The Z/Web Archive

Not a bad Hitchcockian thriller. If you like Katie Holmes you'll probably like this film. If you don't, you probably won't, as she's in nearly every scene. The director loves to do super-closeups so that the pimples on her forehead are the size of dinner plates. She's a lightweight actress (though I still like her), but she's smart in that she doesn't try to overdo this role (which she could have easily done and would have been terrible). She does a good job in a complex role. The film is much less exciting than it appears in the promos -- there's virtually no story, and the pace is leisurely. But it's still interesting. We follow Katie just before graduation as she prepares her thesis, studies for finals, and goes on job interviews. Meanwhile, a detective is looking into the disappearance of her old boyfriend who she hasn't seen in two years. He's an eccentric rich kid who is unpredictable, but no one has seen him. As the stresses of academic life pile up, Katie becomes unraveled as she thinks she sees the missing boyfriend. Meanwhile, she begins an attachment with the detective. I won't spoil the twist ending; it's predictable, but satisfying. Hitch would have liked it (but he would have done much more with this script). Overall, above average, especially if you like thrillers and/or Holmes.

More of a sci-fi novel than a medical thriller, but well done. It's a cross between Jules Verne's Voyage to the Center of the Earth and The Abyss. Deep sea divers are sucked into a world underneath the ocean. Impressive from a scientific viewpoint, but the characters are rather stereotypical and the plot routine. But fun for a quick read.

I was astonished at how much I liked this film. I'd never even heard of it until it showed up on DVD, so figured it probably wasn't good. It's great! It's based on a book by Nick Hornsby, the British author who wrote the excellent Fever Pitch and High Fidelity. It's about a 30-something guy who doesn't want to be tied down by a family, but finds his life upturned by a precocious 12-year-old boy. It's wonderfully sensitive -- the boy's mother suffers from depression and tried to kill herself -- yet terrifically funny. Hugh Grant as the lead is perfect, slightly goofy yet cool, hopeless yet appealing. He and the boy fit together perfectly. Great film.

Excellent film. I hesitated seeing this thinking it would be boring, but the director does a good job of using unexpected camera angles and editing to keep even the slow scenes well-paced. It's the story of a man who retired after 32 years at the same insurance company, and is rather lost. His daughter's getting married and lives far away, and he wonders where his life went. He doesn't even recognize his wife of 32 years. Then suddenly she dies. Now he's all alone in this brave new world. He gets in the RV and drives across America, learning about himself, and eventually shows up for his daughter's wedding. The ending is simple and effective, like the entire film. This film is all about character, not about plot. There are a few stereotypical things, but mostly this is fresh and different and interesting. Like the basic main character's simple life, the film is not particularly deep or insightful, but it is pleasant and mildly thought-provoking. Jack is terrific as always. Good stuff.

This was the extended DVD Special Edition -- with like an hour of extra footage (as if the original wasn't long enough). Still excellent, though most of the extra footage toward the middle wasn't noticeable (you'd never know if the booklet didn't tell you). But the ending was dramatically different -- I liked it much better (I always thought the original had a bizarre ending), though James Cameron's anti-war preaching (in all his films) gets a little tiresome. (As if there are people who are pro-war?)

I had seen the trailers which intrigued me, but I didn't realize this was a musical. It's basically a story set to the music of the Beatles. The story is a simple love story about a boy from Liverpool named Jude who meets a girl named Lucy in New York City in the anti-war Vietnam era. The music is well integrated into the story and beautifully done, and I really liked the majority of the visuals and dancing and performances. A few of the songs are weaker and didn't interest me as much (some were too long), but most I liked, though I'm not familiar with many Beatles' songs (some I knew but never realized were Beatles' music). Some of the anti-war stuff is a bit too preachy with obvious pointers at today's "war" in Iraq (though it probably does fit with the era), and much of the 1960's hippy vibe is idealized. Still, it's a fun film -- good music, cool people celebrating life, clever camerawork and elaborate visuals, and a satisfying story -- but I wouldn't take it as seriously as it seems to take itself at times with its overly dramatic anti-war imagery and pro-free love idolatry. Just see it for the entertainment value.

Awesome, amazing film. I'm sure I feel more strongly about this since I'm a writer (a struggling screenwriter at that) and therefore related to everything in the film, but this is truly one of the most innovative scripts ever to hit the screen. While Kaufman's former effort, Being John Malkovich, was cool, it didn't quite work. This film, however, works beautifully.

Assigned to write a screenplay of Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief, Kaufman discovers the book has no plot, just unusual characters, and the journey of those characters is mostly mental. How do you translate that to the screen? Even more important, since it's such an important part of this book, how to you convey the writing style of the author to the screen? Kaufman's answer is both brilliant and diabolical: he writes a film about writing the film!

But it gets even better. Not only is he a character in the movie, but he creates for himself a twin brother (the film credits both as the screenplay author). Then he includes the author herself in the film (a wonderful Meryl Streep). The result is a wild, bizare, painful, hilarious tale about the trials and tribulations of writing a screenplay, dealing with life, and oh yeah, the Orchid Thief book.

That last part is the kicker. As we watch the process of writing the screenplay, we learn all about the book, and we learn about it in a much more intimate, in-depth manner than we would if the book had just been filmed as a "normal" adaptation. In fact, much of the book is read to us in voice-over narration as the character reads the book on the screen! The book itself is about a strange man Orlean interviewed for a piece in the New Yorker (where she works). The man has no front teeth, is obsessed with orchids, and has a mysterious past. He tries to steal orchids from a state park (cleverly using Seminole Indians to do the dirty work, as they aren't likely to be prosecuted, being an oppressed minority) and is arrested. Orlean's article is so successful she expanded it into a book about orchids, obsession, and this strange man. What makes the book work is her writing style, the bizarre main character, and her interpretations and observations on life and obsession. What's amazing is that all that comes through in the film. Even though the film is a film about the book, not a film of the book itself, it teaches us a great deal about the book. It's a brilliant workaround for an impossible task. It's definitely one of the best book-to-screen adapations of all time because it is it's own unique thing, yet it is inspired by the book and captures some of the book's magic, and yet it doesn't replace the book. (Some literal translations, like the Harry Potter series of films, are so faithful they might make some people think they don't need to read the books. The movies are fun but the books are better.) This is definitely one of the best films of the year and if Charlie Kaufman doesnÕt win the screenwriting Oscar, Hollywood should be embarrassed.

