Produced by Cruise-Wagner and directed by Billy Ray, SHATTERED GLASS has the same feeling of dramatic efficiency and exactitude in recreating an intense journalistic environment that Alan Pakula's ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MAN had.

There are other excellent performances besides Sarsgaard's, particularly from Hank Azaria (as former NEW REPUBLIC editor Michael Kelly, who was killed in the Iraqi war a few months ago), Steve Zahn as an internet journalist who was the first to expose Glass's fake reporting, director Ted Kotcheff as a NEW REPUBLIC publisher with a flamboyant management style, and Chloe Sevigny as a NEW REPUBLIC fact-checker and loyal ally of Glass's...until the very end, when the truth can no longer be spun or ignored.

This is a modestly proportioned film, which, in my opinion, should have gone on a bit longer to explain the aftermath of the Glass affair and what he wound up doing. The movie is better than a SHATTERED GLASS script I read a while back. It uses a flashback-counterpoint sequence in which Glass is being honored by a former English professor during a visit to his old high school, and just seems to be more layered and thorough. It's a solid piece, in any case, and worth seeing.

Jack Black has landed the second best role of his career in Richard Linklater's SCHOOL OF ROCK (Paramount, October 30). But then Dewey Finn, an intensely obnoxious and motor-mouthed lover of rock 'n' roll, is based upon Black's finest role so far, that of the obnoxious Barry in HIGH FIDELITY. (Both characters, of course, are outgrowths of Black's own personality and rock-music passions.)

And Black is hugely enjoyable in 90% of it. He's a brazenly funny, force-of-nature, Belushi-like talent, but then you knew that. When he's got a good script behind him and is really cranking, look out.

THE SCHOOL OF ROCK works, for the most part. It's going to be Richard Linklater's first really big hit of his career. It's a people and popcorn movie, but it's not so dumb or obvious that people like me will be alienated. It's a formula piece that could have been dryer and smarter and more "real," but at least it's not a New Line film. The fact that the script is by Mike White, the author of THE GOOD GIRL and CHUCK & BUCK, should tell you something right there.

I dropped into SCHOOL OF ROCK's Tuesday morning press screening with no particular expectations. To be perfectly honest I left at one point to take a peek at a documentary about the Khymer Rouge (S21: LE MACHINE DU MORT KHYMER ROUGE), but I was back after 20 minutes and I stayed to the end. That's saying something. I usually hate jerkoff comedies that play to the galleries, but this one is crafty and passionate enough to get to the more rarified types. It's good to see an esoteric, earth-obiting director like Linklater (TAPE, WAKING LIFE, BEFORE SUNRISE) get lucky with something like this. The demanding Scott Rudin, I'm sure, had something to do with pounding White's script into shape. He's not known as a Tiffany-level producer for nothing.

The sex scenes in Jane Campion's IN THE CUT are fairly hot and engaging, and the sight of a nude Meg Ryan did wonders for my general outlook on life. The film is noteworthy mainly for its moody emotional atmosphere. It's about an artistically serious director putting her signature spin on an urban cop-vs.-serial-killer movie. It feels more vulnerable and meditative and feminized than other films of this type (like, for example, Ridley Scott's SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME) and as such is an interesting variation on a theme.

But it has an awful let-down ending, and the modest but intriguing accomplishments of the film are half-forgotten in its wake.

It would have been a better film if Campion had ignored the catching-a-serial-killer plot and focused entirely on the relationship betyween Ryan's character, Frannie Avery, an English professor who's working on a book about street slang, and Ruffalo's detective, Detective James Malloy, who behaves an awful lot like his famous namesake, Terry Malloy, whom Marlon Brando made legendary in ON THE WATERFRONT. (Ruffalo keeps the Brando thing going by making himself resemble the moustachioed U.S. ambassador character Brando played in THE UGLY AMERICAN.)

This is Ruffalo's most appealing role since his younger-brother role in YOU CAN COUNT ON ME. Ryan is pretty fascinating also. I completely believed in her character and her character's behavior in every scene except for the climactic sequence, which is terrible.

It's nominally a murder-mystery piece, but that observation on the IMDB about Ryan's character "testing the limits of her own safety [by] propelling herself into an impossibly risky sexual liaison" seems a little breathless to me. There's a vein in this film about the pedatory nature of men, and there's something in the downtown New York City locales that seems to add to this general aura of victimization. In the Susanna Moore book the film is based upon, Ryan's character -- whose voice pretty much narrates the story, according to a friend who's read it -- is killed at the end. That would have made for a much more riveting ending than the one that Campion has gone with.

I think she identified with Ryan's character (naturally) and didn't want to see her get snuffed, so she tried to cobble something together that she hoped might work on a surprise level. Nope.

IN THE CUT is the first Meg Ryan film I can remember that doesn't seem to need to hide the fact that Ryan has fairly big feet. Longish, I mean. Foot shoots are fairly rare in most films regardless, and I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this. I have big feet. It's just that I never noticed this about Ryan, and I think this is part of a new honesty and candor (along with the nudity) that's comes through here more vividly than in any film Ryan has made before. Now that she's past 40 and realizing more than ever that the clock is ticking, she's really starting to open up and take chances. Good for that.

