Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Sixteen-year-old Miranda (played by Evan Rachel Wood) has been taking care of herself for years. Her father Charlie (Michael Douglas) spends his time in and out of mental institutions, while her mother disappeared a long time ago. Miranda manages to make ends meet by working at McDonald’s, and evades social services because of paperwork snafus that make it look like she’s always with one parent or the other.

Miranda’s calm existence changes when Charlie gets released from his latest stint in a hospital. Not only does he disrupt her daily routine, but she also has to babysit him to ensure he doesn’t get into trouble. This proves difficult, as he is currently convinced that there’s a big cache of treasure buried somewhere in the vicinity by a long-dead Spanish explorer named Father Juan Florismarte Torres. While in the hospital, Charlie came across some books detailing Torres’s exploits. He now takes it upon himself to find the treasure.

Charlie manages to get hold of various surveying equipment, and traces the treasure’s location to a specific spot. The problem is that it’s buried about six feet under a Costco. This doesn’t faze Charlie, however. Instead of giving up as a rational person would do, he convinces Miranda to get a job there so she can learn about the alarms and security practices, as well as steal a master key from the manager. This accomplished, the two enlist the help of Pepper (Willis Burks II), an old band mate of Charlie’s, and they move in for the digging.

Charlie digs through the floor, only to come upon what Miranda thinks is the foul-smelling sewer line. But Charlie is sure this is a sulfur river, not the sewer line, which means he’s on the right track. He appropriates some scuba gear from the back of Costco, and dives in. After a while, he comes back to say he did indeed find the treasure. Unfortunately, while he was under, the cops finally realize what’s going on inside and close in on the dig.

Charlie manages to make it look like Miranda was dragged in against her will. He ties her up, gives her a product ticket from the store, and goes away. He then dives back into the river to try to get to the rest of the treasure — but his body is never recovered. The next day, Miranda purchases the item from the ticket Charlie gave her (it was a dishwasher she had her eye on) and discovers that he had managed to hide some of the gold in there for her.

Liked:

• I thought this was a very sweet film. I wasn’t expecting Charlie to actually find the gold, and though that outcome was definitely far-fetched, I thought it fit with the overall tenor of the story. I was glad that Miranda was able to get her happy ending, even if Charlie couldn’t be around to enjoy it with her.
• Miranda was a likable character. I think teens in movies are the hardest characters to pull off, because they either come across as too much of a know-it-all, or they’re just bratty, snotty, and selfish. Evan Rachel Wood did a good job of playing Miranda as a world-weary “adult” who has been taking care of herself, while at the same time being a kid who desperately wants her father to take care of her for a change.
• Michael Douglas wasn’t as annoying as I thought he would be. I’m not gonna lie: the previews for this movie had me wondering if I would be able to stomach the Douglas character, with his wild eyes and unkempt beard, for an hour and a half. Turns out this character was far more understated than I expected, and was actually rather sympathetic as well.
• I thought it was believable how Miranda ended up helping Charlie. At first, she allowed herself to believe in the treasure just a little bit. It was a lark that gave her a way to escape the monotony of her life. But as she saw how serious Charlie was about it, she started to rein in her own enthusiasm and look at the whole thing from a more logical perspective. She “knew” there wasn’t any treasure out there, but she continued to play along and humor Charlie. Then we had her reaction at the end, when she realized that Charlie was actually correct. I thought this was a wonderful character arc.

Disliked:

• If Costco security really is as lax as portrayed in this movie, I’m surprised we don’t hear about their warehouses being robbed on a regular basis! Come on, now… it was FAR too easy for these guys to get in and dig through the friggin’ concrete floor!!! Fortunately, this didn’t dilute my enjoyment of the film.

Rating:

I thought King of California was a very sweet, touching film. I loved seeing the different nuances of Charlie and Miranda’s relationship, liked watching these characters pursue their goals, and enjoyed the happy ending. I give it 4 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): On his way home from work one night, Professor Parker Wilson (played by Richard Gere) comes across a lost Akita puppy at the train station. He takes the pup to Carl (Jason Alexander), the stationmaster, to ask if anyone has been looking for the dog. Carl says no, and refuses to keep the dog overnight. Parker has an obvious soft spot for the pup, so he decides to take it home until the owner comes to claim it.

Wife Cate (Joan Allen) is none too pleased with having a dog in the house, but when Parker insists that it’s just a temporary thing, she finally relents. The next morning, she makes up a bunch of posters in the hopes of attracting the rightful owner’s attention. Parker puts them up around town, but no one calls. After a few weeks, when it’s obvious that Parker and the pup have already formed a strong bond, Cate allows the dog to stay permanently.

After consulting with colleague Ken (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), Parker decides to call the dog Hachi, after the kanji symbol for the number “8″ on the dog’s collar. Parker and Hachi spend a lot of time together, and the dog can’t bear to be separated from his master, even when Parker goes to work. Hachi follows Parker to the train station, returns home during the day, and then comes back in time to meet Parker when the evening train arrives. This daily routine makes Hachi something of a celebrity among the various folks that pass his waiting point.