For some reason this movie got dismal reviews and box office, but I liked it. It had a lot of the same spirit and humor of the original cartoon. The plot's ridiculous, but even that was a characteristic of the original. I think perhaps people just expected too much.

I don't remember much about the MTV series, other than I've heard of it, but I enjoyed this film. The plot interested me: it's about a future society where one family (the Goodchilds) rule because hundreds of years earlier when a virus wiped out 99.99% of the population of earth his ancester found a cure. But Aeon is a female warrior who fights the Goodchild rule, but then begins to wonder if he's really all that bad. The explanation of what's going on makes sense and is surprisingly logical. In terms of action and film, however, the whole thing's a bit weak and occasionally dull. As a first time viewer I still enjoyed it, but I doubt reruns would be very interesting.

I thought of this as one of those boring literary period pieces and I'd never seen it, but it showed up on one of my movie channels and I saw it was based on a book by Edith Wharton, who's an author I admire. Yes, the movie is slow, and not that much happens in terms of story, but it is interesting. It does a great job of capturing New York in the pre-twentieth century era, particularly life in the upper class. The story is about a lawyer who's engaged but falls in love with another woman who is estranged from her husband. Morals of the day prevent their having an affair, as much as they desire it, so the whole thing is much ado about nothing, and yet the emotions involved are just as powerful. The subduction of passion is clear and fascinating, but what I liked best were the smarmy jabs at the upper crust and the mockery of the fashionable.

Critics have been lambasting this movie, which upset me since I've been looking forward to it for months. Those critics must have seen a different film than I did. I have no real complaints. I mean, come on, I got exactly what I expected: a Bond spoof about a teenage CIA agent who saves the world using lots of teen spunk and high-tech gadgets. This isn't going to win an Oscar, but who cares? It's mindless fun and completely harmless. The plot's thin (but not any worse than most) but the film even pokes fun at that. I'm sure kids will love it. Adults may not find it quite as fun, but at least it isn't offensive. In short: if you like the trailer, you'll like the film.

An own goal by Racing in the first half put River up, but that was the only goal either team could manage. Not a terrible game, but it should have been better.

Today I bought and installed an air conditioner. It wasn't that big a deal, but it was rather exciting tearing out a window in my house for the unit (my windows aren't the standard double-hung kind so the install wasn't as easy as it's supposed to be). Anyway, got it in and it works!

Lackluster is how I'd describe this. I'm not sure why it didn't work. The cast isn't as bad as I expected (most do a good job), the script, while routine, is okay, and the production is of high quality. But somehow the pieces just don't add up to much. The pacing is slow, there's too much emphasis on "celebrity" Alamo victims like Davy Crocket, and the battles are too chaotic to be understandable. The Alamo itself -- the fort, that is -- is unimpressive. While that's probably historically accurate, it is uninspiring in the film and a bit confusing since it appears that two kids with BB guns could take the thing so why can't the whole Mexican army? I did learn some history (I hope it's accurate stuff) and it's not a particularly bad film; but it's not a great movie. It's boring at times and ponderous and suddenly it's over. There's just something missing.

This movie gave me pretty much what I expected, a fun actioner pitting Alien against Predator with humans in the middle getting killed by whichever monster happens to be in their path. The beginning's weak as the film struggles to concoct a "plausible" scenario for getting the two creatures into the same place at the same time. It's ridiculous and irrelevent: just get the humans in a remote place with the creatures and watch the blood splatter. Once the killing starts, it doesn't stop, and the film's pretty good. I liked the ending a lot -- it's a clever way to kill the monster -- and the human heroine is cool. I heard some reviewers don't think this was as fun or as good as Freddy vs. Jason, but this is a different kind of film, with no humor (neither Alien or Predator speaks) and the killing is grim, not funny. This isn't scary or even that brutal, but it's a fun ride after the first boring 30 minutes.

It's been a while since I've seen this, but it doesn't lose much over the years. While it's not quite as nail-bitting as Cameron's The Terminator, it's a great, pressure-filled action film. It doesn't let up until the final frame. It's basically a monster movie and nothing more, but done with such class, it's a definite top 100.

Strange title that sounds like a throw-away teeneybopper flick, but turns out to be a compelling film about girls at a prep school in the 1950s. Kirsten Dunst has the best role of seen her in: she's the leader of a rebellious group and has all the clever ways around the school rules, but deep down she's lonely and hurting and by the end of the film she's changed and matured. What's interesting about that is that she's not the main character. No, that's a girl who's sent to the prep school as a punishment and hates everything about it, but eventually, when the school is threatened with merging with a boy's school, she becomes a voice of the students who lead a rebellion protesting the move. Not a complex film, and there are a few stereotypes among the supporting cast, but pleasant, interesting, with witty dialog and excellent story structure. I liked it a great deal.

Hmmmm. I don't know about Patterson. His books show great promise, but fail to deliver. This is the book where he introduces his arch-criminal, Gary Soneji. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. The guy's a nut, and I don't mean that in an interesting manner. Basically, the moron lets himself be captured by the police. While there's nothing wrong with that, since this is supposed to be a book about Detective Cross hunting down the insane killer, it's quite a letdown when the criminal does all the work for him! There are some interesting developments, including a romance with Cross by a Secret Service woman, but the final third of the book leaves you wondering why you bothered. I read this because they're supposed to be making this into a film. It might make an okay movie as movies tend to compress things -- this book drags out the minimal action over far too many pages. For books like this, the more pages, the bigger the payoff. Unfortunately, Spider (the title's never explained) goes out with a whimper instead of a bang.

I wasn't expecting this to be very good, but it was: I was actually surprised by the trick ending, and the plot and characters kept me interested the whole time. The only real flaw was the dreadfully stupid technology stuff the writers threw it (such as kids exchanging hidden messages in GIFs and a still picture that suddenly becomes part of a live website that tells detectives where the bad guy lives). Overall, a decent thriller.