Love Hurts

Let's say you're an unmarried British Prime Minister who looks like Hugh Grant, and you've got a thing for a slightly chubby office assistant you've just met. Then the randy U.S. President who looks a lot like Billy Bob Thornton pays a visit and puts the moves on her when you're out of the room. You catch a glimpse of him kissing her cheek when you return, and you become angry.

Your response, naturally, is to take revenge on the U.S. President at a joint press conference and start a major diplomatic rift between England and the U.S., and then to have your office assistant canned out of spite.

Of course, anyone with a hamster-level IQ and a semblance of life experience might consider the fact that (a) the U.S. President is a total hound and hounds never back off, and (b) that the office assistant was probably too initimidated to resist the leader of the free world, which would lead to a show of sympathy for her rather than one of vengeance. But of course, this doesn't occur to you.

It goes without saying any world leader would never consider creating a major rift in U.S.-British relations over a private indiscretion like this -- but you just can't help yourself, darn it. You may be a 40ish politician with a knack for crisis-managing and artfully tip-toeing through minefields (which is how you got to be Prime Minister, after all), but at heart you're an impulsive 15 year-old. And besides, what is a stable productive alliance between great nations compared to Prime Minister Grant's acute sense of romantic disappointment?

If you can buy all this, you'll have a wonderful time with LOVE ACTUALLY. It's retarded, simplistic, overwrought, coy, cutesy-poo and full of elements that will turn your heart into custard. If you're an idiot, that is. It's an ensemble comedy with too many love stories (i.e., eight), and not enough time to flesh them out, and writing that's nowhere artful or deft enough to make it all fuse together.

But none of this matters. That's because those who've decided it's a "good movie" (a quote from David Poland's Hot Button column) despite its ocasional lumpiness have also decided the faults aren't so much with the movie as with the people who can't stomach it. The problem isn't Richard Curtis and his contemptibly blithe and thoughtless approach to story-telling, see, but foul-mannered journalists who refuse to turn off their minds and get with the program.

One guy wrote me, 'Did you hear that crowd last Sunday night? They were delirious with laughter." He's right about that. This movie, God help us all, is probably fated to be a hit. I'm sure the impressionable will be attracted to the visual look of the thing. Everyone and everything in LOVE ACTUALLY sparkles and glows and soothes in a Bloomingdale's window-display way. It tries to seduce you with sticky sentiment like an obnoxious womanizer with halitosis might try and seduce a woman at a party by feeling her up.

There's a wedding scene in which a team of singers and musicans suddenly launch into a sappy rendition of "All You Need is Love." Keira Knightley plays the bride in this scene, and whatever good will she may have gotten from her acting in BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN has been totally erased because of this. She will pay and pay and pay. I found myself wishing that Geoffrey Rush's ghost killers would come crashing through the doors and lop off a few heads, starting with those loathsome trombone players.

Like I said in Monday's column, I loved Hugh Grant's '70s dance number inside 10 Downing Street -- that was perfect. Rowan Atkinson has a good scene, there's a good line toward the end about Elton John and meatballs, and Emma Thompson gives a touching performance as a wife who believes she's being cheated on. But to mention this film in the same breath as NOTTING HILL and FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL would be totally libelous if the same people weren't involved. (Curtis wrote 'em all, and Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner produced.)

I happen to feel LOVE ACTUALLY is a callous and rather short-sighted thing. It's not so much about love but the thrill of discovering someone new you'd like to go to bed with and maybe develop some real feelings for down the road...who knows? It should really be called HORMONES ACTUALLY. With two or three of the episodes, it could be called CHEATING ACTUALLY. (Hey, that's not a bad idea for a film.)

For a movie that equates salami-stuffing with love, it's a bit odd to hear Grant's narration declare at the very beginning that one indication that love is all around us is the fact that all those doomed people on those hijacked jets on 9.11.01 got out their cell phones and called their spouses and family members. I'm not sure this illustrates Grant's point all that well. It certainly doesn't illustrate the movie's interest, which is primarily about the seemingly profound pixie-dust feeling that goes along with wanting to bone or be boned.

I would have preferred a much dryer, more adult film entirely about Grant's adventures as a bachelor Prime Minister. He just can't resist doing that cute guy thing, can he? I thought he had turned a corner with ABOUT A BOY and had decided to play weighter, more substantial roles, but here he is back doing the same old "oh, my...yes...I did say that, didn't I?" routine in LOVE ACTUALLY. He'd better watch it. He's painting himself into a corner.

Problems With Chavez

"A couple thoughts on your remarks about Venezuelan president Hugo Chzevz in your review of THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVIZED, which I haven't yet seen.

"I'm close to the Venezuelan situation for three reasons: first, I'm Cuban (born and raised until the age of 24) and therefore I know first hand the effects of a demagogic, populist goverment with no real solutions; second, I live in Miami where both pro- and anti-Chavez camps are represented (loudly) and therefore I have had the opportunity to gleam some truth among the propaganda on both sides; and third, I have many friends who are Venezuelan, recently displaced by specific Chavez-government policies and believe me, few are from the moneyed class.

