not much anyone can do about that. (Maybe I'm wrong on this score - I haven't seen the recent "Ever After".) Nonetheless it is remarkable how successful Disney was in bringing this unpromising story to life, without cutting across the grain of its spirit.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
The story of a woman (Ann) on her death bed, her two daughters (Nina and Constance) and her thoughts about her past. The flashbacks are concerning a weekend where young Ann is in the wedding of her friend Lila. At the wedding she meets Harris who will impact her for the rest of her life. Through all the ups and downs of her professional and family life she remembers him as her true love. Her daughter Constance is older, more "responsible," a mother of two and has things together. Nina jumps from boyfriend to boyfriend and job to job and is unsure of her direction in life.

First of all the good. The period detail in the movie is great. The dresses, hair, cars, houses, etc. really put you in another time and place. And there is some very quality acting in the movie. Vanessa Redgrave is quite good at portraying the main character and her fragile mental state as her life comes to an end. Claire Danes is beautiful and does a great job as the main character when she was young (and she is an outstanding singer). Hugh Dancy brought a lot of life to the character of Lila's brother Buddy.

Now for the bad, which unfortunately is everything else. Things constantly disrupt the story as it is being unfolded for us. The chemistry between young Ann and Buddy is great. They have fun and dance. Then... you are supposed to believe that she doesn't really like him more than a friend and that his pining only annoys her. And I thought the whole, "he might be gay" thing was out of the blue and didn't serve a purpose.

Then we have Harris. The character acts wooden and creepy. Had this been another genre, you would have known that Harris was the serial killer from the get go. It is an unbelievable stretch to think that all these girls loved him so (but they do portray the other guys as pretty lame to try and help him out).

And the grandest problem of all. Why don't Ann and Harris get together? They fall for each other. They have this great night of sex in an old dirty gardener's shack, come home to find out about Buddy's tragic end and then...

Nothing.

They meet up a few years later and get all misty eyed about each other and I couldn't help but wondering why. WHY? The movie doesn't let you know why they were forced to marry other people and so I had a hard time feeling sorry for them.

The part of the story in the present is fairly boring. The cliche good daughter and the cliche bad daughter. Nina changes over the course of the movie but I am not sure why. I'm not sure what convinces her to change her life. There is a "touching" scene where the daughters are connecting that coincides with old Ann dreaming she's chasing a butterfly. It is really lame and embarrassing.

"There are no mistakes", Ann advises at us. The statement doesn't ring true with the story. And it doesn't ring true after seeing the movie and wishing they hadn't wasted the talent of such good actors.