The Z/Web Archive

This is a movie about a movie: Mario Van Peebles wrote, directed, and stars in this pseudo documentary about his father Melvin's controversial 1971 movie, Sweet Sweetback's Baadassssss Song, which was not only one of the first films directed by a black man, but one of the first successful independent films. This movie shows the long, hard road he had to haul to get there: trying to get white people to finance a film they couldn't understand about a revolutionary topic (a black guy beats up corrupt white policemen and goes on the lam), hiring staff from the porn business so he could avoid the unions, using his own money, borrowing and begging and stealing, etc. It's a terrific look at that era, at independent movie-making, and it's also a character study of Mario and his relationship with his dad (who is portrayed with many flaws as he was so driven to do the film he hurt many people in the process). Apparently the original film isn't the greatest movie, but it had a huge impact on the movie industry and started trends in films that still exist today. This movie also isn't the greatest -- it focuses a bit too much on the lurid details at times and possibly overcelebrates Melvin's "greatest" as a director -- but it is extremely interesting, especially if you're curious about the movie industry or racial relations in the 1970s.

This is a low budget thriller about a bizarre family: a woman and her two grown daughters who are raising "Baby," a fully grown man in diapers. Supposedly heÕs mentally retarded, but a social worker who visits has her doubts. She starts to investigate the family. The film delivers some surprisingly good performances: the looks exchanged between the mom and her daughters and the social worker are terrific, and reveal a lot of creepy subtext. You begin to wonder about the motivations of everyone involved. The ending is a nice little twist that's unexpected and worth the wait. This not high caliber art, but it is fun, and delightfully twisted.

Light romance about a guy who's so bad at proposing his girlfriend turns him down; then his grandfather dies and leaves him $100 million, but only on the condition that he gets married by his 30th birthday, which happens to be the next day. A few good lines, occasional biting satire, but generally silly and predictable, and not even that romantic. Harmless.

I made it back from Oregon. Had a great time with family; watched movies, played International Monopoly, ate too much. Flight home was canceled due to lack of demand, so they put me on an earlier flight. Made it with two minutes to spare. Airports and planes were deserted. Crazy! Don't know if it was Y2K related, but I did have a weird series of coincidences. My watch went dead (bad battery). Coming out of the coma of a vacation (where I found it hard to remember what day it was, let alone the time), this made it even worse. This is a data watch, which stores frequently needed phone numbers, so bye-bye data. I had a travel alarm I thought I'd use this morning, but its battery was also dead! So I resorted to my Palm III, only to discover that its batteries had also died and I'd lost all my Palm info! (Most of the data's backed up, but not all.) Welcome to 2000, I guess.

I wasn't really watching this silly Rodney Dangerfield vehicle -- honestly -- but I saw in the credits that Terry Farrell (Dax of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine fame, was in it and I just had to see it. She plays the hot girlfriend of Dangerfield's son. Worth seeing for Trek fans.

I was expecting the worst, but this wasn't as bad as I'd thought. It's better than the first, in fact. It is long -- way too long at well over two hours. The plot meanders and in the end it's just a mini-war (literally) with a shootout ending. Along the way there's silly character-based drama with the two partners arguing and having conflict (of course all resolved by the end). The film's best when it's just the two guys shooting with guns and mouth and not trying to make the film more than it is. I could edit this down to a terrific 90 minute film that would be non-stop action. As it is, the film tries too hard. Still, it's not terrible, and there are a few good moments.