This film tried harder than I expected. If you've seen the previews, you pretty much know the entire story: neurotic guy's jilted during his honeymoon, goes after childhood sweetheart who's a hippie who turns his ordered life upside down, and he falls in love. It's rather slap-sticky with a number of crude Something About Mary-style jokes in it, but they fall flat. Instead of just being satisfied at being a dumb comedy the movie tries to add depth and characterization, but it just comes out as an awkward mess of cartoon and seriousness. It's still mildly fun and enertaining and there are some good moments, but you're probably better off sticking with the trailer, which has all the best parts.

Strange older French film (apparently a classic) about a future society run by a totalitarian computer and the guy who's out to stop it. While I was intrigued by the premise, I can't say I liked the film: it was confusing (possibly on purpose) and the limited (lame) special effects (if any) and bizarre editing bewildered me. I couldn't say if the lameness was due to low-budget, lack of special effects technology, or lack of futuristic vision, but the "computer" was the human voice narrator which was confusing (it was difficult to tell when the computer on screen was talking and when the narrator was narrating). On the whole this strikes me as a brilliant-for-its-time film, but its heavily dated now and we're less wowed by brillance attempted than by brilliance achieved.

I knew little about this going in; I thought it was about John Newton, the man who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Instead it turned to be the story of Wilbur Wilberforce, a contemporary of Newton, who struggles for years trying to get the British Parliment to abolish the slave trade. Very well done, with authentic performances and surprisingly clear and interesting political debates, but a bit slow at times, and in the end a bit too predictable for the length.

This is the third and final book in the "His Dark Materials" triology. The first half of the book is excellent -- creative and interesting, with imaginative new worlds, unusual species, and wonderful characters -- but unfortunately the novel peters out in the final third, rambling on and on with nothing much happening. Most of the resolution of the plot happens earlier, and most of that is foreshadowed in the earlier books, so there's very little surprise. I'd been hoping for an overall resolution to the plot, something that would summarize everything and explain, but there was nothing like that. While I don't want to spoil things for you -- stop reading here if you don't want to know what happens -- I must elaborate in order to explain. For instance, in all three books there's the concept of Dust. Dust is dark matter, something that holds the fabric of the universe together but is very difficult to see. Pullman goes so far as to suggest that Dust is Sin, and that sin is what gave humans consciousness and is what makes us alive and different from animals. Pullman is obviously anti-god and anti-religion, but though I'm not I found this concept intriguing and I wanted to hear more about it. Unfortunately, the novel does not elaborate or take the idea any further. It just ends. We're left scratching our heads as what this all means. I'm not sure Pullman himself knows. It's like he ran out of ideas, or his original idea just ran out of steam. Very strange, as his earlier stuff is so well-done I was certain he had an overall strategy in mind, but sadly I was mistaken. It's all smoke and mirrors and no substance. It's a disappointing ending to such a promising series.

Ludlum's back! I've stayed away from his recent books as they were co-written (I hate that) and seemed derivitive. I am pleased to say that the old Ludlum is back with his best book since The Bourne Identity. This time Ludlum has created two amazing characters. The first is Ambler, of the title, and he's got a fantastic skill. He's basically a human lie detector. While most of us don't notice the fleeting expressions that pass across a face, he sees everything -- it's almost superhuman -- and he can instantly tell, with near 100% accuracy, if a person is lying or telling the truth. And where is this skill most valuable? Why in the world of espionage, of course!

The second cool character is the antithesis of cool. He's a real geek, an accountant, an auditor. He works in the CIA. This guy's so dry he makes the Sahara seem wet. But he's also got an amazing skill. Though he seems invisible and powerless, via his audits, he can find almost anyone or anything. By following the money he can infer all kinds of information. No one has to tell him about top secret missions and plans because he sees the invoices and can deduce what's really going on!

The book begins with Ambler locked in a psychiatric facility, a particular high-security government institution where former spies and others with secrets are kept so they don't accidentally spill the beans. The difference is that Ambler is not insane -- he's been put away by people unknown and he's desperate to escape and find out what's going on. Once again, Ludlum's created an amnesiac character (like Jason Bourne), this time with a twist. And trust me, you can't put this book down until you get to the dramatic conclusion. Awesomely fun book, surprisingly eloquent, and Ludlum at his very best.

Wonderful, quirky, odd, fantastic film! The premise is based on odd concidences that plague the life of Amelie, a young French girl, warping her view of reality from childhood. For instance, she loves her cold fish doctor father very much and longs for him to embrace her, but the only time he touches is her is during her annual physical, and thus her heart beats very rapidly when he examines her, making him think she has a weak heart and thus the family can never go on vacation and she must go to a special school. In another scene, she witnesses a car accident while taking pictures and a cruel neighbor tells her that her photo-taking caused the accident. She goes home and sees all sorts of tragedies on the news that night and imagines she caused them! But she's not a doormat: when she figures out the neighbor's "joke" she gets him back by disconnecting his TV antenna during the big soccer every time the French team is about to score (she's listening to the game on a portable radio so she knows when to disconnect and reconnect the signal). Thus the girl grows up with a vivid imagination. As an adult, she works as a waitress in a small cafe, when she finds a hole in her apartment that reveals a secret compartment which contains a small box of a boy's treasures (marbles, pictures, etc.). She decides her mission is to become a do-gooder, and her first task is to find the man who owned the treasure box and return it to him. What would a man say to have his childhood treasure returned to him after 40 years? Of course, the results are comic and heart-warming. Later, Amelie tries to be match-maker to her friends with great success, and then tries to set herself up as well, but the latter task proves much more difficult, with every trick failing. Eventually, though, Fate is kind and she and her mate finally connect and all live happily ever after. This film is just beautiful, one of the best films I've ever seen. I could watch it again and again and again, it's so deep, and the frantic pace means you're sure to see new things in it every time you watch. Just magical.

This is a "comedy" about a movie star couple who are America's sweethearts. But they split and the world is shocked. Then they're forced to be together during a press junket to promote their new film. Unfortunately, despite some decent, if routine, performances from some big stars, the film's humor is too predictable to be funny. We're treated to "hilarious" and "shocking" things like learning that big movie stars treat their assistants like dirt and have affairs (i.e. they're human). Ho hum. Mildly entertaining, with the emphasis on the mild. The only really nice thing was seeing Julia Roberts in the non-star role as a wallflower.

