BY DANIEL BAIG | No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe, everyman is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine [sic].  John Donne (1571-1613)

I just saw a movie, opening this week, which is going to be one of the biggest hits of the year.

Huh?

Oh, no, not THAT one.

(Oh, sure, duh, THAT ones going to be a monster hit  and bigger than Spider-Man, too, I think  contrary to what a lot of others have been predicting lately , but Ive already reviewed it.)

Im talking about the new release that opened on FRIDAY, not Thursday.

Its called About A Boy.

And Im pretty confident its going to become a phenomenal success.

Which will thrill me.

What makes me happy is that for once (if Im right), were going to have a completely DESERVED smash hit on our hands.

Because About A Boy is a LONG overdue reminder that Hollywood  especially when its actually Hollywood working in England  has a brilliant history of crafting entertainment which can be cleverly  not gross-out  funny, movingly  not Shiri-esquely  sentimental, profound  even if its, and this may sound like a bit of an oxymoron I suppose, but hey, were talking about popular culture, slickly so , well-acted, and undeniably crowd-pleasing.

A small part of what moved me about this movie was actually, I think, just the fact that here, after such a long, long while, is an intelligent, extraordinarily professionally and respectfully crafted work, one which I dont have to be embarrassed about liking and gushing over, from a major studio. If youre a regular reader of my reviews, you may have come to the conclusion that I favor small and foreign films. But its not that I like them because theyre small, or because theyre foreign. Its that theyre intelligent, and fresh, and, well, GOOD.

Three words which, thanks to About A Boy, I can now, long time no do, apply to a big budget mainstream release.

Actually, About A Boy reminded me a great deal  not in plot specifics, but in theme and message  of a terrific, shamefully relatively unheralded (because it was from another country, and for no other reason) release from last year, the Swedish film called, in English, Together. (See my review.) And when I say that, its meant as high praise for About A Boy.

They both  though dont run when you read this; both movies are pretty sophisticated works, despite what years of trite, pop philosophy and psychology have conditioned us to expect when confronted with ideas like the following , if summed up in a nutshell, are meant to entertainingly illustrate that genuinely profound 378-year old simile of poet John Donne,

No man is an island.

(I make a point here of mentioning Donne, for the movie  jokingly, but then, it never bothers to give the CORRECT info for those in the audience who might not know better  gives the credit to Jon Bon Jovi! Really. But its funny.)

About A Boy also reminded me  and will, I imagine, a lot of others as well  of Jerry Maguire. Both films are, at least partially, love stories (NOT in the romantic or, heaven forbid, sexual senses!) between a man and a boy. And both portray this love affair as being the final push necessary to shove a previously-unwilling-to-go man into adulthood, as opposed to still existing as a kid who happens to have his own home and a nice car. But, lest that come off as a tad grim for modern audiences, both films also take care to reward the protagonist, as a bonus tied in with the move-into-adulthood, with the love of a smart and beautiful young lady.

After the screening of About A Boy was over, I walked next door to a bookstore, where I found a lot of other critics whod just seen the movie as well. I overheard one of them, a somewhat well known guy, harrumphing to his companion,

Its screenwriting ABC, connect the dots, just following the same old rules! And everybodys talking about it like its something special!

First of all, this guy is a thoroughly unpleasant blowhard. Surely, one of the special rooms in Hell is a recreation of being trapped at a movie press day roundtable with him for all eternity. So I have to admit I think I naturally rebel at anything hed have to say.

But, more importantly  while hes partially right about what he said, hes missing a lot.

Yes, the movie is predictable. Im not going to shock you when I tell you that Hugh Grant DOESNT, say, ruin the boys life, or stay a selfish jerk, and that he does end up with the girl. Come on, its a major studio release! Its HUGH GRANT! Its a movie directed by the brothers who did American Pie!!

But, well, so what?

If somethings done well enough, predictability is no crime.

Plus, it aint all THAT predictable/familiar.

Exhibit A: the kid who plays the titular Boy the movie is About is not your typical cute Hollywood moppet. To be sure, the story wouldnt work if he were, but that wouldnt have necessarily stopped Hollywood from trying. (The movie even has an amusing little joke about this, with a reference to Haley Joel Osment. ((I dont mean to imply Haley Joel is just a cute moppet. His performance in A.I. was sheer genius. But casting him in About A Boy would have just been dishonest; the kid at its center needs to be someone to whom life hasnt been kind enough to make look like Haley.)))