This is one of the most outrageous, disgusting films of all time. And it's also one of the funniest. The story is simple: we have a crook who gets a job as a mall Santa every Christmas season to case a joint, and at the end of the year, robs the mall safe and loots the stores. That gives him enough money to get drunk until next Christmas. This Santa's a hard luck case all right. He's a Loser with a capital L. He's mean, vicious, and a real jerk. He complains about how his life is hell and contemplates suicide. At first, the main joke seems to be watching "Santa" use the f-word, get drunk, and screw. But then Santa meets a fat little boy who's developmentally challenged and appears to think Santa's real. Nothing Santa does fazes the kid, who still seems to think Santa's God. When Santa discovers the boy lives alone with his senile Grandmother, he moves into the kid's nice house. The kid's dad is off "mountaineering" for several years (he's really in prison for an accounting discrepency) so Santa, in effect, becomes the kid's dad. Gradually, though Santa's still rude, crude, and socially unexceptable, he begins to be a little nicer to the kid, eventually helping him. The Santa never becomes an angel or anything, but at least he's started on the path to redeeming himself. This film's a lot like the cult classic, Shakes the Clown, Bobcat Goldthwait's hilarious movie about a drunken birthday party clown. Both are uneven, with the key humor coming from normally positive characters (Santa or a clown) acting crude. This one's a bit more of a story, however. They did an amazing job of keeping the Santa semi-likeable (somehow) despite his jerk behavior, so that we actually root for him in the end. But neither movie is for all tastes, that's for sure. If you like your humor dark and mean, you'll probably like this. If you're looking for a typical Christmas feel-good movie, go see Elf instead.

Peter's first film, shot over three years on weekends, is a cinematic masterpiece. Okay, perhaps "masterpiece" is not the word, but it's certainly an incredible achievement. It's a gory B-movie trip, and it's hilarious. The plot's great: a representative from an outer space fast food chain has arrived on earth with his cronies and is packing up humans for alien consumption. So far they've taken over an entire village of 75 people. This is just a trial run to see if the product's a hit, but with four billion "cattle" on earth, there are big profits to be had. The New Zealand government sends in "The Boys," a group of scientists and gunfighters to find out what's happened to the remote town, and of course, they discover the aliens and what follows is lots of bloodshed. Lots. Terrific action, editing, and gory special effects, astonishing with the minimal budget. (Peter spent $11,000 of his own money for the first 75 minutes shot on 16mm, then used funds from the NZ Film Commission to finish the film.) The special effects are really impressive even by modern standards: headless zombies, guy cut in half, body falling down a mountainside and bouncing. But the key to everything is the humor. In one scene, a guy has part of his brains fall out the back of his head. He replaces the missing piece of his head, but then something's not quite right -- he's a bit out of sorts. So he takes up some of the brain matter he finds scattered about, opens the head wound, and stuffs in the brains! Then he's okay! In other scene, a guy's Uzi runs out of bullets, but he realizes the alien zombies are pretty dumb, so he pretends to shoot and makes ch-ch-ch-ch sounds with his mouth. The alien dude flails his arms and staggers as though bullets are tearing him apart until he realizes he's fine! In another classic scene -- believe me, there are dozens and dozens -- a dead alien lies propped against a wall, a single bullet hole in his forehead gushing blood like a faucet... into a glass which he's holding in his hand! Oh, there's just too much of that -- it's awesome. This is definitely a midnight movie you can watch over and over and over again and always see something new. Amazing.