Excellent film. Not as brilliantly original as some said (it rehashes themes from many other works, including Death of a Salesman), nor especially scandalous, but well done and well directed. The ending was predictable, and there wasn't as much depth as could have been included, but I liked the characters (especially Ricky) and the structure of the story. The casting of the much talked about Mena Suvari was a mistake, as she's unique-looking and her character's supposed to be pretty, but not extraordinary. Thus her character's revelation at the end fell flat, like when you see a beauty complaining about how ugly she is. I also didn't like the one-dimensional portrait of Ricky's father, a stereotypical gay-hater (Please, Hollywood, can't we come up with an original idea?), but overall it's worth seeing.

This is a terrific film. It's long at over two-and-a-half hours, but I wasn't bored for a second. It's a complicated true story set in the late sixties/early seventies about a black man's rise to power in Harlem. After 15 years as a sidekick, when the old druglord dies, Frank wants to take his place but discovers no one will let him. So Frank makes his own way, bypassing the middlemen and bringing his own heroin into Manhatten via a drug connection in Thailand. This results in a purer product that he sells cheaper than anyone else, and overnight he's a multimillionaire. But he's smart, keeping himself low-key and invisible, so few even know he's the one behind the drugs. Meanwhile, we follow the career of a police officer who's put in charge of a special drug-enforcement team designed to bring down the top drug leaders. These parallel stories culminate in the cop figuring out the black man's the leader (unusual back when Italian gangs ruled) and trying to bring him down. Terrific writing, performances, and film-making. Great epic story, fascinating moral lessons, and entertaining as well.

Wow. This is an amazing book, one of the most remarkable I've ever read. Gaiman is a genius, unquestionably. The variety of topics and ideas compressed into this novel is astonishing. I barely know where to begin plotwise, but I suppose the simplest way is to describe the novel's intriguing premise. Basically, we live in a world where the "gods" (with a lowercase g) of myth and legend still exist, and they exist via the belief of people. These gods are flawed and human-like and mortal, but do have special powers. Most of these gods are weak today because few people believe in them any more, and there are new gods, modern gods, such as Media, a powerful woman-like creature that is the television worshipped by millions. The story is set in modern day America, where we follow the adventures of an easy-going guy named Shadow who's just been released from prison and gets caught up in scams and cons by a god named Wednesday (Odin). Lots of things happen and the individual scenes are brilliant and incredible, but it takes long while before you can really see any plot or story forming: just stick with it as eventually everything will connect and make sense. The novel culminates in a huge battle between the old gods and the new gods, with Shadow right in the middle. It's an amazing story, and Gaiman touches on all kinds of aspects of American and modern life, history, religion, belief, and reality, but ultimately I was slightly disappointed at the conclusions because the book doesn't provide any answers or illumination, it merely stirs the pot and concludes life is a messy stew and then we die. There's no moral or explanation or belief system advocated; I would have preferred that, even if it was a belief I disagreed with. Instead, it merely seems Gaiman was just finding all this humorous and interesting, with no practical connection to real life. So when I finished the novel I was like, "That's it? There's no purpose or explanation to anything?" Gaiman has intriguing ideas, but in the ends just throws out the ideas with nothing to hang them on. Perhaps he didn't want to step on the beliefs of others, but as it is, I was left wondering what the point of the novel was. I guess you could just say it was mere entertainment, but it feels so much deeper than that and I wanted it to be deeper than that. But ultimately it seems that's all that Neil's given us, a good yarn, a tall tale and nothing more.

I'd heard this was a classic, but I'd never seen it. Interesting look at youth in the late fifties/early sixties, apparently based on Lucas' own teen years. Reminded me of a number of other films, though this was probably the first of the genre. It's not my favorite era or type of film (the "story" is one night in the lives of several characters as they cruise, party, and get into trouble before leaving for college the next day). Basically I give this an Okay. It's well-done, and I suppose if you were into that era, it would really bring back memories. To me it seems like a rip-off of Happy Days.

Was this movie ever in the theatres? I don't remember hearing anything about it, but it certainly deserves more recognition. It's a violent, sad, thoughtful look at the white supremacy movement in America. I especially liked the way it showed the grayness of evil, but toward the end the movie got a bit obvious and predictable. (I didn't like the way the main character's dad was suddenly revealed as a closet racist and that, of course, explained the son's behavior. It was trite and poorly done.) Overall, awesome acting (Edward Norton got a well-deserved Oscar nomination) and excellent direction. Thought-provoking (without being preachy) on a subject you didn't think you needed to know about.

Rather pointless musical, though full of excellent performances. None of the songs were memorable, though overall the music wasn't bad. I just couldn't figure out what all the dancing had to do with the nearly non-existent plot.

I listened to the unabridged audiobook version of this novel and I found it lacking. It's the first audiobook I've heard that actually has technical problems (inconsistent sound quality and volume level) and the reading was poor. This made a remarkable book difficult to follow: from the beginning to the end I was confused and not sure who was who and what was going on. The actor's voice was the same for all characters -- I never could even figure out who the narrator was. I thought it was one person, but the viewpoint kept shifting, so I was forced to conclude that the book was narrated by different people at different times, but that was impossible to tell from the way it was read. Usually when there are technical issues like this it's disappointing but doesn't ruin the book; however, in this case, it did serious damage. I'm not quite sure I followed the story. The book itself is amazingly written and tells a character-based story of incredible depth. It's basically an old man looking back on his life and his family. Initially when we see him he has it all: he's the superstar high school athlete, he marries a beauty queen in college, takes over his father's leather glove business and is extremely wealthy, but later, as we piece together the traumatic events in his life, we see that there is conflict and tragedy. His wife hates the stereotype of beauty queen. Their beautiful daughter suffers from stuttering when younger, and eventually she rebells against her parents and runs away from home and is wanted by the FBI for murder. The mom suffers a breakdown and ends up in the looney bin. The dad is haunted by his daughter's bizarre behavior and his own guilt (which he isn't even sure he has). It's a fascinating look into a life. There's conflicts over personalities, religion, politics, economics, race. Scores of topics are touched upon. Unfortunately, the audiobook was so confusing that perhaps I didn't follow the novel properly enough to judge it right, but it felt like it peters out into nothing. It's a long story and I was expecting some sort of pay-off, some dramatic event at the end that would explain or justify everything, and I was given nothing but a "that's the end." Disappointing. I still think it's a remarkable book and I might actually try to read the print edition someday and give it a second chance and see if it was the reading that ruined it for me. I really liked most of what I heard; I just felt the story was confusing at times and the ending weak. Many scenes in the middle were powerful (though they might have been even better if I had a clearer understanding of what was going on). In the end, I recommend it with a "your mileage may vary."

