This movie won raves from critics in 1961 and apparently is winning them again. In between it was listed in "The 50 Worst Films of All Time." The latter is the correct rating. It is one of the most boring and confusing films ever made. It is an example of how not to make a movie. Apparently, film critics find it so opaque that they believe it must be deeper than even they can fathom. Horsepucky. Save your money and put a bet down on next year's Super Bowl. Your money will be far better spent that way.

Juno is one of those little films that does everything right. It combines very good writing with nice story telling and the most amazing performance by Ellen Page. Her character, Juno, is a quirky teenager that gets in trouble (i.e., pregnant) and then handles it so very well. I still think she should have had the abortion but if she did, there wouldn't be a movie. She makes her decision to have the baby and give it away to a loving yuppie couple. She then endures all the problems of pregnancy with a wry humor that makes you fall in love with her. Her quirky parents, after initial shocked confusion, are remarkably supportive and focused on helping her get through it. In fact, everyone in this movie is pretty nice -- perhaps not a reflection of reality, but still so enjoyable. It's nice to think that when caring people get together, they can get through crises with humor and love. Even when the loving couple turns out to be not so loving, it is all handled with such civility and respect for each other (okay, that was a little too much -- there should have been more shouting). One tiny weakness in the movie is Jennifer Garner's yuppie wife, who is wound a little too tight -- think Roger Clemens on steroids. We are left with a little worry about whether she will make a good mother. But let's hope for the best. There is a lot of buzz that Juno is this year's "Little Miss Sunshine." Forget that. This film is so much better than LMS. I'd put in a class with Field of Dreams and Once. Go see it, and after you watch some of the other horrors out there, go back and see this one again.

The British seem to have a special fondness for the time between the two world wars. It was a time when the Sun still didn't set on the British Empire, when civilized people dressed for dinner, and when the Americans had not yet invaded. So we often see nostalgic period pieces from the 20's and especially the 30's -- think Remains of the Day and Chariots of Fire. Atonement is another of these period pieces and it accomplishes that part of the equation superbly. The costumes and setting are magnificent, and everyone is very British. But as for story line and telling, the movie falls incredibly flat. It is so slow to develop that one wonders if anything will ever happen in this movie. Eventually it does, and like the sex between the main protagonists, it is over in a minute. What is it about the British that they can only have sex when they approach each other with complete loathing, and then suddenly tear their clothes off and make mad passionate love -- think The English Patient. Well, to be honest, they pretty much keep their clothes on in this movie, and it is only the woman who is really so hateful (i.e., frustrated), but you get the idea. Anyway, the torrid love affair gets stopped before it can get started when the young man is accused of a crime he didn't commit and goes to prison. His trial, where he is convicted on the testimony of a 13-year old girl, is never shown. Nor do we see anything of his life in prison. Either of those might have been interesting. But they might also have involved someone raising their voice, and that certainly wouldn't do. So the scene switches to 5 years later and the young lovers have briefly united, and the young sister may come clean and tell the truth, but there is a little thing called World War II which has intervened to delay these events. Even then, there is no fighting, no shooting, no bombing, just a lot of forlorn soldiers waiting on the beaches of Dunkirk. At this point the director insists on displaying his cinematic genius to us by introducing a totally superfluous, one-shot, 5-minute scene of our hero and his buddies walking amongst the soldiers while seeking booze. It's a wonderful indulgence by the director and it certainly conveys the desparate situation they are in, but it is cinematically out of place. So finally the movie concludes with the scarred young lovers back together, and then it concludes again with a very different ending. A very cute trick there and one of the few places where we see some innovative thinking. Mercifully it's over. So is there anything good about this movie? James McAvoy is quite outstanding in his role. Most everyone else is adequate. But then there's Keira Knightley, who is fortunate that she's beautiful, because she is horribly one-dimensional in her role. Does she say one intelligent word in the entire movie? I can't remember any. Other than her body (which would benefit from having breasts), why is the young man so hot to trot with her? Well, for young men, maybe's that enough. But I'm an old man, and I'd have liked to see more in the movie.

I'm still trying to figure this movie out, and I think I have it. They ran out of money before they could shoot the final scenes and they just had to use what they had. That could explain why this movie has no ending. Or maybe the Coen brothers went on a bender before they finished writing it, and so the third producer had to go with what was in the can. In either case, this is the most unsatisfying ending to a film I have ever seen. The boys do a great job of creating a story about a psycho-pathic killer chasing an okay guy who stumbles onto $2 million that isn't his. We've seen this plot before and the Coens do a good job at executing it. There is a little too much variation on the theme but the story moves well for a good hour and a half. And then there's Tommy Lee Jones as an old Texas sheriff who's doing better than most at putting the story together. We're very sympathetic to his plight, because like him we're just trying to put it together too, and we know a lot more than he does. But then comes that ending. And nothing is resolved. Nothing. So what's going on here? Are the Coens trying to say something about the random senseless violence, that is pervading our society? Okay, I can buy that. Or are they trying to tell us that everything is not always resolved, and that life doesn't get tied up in a nice bow after two hours of action and intrigue? I can buy that too. But I think the truth is that they just ran out of ideas. They created a great yarn but they didn't know how to end it with something up to the quality of the story. No pat answers like good triumphing over evil, or Mr. Everyman outfoxing the bad guys. So they just decided to end it with nothing resolved. And the dumb critics are falling over themselves praising it for doing something entirely new -- a movie that makes absolutely no attempt to come up with an ending. The story is just left hanging, perhaps waiting for the moviegoers to come up with an ending that the Coens were unable to find. How avant garde! How chic! How dumb!

You'll have to go see it just to be able to discuss it with your friends who are as mystified as you. Or maybe just take your $10 and put it on a 50-1 shot at the track. I guaranetee you that the latter will have an ending, and resolution.

Eminently missable.