If you rate your movie money in terms of how many bullets get shot and explosions you see, this film will definitely get your vote. The producers must have spent $1 million on bullets alone, and triple that in vehicles (brand new SUVs get destroyed every few minutes), and God knows how much on fireworks. The "plot" is ludicrous, with holes big enough for several oil tankers, and it goes something like this: Bad Guy works for secret govt. intelligence agency (the cleverly named DIA), and he steals a new nano-weapon that would let him kill a remote target with the push of a button (it's a micro machine that is "undetectable" in a person's bloodstream yet can be remotely ordered to give the person a heart attack). Sever (Lucy Liu) kidnaps his son to get the weapon. Ecks in an ex-FBI guy who's brought in to get Sever. Puzzled? You should be: it makes little sense that the hero is essentially helping the Bad Guy. Then the plot gets really wonky: Ecks is searching for his wife who was killed seven years earlier except that he just discovered she wasn't killed: it turns out she's... get this... married to the Bad Guy! I won't go any further: just this much strains credibility. The movie filled with odd gaps in logic: bad guys magically appear whenever they're needed (how did they know to go there?), good guys stupidly show up in bad guy territory for no reason, etc. Half the time the super-heros seem super-smart; the other half they're super-dumb (for instance, Ecks stands on a land mine at one point, telling the Bad Guy to move away lest he get blown up also). Then there are all those guns and explosions. While cool, there were a number of things that bugged me. For instance, a few times actors held their guns awkwardly, like they didn't know how to use them: odd for weapons experts. At other times, Ecks or Sever seemed to be very poor markspeople: Ecks once misses three guys five feet away in a narrow train car with his shotgun. Of course they complete miss him with their automatic weapons, but then he gets them on his second attempt (three shots, three kills). Huh? In other scenes, huge explosions that destroyed half the city just knocked down the bad guys and they just dusted themselves off and got back to work being bad. And speaking of bad guys: of the thousands that get shot, does nobody notice that these guys are all Federal agents? Sure, their leader is dirty, but are they are all dirty as well? Aren't most just innocent agents obeying their boss? Very strange film in terms of plot, but if you ignore all that and just enjoy the wild action, it's not half bad. The action is mostly average quality, though a few scenes are very cool. Mostly watch this if you want to see stuff get blown up.

Wow, where do I begin? Lee's tackles an incredibly complex subject -- racism -- and throws everything on the screen. The plot is about a black TV producer who creates a new "racist" TV show which features black actors in blackface, sparking controversy and huge ratings. The producer did this just to spite his employers, but the show's success puts him in the middle of an awkward dilemma. As his actors begin to rebel, we're given lots to think about the nature of racism. Can a black man be racist? What about a black man who's white (in personality and attitude)? Is blackface, by its nature, racist? What if the intention is not racist -- like a mime's whiteface isn't racist? Does a person's perception of racism make an act racist? (In other words, if I feel I've been racially slurred, have I been?) As I said, lots of complex questions. Ultimately, I'm not sure how many of these Spike answers -- but its an intriguing film (though a little uneven).

Terrific! Absurdly witty farce about a moron (Allen) who ends up becoming the leader of a small South American country. A bit silly toward the end, but has some classic moments. Favorite part: Allen's "intellectual" conversation with his girlfriend where they both use $10 words that neither knows the meaning of. Hilarious!

Okay buddy film about two prison escapees who become bank robbers. Along the way they "kidnap" a troubled woman, and the threesome go up and down the west coast robbing banks and become famous as the "Sleepover Bandits" (they invade and sleep over at the bank manager's home the night before the robbery so they can rob the bank early in the morning before it opens). Somewhat predictable (especially the ending), but still pleasant and interesting, with good performances. Interestingly for me, this happens to be another Billy Bob Thornton and Cate Blanchett film: coincidence that I rented this at the same time as The Gift?

I thought this was a standard bank caper/con job sort of film, but because it's based on a real life story, it's much different. Everything gets really convoluted, just like in real life. Let me see if I can explain the mess. Basically in 1971 the British government tried to prosecute a bad drunk dealer from Trinidad, but he apparently had taken compromising pictures of the royal princess -- thus rendering him immune from prosecution as the govt. couldn't afford to let him release the photos. But MI-6 learns the pictures are in a safety deposit box at a certain bank in London and since they can't do anything official, they recruit a group of semi-criminal losers to rob the bank. The thieves think it's just for the money and know nothing about the photos. Everything goes as planned, to an extent, but then the thieves discover that in the safe deposit boxes are a mobster's account ledgers which incriminate a slew of cops on the take, as well as a madam's compromising video and pictures of some of her high-profile government clients. Everyone wants their stuff back, of course, and suddenly the robbers are being chased by everyone: the cops, the mob, MI-6. It's crazy!

Despite such complexities in plot, the film works -- it's easy to understand what is going on and the complications and problems are hilarious. Excellent film. Not particularly deep, but definitely fun and well-done.