All the reviews I'd heard of this comedy about teen life concentrated on how raunchy it was; I was pleasantly surprised that it actually has some depth, intelligence, and even a sweet love story. That said, it brings out all the extremes of high school life, mostly dealing with various forms of embarrassment, especially sexual. I suspect adults would find it shocking, but kids would just say it's normal life. Certainly better than Animal House, often used as a comparison film. (I've never understood the attraction of that movie; I thought it was lame and pointless.)

More of the same raunchy humor and embarassing sexual situations. Funny and silly, with much of the same spirit as the original. Amazingly, the guys still come off with a hint of the appealing innocence they had in the first film, which is an impressive achievement. But overall the film breaks no new ground. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one, and vice versa.

I'd been interested in this movie since I heard they were going to film it, but the critics were somewhat correct: it's a rathe empty film that doesn't quite live up to its satirical premise. It is somewhat intelligent and has a few good points, but emphasizes the 80's far too much (as though we're more sophisticated in the 90's or 00's). I liked the way the film became surreal as the main character became more and more irrational, and I really liked the ambiguous ending. Not really shocking, except in a couple brief moments (most of the violence is off-screen -- we see blood spattering and such). I'm going to have to read the novel and see if it's better or worse. Great 80's soundtrack.

This is an excellent film about the life of Harvey Pekar, the ultimate ordinary Joe, whose mundane life was made into the American Splendor comic book series. What's fascinating is that this is a combination of drama and documentary. We actually meet multiple Harvey Pekars: there's the various cartoon drawings (portrayed by the many different artists who illustrate the comic), the real guy, and the actor who plays him in the movie. These various versions are blurred together. We cut from a comic drawing to the real or actor version, watch the actor and listen to the real guy narrarating, etc. It's a wonderful technique because it allows us to know all the Harvey Pekars and thereby understanding the whole man better. The story is pretty much chronological: we see Harvey at his dead-end job as a file clerk, watch him meet artist Bob Crumb, see the comic book become a success, follow the story of Harvey meeting and marrying his wife (after knowing her for less than a week), and endure his battle with cancer. The whole thing is marvelously done. My only complaint is that ultimately we aren't enriched by the process. Harvey seems like a decent ordinary guy, and it's fun meeting the man behind the cartoon, but Harvey's so ordinary and his morose attitude on life is so depressing that not much is to be gained by our experience with him. We're just listening to a guy whine about his misery for decades, never once doing a thing to get off his ass and do something about it. Granted, that's what his story is all about, and I suppose fans of the comic like that and would therefore like this film better. I found it interesting from a sociological viewpoint, and the presentation was fascinating, but I don't want to spend any more time with Harvey than I already have.

Not bad, though a little slow at times, and not consistently funny (and sometimes not funny at all). Predictable. I love Billy Crystal, though.

Cool film of a complex murder trial. An Army lieutenant kills the man who allegedly raped his wife. Jimmy Stewart -- in one of his best performances -- is the lawyer with no career that takes the case. Until the very end of the film you don't know if the man is guilty or not. Was the rape real or not? Was the husband really temporarily insane or was the shooting an act of revenge? This film has some of the best dialog I've ever heard: excelllent, excellent, excellent. Even the minor characters speak with intelligence and personality. Lee Remick, as the sexy wife, is really good. Complex, gray film, without any answers. Worth seeing more than once.

Not as consistently funny as Dodgeball: An Underdog Story, but pretty good. It starts out slow but gets better once the plot gets going. A lot of the humor is weak, sort of the "smile but not laugh" variety. For instance, there's a scene where Ron's dog talks to him. The dog barks, and Ron interprets for the audience. This is a mildly amusing idea. But this one-joke premise goes on way, way too long, and the pause while we wait while the dog barks are boring and the scene lasts forever. But once the plot starts to form -- a female anchorperson steps in to take Ron's job -- things get much more interesting. Of course the whole thing is very silly and the plot isn't there for much more than as a foundation for stupid jokes, so it's not that compelling. What does work are the performances, which are great, and in the end we laugh at all the great hammy acting and camera mugging (including some cool cameos by Ben Stiller and others) more than actual jokes in the script. Over all, a solid C+. Slightly above average for this kind of movie. Not great, probably not anything you'd want to buy and watch over and over again, but decent enough and good fun.

Older scifi film with Klaus Kinski and his android on a space station and some escaped convicts who arrive to threaten them. Mildly interesting, technically ridiculous, and silly special effects by today's standards. Nice twist at the end, though.

An interesting concept, but far too slow and doesn't do enough with the idea. It's a about a female cop who meets a strange guy. He tells her his name is Catch, no last name, and won't say anything about his past or what he does or anything. Anyway, she falls in love with, deduces his secret (he has a tragic past he's trying to forget), and when he comes around, they live happily ever after. Or something like that. The premise is good, but the love dialog tries so hard to be clever it comes across as inane, and despite the pretty presence of Jennifer Lopez, the film commits the cardinal sin of being boring.

I'm completely ignorant of the whole Ireland mess (the IRA and all that), so I usually find books that deal with that bewildering and meaningless. Fortunately understanding Irish politics isn't a requirement for this novel. It's really almost like a series of short stories. Former IRA bad boy Sean Dillon, now working for MI-5, is back, and he has several adventures. Meanwhile, behind the scenes a group called January 30 (after Bloody Sunday) is assassinating important people, and eventually Dillon has to stop them. The title character is a woman, a famous actress, who is also January 30's main killer. The ending's a bit of a wimp out, with everyone killing themselves, but probably realistic. Okay, not great, but a very quick read.

