To list predictability as a point of criticism is absurd. If predictability is the criterion, why should anyone watch Romeo and Juliet or Richard III when everyone knows the tragedy of those stories? Even unusual tales, such as Get Shorty, do not reduce the value of simple stories portraying people with the kinds of problems many of us might face.

I also cannot understand how these characters should be labeled as unrealistic. They show depth, subtlety, and sensitivity. Perhaps the critic does not count such people among his acquaintances, but is a single mother with a sick child more or less realistic than a loan-shark enforcer and movie buff with a heart of gold? The latter is a great concept and fun to watch, but not everything must be fun, and how often has any of us seen a character like that?

As for Katherine Healey, I don't know what a lack of acting experience has to do with the quality of an acting performance, which was flawless, in my view. I have, however, noted that many performances portraying people with athletic or artistic skills have suffered greatly by the inability of actors to produce a creditable representation of training in those skilled areas. The young Ms. Healey's legitimate ballet skills added measurably to the quality of the film, as did her acting, though she was hired only after Tony Bill had been unable to find a trained actress with the requisite background in dance. (Similarly, Patrice Donnelly's performance in Personal Best was highly praised, Oscar worthy, and so much the better for her real-life credentials as an Olympic hurdler. She was originally hired to train her co-star Mariel Hemingway and was offered the controversial role after established actresses had declined to participate in this production from an Academy Award winner. One could hardly have imagined a more difficult beginning role, especially for a heterosexual woman, than a love story of lesbians. Patrice may have been snubbed by the Academy, but Time magazine's review of her work was an unreserved rave.)