The first half was so-so gamewise, but the atmosphere of being in a huge crowd of 92,650 screaming fans was amazing. In the second half both got going as Ronaldinho came on the field and every time he touched the ball 92,650 people would leap to their feet and cheer! It was really wild, crazy stuff. Lots of fun, great goals, and a peaceful conclusion as it finished with a 1-1 draw.

I read something about this before it came out and it had me mildly intrigued, but I missed it in the theatres. Now I'm glad I did. This was horrible. We're talking barnyard manure pile horrible. It's just a bizarre mess of talking animals and weird humans, with male cows having udders (huh?), jokes that fall flatter than featherless chickens (A cow surfing off a mountain cliff?), and a touchy-feely obvious plot about a young bull learning to become an adult and take responsibility. An incomprehensible mess. I got distracted doing other things and realized I'd missed a portion of the film and I didn't even care.

Overlong epic about an Irish rogue who wheels and deals his way upper the social ladder in 18th Century England. It's impressively done, though I still question the odd casting of Ryan O'Neal to play the lead. He's not bad, but not great either, and throughout the film I kept seeing O'Neal instead of Barry Lyndon. There are some good moments and the plot is occasionally fascinating (I liked the hatred between Barry and his step-son), but ultimately it's a period piece, it's epic in length though not in scope, and it ends with a whimper (Barry sort of fades away). It's worth watching once, but not something I'd want to see again.

Decent thriller about the cover-up of a mysterious incident by soldiers on a training mission. Only two survive and John Travolta, a former military man, is brought in to interogate them. However their stories conflict and it's up to him to figure out the truth. It's a little slow at times, a little obvious at others, but generally keeps you intrigued (the interrogations and scenes between Connie Nielson and Travolta are excellent). Unfortunately, the script falls into a common modern problem: multiple twist endings. The films ends at least three times, but those are just red herrings. Everything you think you know you don't. At times that can be interesting, but generally it's just annoying, since you begin to distrust everything. I'm sure the writers thought they were clever, but the constant pulling the rug out from the audience gets tiresome. Still, the film has enough style to make up for some of that. Travolta does a by-the-numbers performance (which is better than most actors' by-the-numbers performance), and Samuel L. Jackson is good as usual, though he's not in the story enough, but the real shining light is Connie Nielsen, who is outstanding and brilliant. She makes the film work as much as it does, and elevates it about the sub-standard script.

This was surprisingly good for a sequel. Unfortunately it has to live up to the salacious reputation of the original, which hurts it, since it's really more about psychology. Sharon Stone plays her same character, and once again we aren't sure if she's really a murderer or incredibly unlucky, as people tend to die around her. Instead of a cop, her male counterpart this time is a court-assigned psychiatrist, whom she flirts and toys with, manipulating him in devilishly clever ways. It's quite well done overall, and the London setting adds an interesting foreign element, but the film's heavy burden of delivering a sexual promise weighs throughout and undermines what would have been an excellent film on it's own. The producers even acknowledge this on the DVD extras, pointing out that the film could have been released under another name, and not as a sequel, which would have helped eliminate that burder, but of course they'd potentially lose some sales with that approach. At least as a sequel it's guaranteed a larger opening. I don't think the film was that successful at the box office, however, so that gamble didn't pay off. This would have been much better with a different, less sequel-ish title, like Baser Instincts or Primary Instincts. It's actually a good film and doesn't deserve the unfair expectations sequelitis puts on it.

Good film. I wasn't excited about reliving Batman's origins again, but then discovered the story isn't so much about the specifics of why Bruce Wayne seeks revenge as it was about power and the nature of evil (essentially a debate over vigilantism). That's extremely interesting. Is what Batman does revenge or justice? Who does Batman answer to? That is cool stuff to consider. I wasn't as impressed with the plot, which is overly convoluted, but the presentation is well-done with great visuals and a routine but satisfying conclusion. A good start for a new franchise.