"Chavez is not a 'fair minded guy with a real interest in democracy,' as you impressionistically described him. I don't know if this is reflected in the documentary, but Chavez himself was the head of a failed coup against another democratically elected government in Venezuela, when he was a lieuntenant in the Army. That doesn't show a lot of interest in democracy, no matter whether he believed the government was corrupt or not. After a couple years in jail -- and an amnesty from the very same government -- he did what he should have done in the first place, which was to mount a democratic challenge and get himself elected.

"It would be curious if he were 'characterized' as a Castro sympathizer in the film, as you say, because of his refusing to play ball with the IMF. Chavez has said in fact that he admires Castro many times publicly and seems in all important respects to be Castro's firm ally, exchanging visits continuosly and exalting Cuba as the model for his own 'revolution.' Not a very democratic model, if you admit the simple truth that Castro has entrenched himself in power for over 40 years, with no real elections, no opposition party, no freedom of press and constant repression of dissidents, including the recent crackdown on 75 of the most visible ones.

"And while Chavez may express his disdain for the IMF and Washington in public for the benefit of his audience, behind the scenes he has held back on many of the reforms he promised, taking especial care not to run afoul of US interests. He definitely knows where his bread is buttered.

"Did the documentary explain that Venezuela is divided practically in half between approval and opposition to Chavez, a division that spreads across all social strata? Did they say that almost all surveys show that Chavez has lost much of the support among the working class, due to his failure to deliver on his economic and social promises after four years? How about his record of harassing and threatening the 'privately run media' and publicly encouraging his supporters to boicot and physically attack those TV stations and papers? (By the way, isn't privately run media much preferable to government owned media? Isn't that the standard we guard in the US? Imagine Bush going on the air with a tirade against the NEW YORK TIMES for their criticism and asking his supporters to picket the paper. Would you find that acceptable?)

"Did they show that during the coup, anti- and pro-Chavez demonstrators clashed, and the presidential guard opened fire on the demonstrators, leaving many dead, and that those deaths have never been investigated? Did they mention that there's currently a strong movement to recall Chavez and that he is doing everything in his power to squash it, including removing judges who dared declare the recall constitutional? (Imagine Gray Davis accusing the California Supreme Court justices of treason if they do not declare the recall unconstitutional).

"There's no denying of the horrible conditions that the policies of some governments in Latin America have left their countries, and that the ruling class in those countries is corrupted and uninterested in fixing those problems. But extremists like Chavez are not the solution -- they just ride the wave of anger and desperation for their own gain and hunger of power. Chavez is nothing like Allende (and neither is Castro). Their "love of the people" slogans are just designed to keep them in power. For a step in the right direction, look no further that Brazil, where a real populist and a former labor leader, Lula da Silva, was elected and so far has fooled everybody, leftists and rightists, with realistic and progressive policies.

"The enchantment of lefties with people like Castro and Chavez has historically clouded their vision and objectivity. Their desire to push an agenda ends up marring their credibility and their efforts become propaganda, no different than Leni Riefenstahl's. Much like Oliver Stone with Castro, I'm not surprised that Bartley and O'Briain are unable to present a balanced view of Chavez and his government. I wouldn't expect it from the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh either. The truth, as Milan Kundera would say, is elsewhere." -- Alejandro Barreras

Wells to Barreras: The doc says that Chavez is widely loved and supported by the poor and disenfanchised, and pretty much hated by the moneyed classes. It didn't mention anything about his support with the poor drying up because he's failed to push reforms. I'm not sure about the deaths that happened prior to the coup during a street demonstration, but the doc persuaded me that the righties tried to blame the leftist Chavez supporters for the shootings, even though the righties were the clear provocateurs in this situation. The doc contended that the privately run TV companies are total mouthpieces for the oligarchs, and that they didn't report the truth of what was happening during the counter-coup and in fact spread lies.

Grams Doubt

"I dunno about your praise for 21 GRAMS, man. I should probably wait to see it, of course, but my gut reaction upon reading the script eight or nine months ago (same time you did) was that absent the non-chronological conceit, if you laid out the story straight from A-Z, what you'd have was a rather overwrought melodrama striving for profundity and falling well short of the mark. And to my mind that conceit played (or read) more like a gimmick. A cheap way to cobble together some turgid drama that distracts one's attention from the utter banality of the whole affair.

"That it plays like gangbusters in the charged atmosphere of a festival comes as no surprise, actually. Give great actors some meat to sink their teeth into and of course it grabs your attention. But is it the classic case of the sum of the parts...? It's like the five carat diamond ring thrust in your face. You stare at it, initially mesmerized by its brilliance, almost trance like... 'Oooh, sparkly...'. But when the enchantment wears off, when you regain your faculties and look a little closer, you realize it's just a facsimile of the real deal. Cubic zirconia masquerading as the authentic thing.

"That to me is the standard by which this film should be measured. After all is said and done, and the flash and sizzle of the artifice has subsided, what are you left with...? A great movie...? Could be. Only time will tell." -- Eponymous