First, a warning. I will give away key plot elements in this "review." I will do this because the plot is one of the major flaws and I must reveal it in order to critique it. If you are wanting to read this book without knowing the outcome, don't read my comments!

This is a bizarre book. It's by the moron author of The Davinci Code. I bought this book before I read the other one, and if I'd known it was a prequel to that one, I never would have bothered. Unfortunately I did, so I forced myself to read it. Initially, my impressions were that this book was much better written (it felt less rushed than Davinci), but even more anti-Christian (specially anti-Catholic) than the other one. This book is basically a war between science and religion. An ancient pro-science cult has surfaced and has stolen some anti-mater from the CERN lab in Switzerland. As we all know, anti-mater explodes when it comes in contact with any regular matter, so this is effectively a tremendous weapon. The anti-matter is suspended inside the canister by magnetic force, but when the batteries run out (24 hours after the canister is disconnected from power), the anti-matter will drop, contact the canister, and explode. They hide this anti-matter in the Vatican so it will destroy the Catholic church. Robert Langdon, the symboligist from the other book, is brought in by CERN to help track down the ancient cult that did this, and he ends up (with a beautiful scientist partner) on a wild quest to stop the bomb. Okay, that's the basic plot, and it's not so bad. There are many nonsensical aspects to it (Why batteries that run out in exactly 24 hours? Why only have recharging stations at CERN? Why can't the recharging station be moved or plugged into an AC outlet? Why and how does the canister have no metal? How the heck does the canister know, exactly, to the second how long the batteries will last? Does anything rechargable you own predict usage that accurately?), but those are typical Dan Brown idiotics, where he forces the plot to go where he wants to go and if that means forcing a square into a round hole he'll damn well do it. But he does keep the action going, albeit with his trademark ploy of simply concealing information to build the suspense. (One feels extremely manipulated while reading a Dan Brown book.) The first half of the book has a distinctly anti-religious feel to it, with many unnecessary lectures on the superiority of science and the (obvious) fallacy of God. But in the second half, we meet the late Pope's assistant, a man who seems quite amazing. He says all the right things, is spiritual yet modern and practical, and seems to have a logical balance between God and science (they are not contradictory). Unfortunately, just when I thought at Dan Brown book might have a redeeming character, the author pulls a fast one. As the story was wrapping up I expected a twist; Dan loves his twists -- too bad he's inept at pulling them off. This one was a doozy. All of a sudden we learn that this Catholic hero, the religious man who seemed so rational and likeable, is well, the insane guy behind the whole bomb plot. He's responsible for all the murders and his stopping of the bomb was to make him a hero and get him elected Pope! This is a full 180-degree twist from the guy we knew, which is just ridiculous (I abhor unreliable narrators, especially omniscient ones), and his motives for his actions are obviously insane. Once again, Dan has succeeded in putting them blame on religion. In this case the whole anti-religion plot was fake, created by a religious guy to make science look bad! I don't know; nothing makes much sense at this point. Again, Dan just forces a plot to go where he wants, whether or not it makes any sense. The bottom line is this artificial ending just ruins the book, ruins what was a remarkable character, and demonstrates that Brown knows absolutely zilch about realistic writing, human characterization, or reality.

Overall, this is a slightly better book than Davinci Code, but that's not saying much. It doesn't have as many factual flaws as that book and is not quite so arrogantly presented, but this book is much nastier toward God (versus the Catholic Church). Dan's "solution" for the God vs. Science conflict is to conclude that God is Science and God is inside all of us... we are all gods. That doesn't make sense on so many levels. First of all, why does an atheist scientist even care? Second of all, by reducing God to something -- a mere technical fact -- you've eliminated all Godliness from God. Why even have Him around then? I don't understand the point of it. Either God is a supernatural being who created us and gives us a moral standard to live by, or there's no point in having a god. In other words, if God is whatever we define, than we, effectively, are God. That's hubris.

Except for an excess of penile jokes, this movie is much tamer than Adam Sandler's usual fare. It's okay overall, with Sandler as a shy loser who's mistakenly entered into an anger management course run by a lunantic teacher (Jack Nicholson). Jack's methods are bizarre but in the end effective, as Sandler learns to be a man. While the psychology's about as deep as a drop of water, it's an interesting ride. Jack's got the colorful role with Sandler playing the straight man. The ending is satisfying as ought to be expected in this kind of film.

Purile.

I've been anticipating this brand new adaptation of Orwell's classic for months and couldn't wait for Sunday's premiere on TNT. Supposedly this movie cost $25 million to make -- amazing for a cable channel like TNT, but well worth it. Using the same techniques as the Babe movies, this is a live action film with talking animals interacting with humans. Very, very well done. Certainly not for kids -- this movie features graphic, realistic violence, and the animals are eerie they are so real. Probably traumatic for kids. It's a sad story, really; your heart really goes out to the poor, suffering animals. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but I saw little that seemed out of place. The ending's rushed (it just suddenly ends on a hopeful note), and there were a couple places I thought the "cruelty to animals will come back to haunt you" message was heavy-handed, but overall, a treat and well worth your time. My favorite moment was when the narrator (the mama dog) is looking through the window of the house and seeing a pig and a human drinking whiskey. There was some water on the window glass and as the camera view shifted, the features of the human warped into pig and the features of the pig warped into human likeness. It was amazingly subtle -- you had to blink, thinking you were seeing things -- and one of the most effective uses of special effects I've seen since Forest Gump. TNT repeats the movie on Wednesday, Oct. 6, so catch it then if you missed it. They'll probably repeat it more, too. (Why don't the "big" networks repeat their shows? I've never understood that. I love having a choice of viewing times.)

Pretty good Allen film, though it gets weaker as it goes along. Allen plays a comedian who's a loser at romance (there's something new) and he walks us through his life in retrospect. That's the best, because he frequently breaks down the wall between the camera and the audience, talking directly to the viewer, and intruding his present-day character upon his past-day character, and making snide remarks. Some good wit, cool cameos by big stars, but all the self-introspection gets old after a while, and the ending is flat. Worth seeing, though, especially if you like Allen's humor.