Really cool understated verbal film, with dialog closer to a play than a movie. The main character, a teenage boy, is fascinated by war re-enactments. He's too smart for his own good and his intelligence gets him in trouble at home, at school, and with his friends. The plot's a sort of coming-of-age thing, but it's not really central to the movie. What drives the film is the boy's sly wit. For instance, in one scene, at the grocery story where he stocks shelves a night, he comments on how the store has more flavors of cat food than baby food. That's an interesting societal commentary. Overall low-key with lots of subtle humor, I really liked this. Definitely above average but doesn't try too hard. Excellent. I was, however, disappointed with the featureless DVD -- not a single extra. Since this was the "Project Greenlight" winner (an online screenplay contest) I expected at minimum a documentary on the making of the film and director commentary, but there was nothing. Thus this is a rental, not a purchase DVD. Lame.

Very entertaining, though 400 pages too long. Hubbard seems too full of himself to see the preposterousness of his premise (like library books and nuclear bombs would survive 1,000 years of decay). Still, it's all good fun as long as you don't take it seriously. Very much a pulp novel. Hubbard is obviously good at plotting (he's just not much of scifi writer). I was especially impressed with the way he tied all the loose ends together via the characters' psychology. In other words, the plot came from the characters, not from an arbitrary need to force the action in a certain direction. Example: the evil alien, Terl, is a conniving schemer who's own paranoia and distrust for his fellow aliens help cause his downfall. So even though some things seemed to work out ideally for the humans, it wasn't a coincidence -- it was caused by the greed and hubris of the aliens.

Huh? I'd heard terrible things about this and expected that it couldn't possibly be that bad. It's not. At least if you liked the book, it's not, as it's close to the book to be mildly interesting. If you hated the book you'll hate the film. It essentially strips out all the unusual, interesting parts of the book and only keeps the action scenes. Incomprehensibly, however, the film makes astonishingly primitive and foolish errors. For instance, John Travolta plays an alien, a Psychlos named Terl. Yet he and the other Psychlos are nearly indistinguishable from the humans. Psychlos are supposed to be huge creatures, nine feet tall, and there's some awkward camera work to almost make that illusion happen, but then all the Psychlos machinery, chairs, etc. are human-sized! The pace of the whole film is rushed to the point of incomprehensibility -- key lines of dialog are thrown away or grunted in strange incomprehensible accents -- if you haven't read the book I doubt anything would make sense. But so much of the book is tossed out that what's left doesn't make sense anyway. And there are weird technical mistakes, such as the matter transportation special effect which was so badly done you couldn't figure out what was happening. I mean come on, Star Trek had that working in the sixties! And what was up with the acting? Performances varied all over the place, with the human hero played by Barry Pepper absolutely terribly, just a mishmash of rebellion and toughness. Now there were a few good things: I thought Travolta did a good job conveying the sliminess of Terl, and the special effects of planet Psychlos were fine, but the story just didn't mesh. It's an epic tale told by a kindergarten teacher, reduced of all complexity and science. Next time, get a decent script and director. I was shocked after the film was over to discover that the director, whom I was positive was a no-talent MTV video hack doing his first feature, is an industry veteran who's been making films since the 1970's (even winning an Academy Award for a short) and came personally recommended by George Lucas. Have we really sunk this low? Seventy percent of the problems of this film came from the director, the rest from the script (which wasn't that bad, though it had some serious deficiencies in places). Watching the pompous director on the DVD compare Hubbard's novel to Frank Herbert's Dune is not only an insult, it shows how little this guy about science fiction and literature. He ought to have to pay money to every person who suffered through this turkey.

This is one of those films you always hear about but have never seen. I'm glad I did. It's a little slow, and the silent movie stuff gets hokey and old after a while, but certain portions of the drama are absolutely as contemporary as anything you've ever seen. The classic "baby carriage" scene was a bit of a let down -- I've seen so many remakes and mockeries that it wasn't as poweful as it should have been. Overall, an amazing film; astonishing that it was made in 1925!