And, ditto applies to the fact that heres an American movie based on a British novel which actually goes ahead and does the whole thing just as it should be, in England, with an entirely English cast (okay, Toni Colette isnt English, but her character still is). No American who happens to live in England character (like was the case in the recent Crush). And again, dont say, well, thats the way it had to be. High Fidelity, the previous novel by Nick Hornby, the English author who wrote this one, WAS transplanted across the Atlantic in setting and cast.

Before you come to the conclusion that I think About A Boy is the best thing since sliced bread or something, I should say that its not PERFECT.

Paul and Chris Weitz, its directors and, with Peter Hedges, its writers, occasionally seemed to have lacked enough confidence to be subtle, and when directing Hugh Grant, you really need to be confident enough to go for subtle.

For example, at the very beginning of the movie, theres a scene where Hughs character Will is given a baby to hold for a moment. Will is 38 years old, yet Hugh (and this is of course his directors fault as well as his) acts as if hes NEVER held an infant in his entire life. His eyes literally bug out and he freaks when the child is placed in his hands. This is way, way broader than necessary, and broader (thank goodness) than most of the movies tone.

Similarly, and this is a fault of the screenplay, on at least two occasions we have that annoying thing where characters see somebody whos not there (a dead relative, someone geographically elsewhere). You know  Dad!? Is that you? Dumb. Come on. This kind of thing doesnt happen to non-mentally ill people in real life.

More lack of confidence on the Weitzes part: in one scene, the boys mother, played by Toni Colette, comes home from a hospitalization. Instead of letting us hear what she has to say to her son, we get music on the soundtrack. It was a poor decision.

Another characters son, another young teenage boy, has been directed to act so over the top in his first scene he appears to be performing a scene from a Monty Python sketch. Later on, hes a lot better, but his screeching in this introduction is egregiously ill fitting.

And then, in whats meant to represent the first of two main dark night of the soul scenes for Will, neither Hughs performance nor the lines he has to deliver convince. Because, unlike most of whats uttered in the movie, what he says seems like something from a screenplay rather than something from real life. I really am . . . a blank, he confesses. But it doesnt work. The dialogue here is too on the nose, a classic sign of lack of confidence on filmmakers part.

This same problem manifests itself one more time in part two of the dark night of the soul sequence, when Will finally basically collapses in his apartment.

His voiced-over speech, All in all I had a very good life. Its just that it didnt mean anything, is far too spot-on, especially because just about those exact same words have been said to him throughout the movie. We already are well aware.

But Hughs ACTION  what hes doing while we hear this V.O.  in this scene is PERFECT. The voiceover wasnt necessary. The scene would have been stronger, and just as powerful, without it.

Okay, other than these few things, though, I loved this movie.

Where to begin?

The performances: Grant is, those previously mentioned exceptions aside, perfect.

His co-star as the Boy, Nicholas Hoult, is WONDERFUL. Look for a serious push come the end of the year to get him a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Similarly, look for a matching campaign to get Toni Collette a nom for Best Supporting Actress. (Come to think of it, theyll probably try for Hugh as well . . .) Shes brilliant. I got really pissed off when I emerged from the theater to see the poster for About A Boy, on which Rachel Weisz is billed before her. Weisz is in the movie for about a fifth of Collettes screen time. But shes prettier, so there you go.

The movie wouldnt have worked nearly as well without Collette. Grant and Hoult are of course the main event, but the relationship between Hoults character and Collettes underlies everything.

The look on Collettes face early on in the film when Hoult is walking away from her after shes dropped him off at school reminded me that Collette just may be the successor to Meryl Streep people are always looking for. Her characters pain at the knowledge that her son is growing up and growing away from her  something she knows is good for him, though not for her  is as evident from her eyes as if she had said it out loud.

Rachel Weisz is quite good, though her casting was a mistake only because shes just too young for her role. Its not believable shed have a son as old as she does.

In a much smaller part, as a girl at school whom Hoults character develops a crush on, Nat Gastiain Tena makes a great impression.

The music: the soundtrack is by British recording artist Badly Drawn Boy, and it, too, is going to be pretty darn successful. Hes written some great songs for the movie. (I want just to mention that one of them, Silent Sigh, though terrific, owes a BIG debt to See How We Are by X.)

The professionalism of everything else about the movie: the fine lensing by Remi Adefarasin, the editing by Nick Moore, and the costumes by Joanna Johnston  the clothes she dresses Hoult in are perfect; theyre exactly the sort of eco-clothes his mother would have bought for him. And then theres that hysterical  but its appropriate, not just a gag  T-shirt worn by another character, with the emblazoned words, LORENA BOBBIT FOR SURGEON GENERAL.