I heard horrible things about this animated movie when it came out and stayed away. It seemed too predictable: a picked-on wimp takes out his vengeance on an ant colony (the bullied becomes bully) and the ant colony retaliates by shrinking him to their size and forcing him to live like they do, whereby he learns life-changing lessons. While the film takes too many shortcuts for cheap humor (like butt jokes) and the story is lightweight, there's enough interesting characters (I loved the glow worm and beetle) and unusual things going on and the heart of the story actually is pretty good, and in the end, I decided I liked the film. Not bad.

Great concept, poorly done. It's a thinly disguised mockery of Microsoft out to take over the world, except the company is given the idiotic name of NURV. The hero's a college kid who's a genius programmer, recruited by NURV to help finish their new satellite-based communication system (which ridiculously talks to any electronic device anywhere in the world in any medium). This could have been good, if they'd actually followed the rules of reality, and made use of the story's satric potential. Instead they went trite and predictable, with an overly complicated (and illogical) plot. Pretty lame and disappointing.

Not quite what I expected; it was both more impactful and less fancy than I anticipated. I was expecting a moving story about a trouble young black man with a complex history, and I got that, but while I'm not trying to knock his past, it wasn't as troubled as I expected. Yeah, his mother abandoned him and he lived with foster parents who abused him, but it didn't seem as bad as many people suffer. But in a way, that was a key part of the film because it was saying it doesn't matter what you suffered, the point is that you did, and how it effected you is most important. In the case of Antwone Fisher, he rose above his past, learned to understand and control his anger, and eventually made peace with his family. While the film's leisurely paced, it surprisingly doesn't feel slow. Terrific performances and interesting characters. The final scene when he's surrounded by relatives he didn't know he had is awesome and extremely touching. A terrific film. It's not overly dramatic like most Hollywood productions, but simple and realistic, much like the real Antwone Fisher who wrote the screenplay based on his life experiences. He's a blunt, honest guy who doesn't put on airs or try to magnify himself, and that comes across both in the character as portrayed on film, and in the unassuming story and script. I was expecting more of a weepy Oscar-contending film, but what I got was simply a great story about a remarkable man who just wanted to escape his troubled past and make a life for himself, and did it.

Interesting, though annoying, Woody Allen film about a comedy writer (Jason Biggs) struggling to figure out life. His girlfriend (Christina Ricci) is lovely but frightfully annoying as she can't make up her mind and drives him insane. She eats before their dinner date, moves out without warning and moves back in just as abruptly, and worse. But he's too chicken to leave her. Biggs gets bizarre advice from another comedy writer (Allen) he met in Central Park. Woody's created some great characters here, and I really liked the intelligence of Bigg's character (it makes him more sympathetic). Allen's alter ego is hilarious and full of typical Woody Allen insecurity. The story is simple enough as Bigg's figures out his life and learns to move on (not without help), but overall, while this is better than some of Woody's recent films, it's lightweight. Ricci's character is too annoying to be likable (you want to slap her), and the best part is Woody's amazing dialog which is mostly intellectual entertainment (I'd rather read it than watch it).

Don't watch this movie if you believe in the Eleventh Commandment ("Thou shalt not shout!"). This is one of those movies that's impossible to classify. I knew little about it other than it was a low budget independent film written, directed, produced, financed by, and staring Robert Duvall. I saw a few bits of an interview with Duvall when this movie was released and it sounded fascinating, but I didn't know the story. I was leery of Hollywood's portrayal of a Pentecostal preacher. I'd heard the movie being praised because the lead character was a flawed preacher, and Hollywood seemed to think this was revolutionary. Frankly, hearing that didn't impress me: every preacher I've seen on film or TV has been flawed. Usually when there's a flawed preacher Hollywood sets out to revile in the flaws, to delight in showing the blackness under the Christian mask. But this film isn't like that at all. Duvall's character is incredibly human, but there's little fanfare. You have to work to see his flaws. The movie is about rebirth, about passion and commitment, about humanity, about frailty, about suffering and desire. There isn't a wrong step anywhere: it's amazingly realistic, eerily so. I grew up in Pentecostal churches and this movie was like a flashback to scenes from my childhood. I know that affects how I interpret the film: Duvall, for instance, said he made the movie because he was fascinated by Pentecostalism and so few Americans know about it (especially Hollywood). Indeed, the film has a documentary feel to it -- it's an inside look at the Pentecostal world. To me, Pentecostalism is as ordinary as a loaf of bread, but I can see from his outsider perspective, something like "tag team" preaching is bizarre and interesting. Because of my familiarity with the subject, certain parts of the film were slow and uninteresting. I also initially distrusted the movie's portrayal of Christians as I'm used to that being a setup in Hollywood films: the Christian always turns out to be the insane serial killer. I also am personally turned off by characters like Sonny (Duvall's role) who spew religious platitudes the way many men swear. But in this movie I slowly came to realize that this wasn't an act, this was legitimate. Sonny really believes every word he says, as trite as it sometimes sounds. This is not an impression you can gain from five minutes with somebody -- it requires you spend an incredible amount of time with the person, in all sorts of circumstances, and watch how they react. This movie allows you to do that. It's an intimate portrait unlike any I've seen. Truly a tour-de-force for Duvall, and well-worthy his Oscar nomination. The story itself is seemingly slight: a preacher runs away to a small town and works to rebuild a church. In the process he rediscovers himself, God, and gives hope to people who need it. It's fascinating: unexpectedly complex in this day of simplistic Hollywood plots where every detail is explained away. Instead of explanations, Duvall just shows things happening. It's up to the viewer to interpret them. Incredible, and it shows a great deal of faith in the intelligence of the audience (something rare in major motion pictures). I can picture myself watching this again and again in the future, each time discovering subtle aspects I missed. I think I'll like it better every time I see it. It's not a movie everyone will like: it's slow moving at times, low key, intensely passionate, shocking, disturbing, and ultimately satisfying. Whereas most Hollywood productions that involve religion deal with religious conflict (i.e. the clash between faith and science in Contact), this movie doesn't do that: it's a simple story about a human preacher. That's it. And amazingly, it works.