A few years later, Parker suffers a massive heart attack during a lecture and dies instantly. Hachi of course doesn’t know what has happened, and can’t be made to understand that Parker is never coming back. The dog continues to show up at the station day after day to wait for his master’s return. A newspaper picks up the story, and people from all over the country send donations for Hachi’s care. The dog dies 10 years later, still waiting faithfully in the same spot for Parker to come back.

Liked:

• I’m a sucker for dog movies in general, and this one was no exception. Even though the story wasn’t told in the greatest way, I was still drawn into it and was bawling my eyes out by the end.
• I thought the dream sequence right before Hachi died was great! It was very emotional, and put me right over the edge as far as crying was concerned. Despite knowing something like that was coming, I still succumbed to the emotion. Bring your hankies for sure!
• I loved that this was based on a true story. Some critics have slammed the film, calling the dog dumb (or worse) for wasting its life waiting at the station day after day. But this really happened in Japan! And far from thinking the dog was dumb, I think it shows remarkable loyalty and faithfulness. How could anyone dislike a dog like this?

Disliked:

• This was kind of a hard script to get perfectly right. The main focus of the story had to be on Parker and Hachi, and yet that alone couldn’t fill up 90 minutes, so extraneous stuff with other characters had to be introduced. Those other characters, particularly the wife and daughter, felt crammed into the story and didn’t mesh with the main plot. In other words, this was far from smooth sailing.

Rating:

Despite some problems with the script, I thought Hachiko: A Dog’s Story was a very good film on the whole. If you feel like having a nice, cathartic cry, then this is definitely something you should watch. I imagine that only an avowed cynic with a heart of stone wouldn’t be touched by the story of Hachi’s devotion. I give this film 4 stars out of 5.

These days, the public’s attitude towards Catholic priests on the issues of sexual abuse and molestation can best be described as cynical. In many instances, people would likely give credence to allegations of wrongdoing even before an official investigation is launched.

So the 2008 film Doubt, which focuses on just such an issue, seems like a timely piece that can give viewers insight on a current societal problem. The only thing is, the action in the film takes place in 1964 and introduces race into the mixture, giving the whole situation some different nuances than would be expected of a modern-day setting.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The film opens with Father Flynn (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) delivering a sermon about doubt as it pertains to the Catholic faith. Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the headmistress of the school attached to the church, wonders why Father Flynn would choose that subject to preach about, and orders the other sisters to watch Father Flynn and report any suspicious actions.

Sister James (Amy Adams), the youngest and most idealistic of the nuns, actually does see Father Flynn acting a bit strange, particularly in relation to a boy named Donald Miller. Donald, as the school’s only African-American student, is a loner and an outsider, which puts him squarely into the typical victim profile that abusers like to target. When Father Flynn calls the boy out of Sister James’ class, and has him later return with the distinct smell of alcohol on his breath, Sister James thinks she ought to report this to Sister Aloysius. After noticing Father Flynn putting a white shirt in Donald’s locker, Sister James is further convinced that something is amiss.

Upon hearing Sister James’ story, Sister Aloysius immediately believes in Father Flynn’s guilt. She sets up a meeting with Father Flynn, and tells him to explain himself. Father Flynn offers an explanation that could be plausible, but Sister Aloysius is not satisfied. She then asks Father Flynn flat-out if he’s doing anything untoward with the boy, which he vehemently denies. That’s good enough for Sister James, who believes that Father Flynn is telling the truth.

Sister Aloysius, however, refuses to give up. She wants nothing less than for Father Flynn to leave the parish, so she makes it her personal mission to see that this happens. The rest of the film then shows the various actions that Sister Aloysius takes to get rid of Father Flynn, as well as her own spiritual struggle about what eventually happens.

My Reaction: I thought Doubt was an excellent film, one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. The overriding reason for this was because of the acting performances. Meryl Streep in particular was amazing from beginning to end, and I’ll be very surprised if she doesn’t win an Oscar for her efforts. I’m not usually the type of person who notices acting in a film, but it’s hard to miss it here. Streep was terrific!

Philip Seymour Hoffman was perfectly cast as Father Flynn as well. He looked and acted just smarmy enough that the viewer could conceive of him abusing the child, and yet at the same time, his story and his denials were plausible enough to sow the seeds of doubt — which is exactly what happened with Sister James.

I thought the handling of the main storyline was pretty good. I especially liked the twist that Donald Miller’s mom brought to the table… The last thing I expected her to say was that Donald just had to get through the year and that her husband beat Donald for being “that way”. Wow.

And for the record, I really don’t know if Father Flynn did anything or not. There’s just too much “doubt” about the situation, and without a real investigation or questioning of Donald Miller, it’s impossible to tell what really went on. I’m surprised that he didn’t put up more of a fight, though. That had me leaning towards guilty near the end there.

Overall, Doubt was an excellent, thought-provoking film that had me riveted all the way through. You’ll enjoy the story and the wonderful acting in this one, and you’ll be debating Father Flynn’s guilt or innocence for a long time afterward. I give it 4 stars out of 5.