At the end of this movie as we were leaving the theatre, I heard another view say, "Well, it's no Unforgiven." I started laughing, for that was exactly what I'd been thinking. It sure feels a lot like Unforgiven, but it doesn't live up to that classic. It's still a good movie and an above average Western. It's got some unusual characterizations that I found fascinating, especially the character of the woman (Renee Zellweger in a terrific performance) who is so confused even she isn't sure what she is. Is she a whore, a lover, or a wife? Which does she want the most? She's a tragic figure, extremely sympathetic, though we don't like what she does (she doesn't either but does it anyway). The other thing I found intriguing is that the film ends happily. I was totally expecting a grim "there will be blood" violent and tragic conclusion to everything, but instead the film unexpectedly has everything work out for the best. Yet the ending is not at all artificial or forced; it's just clever and appropriate. Others will write about the mood of this film, the great acting, the slender storyline, the cool action, and maybe some other positives and negatives, and they're probably right in whatever they say. I still liked the film, though it was overlong and had moments of dullness, but while it tries hard, this movie doesn't quite measure up to Unforgiven.

This morning I went to Palo Alto to witness the grand opening of the new Apple Store. Over a thousand people were there and it was a terrific celebration of Apple. Steve Jobs was even there (I took his picture). It was great fun and hilarious to receive the funny looks of passerbys who no doubt thought we were crazy to stand in line for hours to get into a mere computer store!

Spent this week in San Francisco at Apple's Worldwide Developer's Conference. It was an exciting show, partly because it was my first time at a WWDC, and being surrounded by thousands of really smart Mac programmers was an interesting experience, but this year was significant as Apple announced their new G5 Macs (shipping in August). The new Macs look awesome and appear to be a huge leap forward in performance, though Apple's performance numbers include some questionable fudging that makes me question Steve Jobs' "fastest personal computer in the world" mantra. Overall it appeared to be a good show, with everyone enthusiastic and confident about the future of the Mac platform.

Interesting, though I'm not sure I quite figured out the point. This is basically a psychological chess game between a 16-year-old student and a Nazi war criminal he's uncovered. However, instead of turning the Nazi in, he blackmails the old man into telling him gruesome stories of Nazi attrocities. In turn, the Nazi blackmails the boy, and the game escolates into murder and intrigue. Fascinating, with excellent performance by Ian McKellar as the Nazi (and the guy in the bed next to him in the hospital was awesome as a Jew whose family the Nazi killed). But overall we're left with a feeling of voyerism and no clear explanation of why the boy's so messed up. Watch this one for the performances and concept, but don't expect to grow from it.

Terrific game, as could be expected. Argentina dominated the first half, with Gallardo scoring a terrific through-the-legs-of-the-hapless-defender goal, followed by an ignored Batistuta, left alone at the top of the box with the ball at his feet. (Message to Uruguay: don't do that. "Batigol" will make you pay.) Uruguay came back five minutes into the second half with a gift goal from Argentina's terrible defending. After that the game became very rough and physical (and Uruguay's coach stupidly took out Recoba, their best player), but neither team could anything else and so it finished Argentina 2, Uruguay 1.

The action started with a bang when Diego Forlan scored for Independiente off a great cross into the box just six minutes in. Horrors! The mighty Boca behind? How could this be? Well, Boca didn't just sit still, but they couldn't score. Then, an odd thing. It must have been hot (remember, it's summer in Argentina now), because 33 minutes in the ref called a halt to the proceedings so he could get a drink! I've never seen that before. The brief break must have helped Palermo, because he soon had a header bounce off the crossbar. Unfortunately, that was to be Boca's best chance in the first half. Boca missed a point-blank chance in the second half, and just couldn't seem to score. Then Independiente got a player sent off (second yellow). But the advantage only lasted a few minutes for Boca, because they soon had a player sent off. Apparently that wasn't enough, so they had another player ejected a couple minutes after that! With only nine players, Boca was really behind, and then Forlan, amazingly, got his second when his shot was not completely stopped by Boca's keeper Cordoba. With just a minute left in regulation, it was all over: Boca would be handed their first defeat of the season! Good teamwork increased Independiente's lead in the final seconds when they did a little passing exchange in the box to wrong foot the keeper for an easy tap-in. Final: 3-0 Independiente. Unbelievable!

This game is known as the "Superclassico," as these two teams are the best and biggest in Argentina and have been rivals for over 100 years (they've played each other 166 times and each won about sixty and drawn the rest)! In Buenos Aires in front of 80,000 screaming fanatics, the two met. For Boca, a win would mean a significant lead in the tournament (they are in first place), while for second place River Plate, a win would help them gain on their arch-rivals. At first, as is typical in a Superclassico, the match was choppy, with hard fouls making it difficult to establish any kind of consistent play. River seemed to be doing the best, when out of nowhere, a simple cross into the box was met by a leaping Martin Palermo who headed into the far corner past a diving goalkeeper. Boca was ahead in the fourteenth minute. After that, Boca dominated (especially Riquelme and Serna), while River couldn't do much more than foul. Then in the dying minutes of the first half, River nearly scored, stopped only by a terrific save by Cordoba, Boca's keeper. Coming into the second half, Boca seemed to sit on the laurels, and fourteen minutes in River equalized on a terrific counter-attack. After that, play was frenetic, more like a ping-pong match, with chances at both ends. Keepers made saves, there were yellow cards galore, and finally, even though River's Ortega was sent off with a second yellow, the game finished an appropriate tie, 1-1.

Not a great game, but significant in that it gave Boca Juniors the Apertura 2000 title. Boca dominated, though not magnificently, with Arce's goal in the 65th minute. But it was enough as the win, with River Plate's loss, puts the championship beyond doubt. Boca wins it again! It's almost becoming routine. ;-)

With Boca well ahead in the standings, this game just meant further distancing from their opponents. Boca started off brilliantly as usual, bouncing the ball off the inside of the near post in the fifth minute, freezing the "world's greatest goalkeeper" Chilavert as he thought the shot was going wide. Chilavert almost brought