A surprisingly fun Elmore Leonard wacky crime caper story about a former gangster who's become a movie producer and now decides to get into the music business. There's mistaken identity, strange people, clever manipulations, and it's just a lot of fun. I liked it.

Interesting, if somewhat boring film. Reminded me a little too much of Lord of the Flies, but it's not as deep. In a nutshell, that's what I found most annoying about the film: it is pretentious, acting as though it's about profound existential issues, yet it's really just about anarchy and pleasure-seeking. I also couldn't figure out what was so special about the beach. There are millions of deserted, beautiful beaches all over the world. What's the big deal about this one (other than it's a big secret)? Lamely executed concept, though an interesting premise. Main character goes looney toward the end, which I didn't get at all.

This was the directorial debut for Field and it's a predictable but still entertaining story. Minnie Driver stars as an odd woman who's spent her entire life trying to win beauty pageants. She does so to the point of ignoring everyone else in her life (except for her best friend) including her daughter, who she cannot reveal is her daughter as that would make her ineligible from entering beauty pageants. The daughter is raised by her best friend and thinks Driver is her aunt. Of course all this culminates in the national competition, where Driver goes as Miss Illinois. But will the evil newswoman spoil the party by revealing her secret? Yeah, you can see it coming. Still, it's fun, Driver's great, and the little girl is really good most of the time (in a few scenes she goes over the top).

This is an odd, quirky, comic murder caper. Two women, abused by their boyfriends, fall into together when the boyfriend one of is accidently killed in self-defense. Not sure what to do with the body, they end up pretending the missing man was kidnapped in order to extort money from the man's rich older brother. However, the police officer investigating the missing person case sees through their scheme and decides to pretend to go along with the kidnapping in order to get the ransom for himself. Then things get interesting, as everyone gets into betraying everyone else. The film's a bit brutal and extreme in place for a comedy, but it has a pretty cool black sense of humor. Fun if you like that sort of thing. Reminds me of films like Pulp Fiction.

I was reading the book and hadn't finished it before seeing the film. Big mistake: see the film first. The film is very different: it works, but it's so different it will irritate you if you've read the book. Overall the film's okay. It's well-directed and the performances are good, but it's too simple. The character of math genius John Nash is a complicated one, and his trials with insanity and back to rationality are profound. Unfortunately, the movie gives us only a glimpse of that, and it's a Hollywoodized version of it, all wrapped up and nicely packaged. Real life is much more complicated and ambiguous. What I felt was the most significant part of the book, John Nash's realization that he was losing touch with rationality, is scarcely touched in the film. Think about it: for a genius to lose his abililty to reason, that's like an Olympic athlete losing his legs. It's a huge shock but the film doesn't deal with that at all. Still, the film isn't bad, just simple. I joked that it should have been called A Simple Mind, and maybe that's correct. The film also had a major flaw of not showing us Nash's genius early on: he had many accomplishments and is widely considered one of the top minds of the last century, but the film glosses over that, assuming that if they tell us he's a genius, that's enough. I would have done much of this very differently.

The book is far better than the movie, though not as accessible. There is math here, though I couldn't understand much more than the rough theories (and barely that). Part of that is because the writer doesn't explain the math issues as well as she could (or as well as I'd like her too). Still, it comes across as an honest exploration of this character, John Nash. Nothing's glossed over: we see John with his warts and flaws as well as his genius. The author is a bit too focused on the physical characteristics of people: she describes Nash and everyone else by going on and on about how handsome and beautiful they are, which struck me as overkill. Still, it's a good read, and a much better portrayal of genius than the film.

I guess the Winn-Dixie grocery story chain is an East coast phenomena, because I'd never heard of it and thus the title and premise of this film turned me off. The story sounded generically sachrine -- a girl finds a stray dog at the local Winn-Dixie and he changes her life. Big deal, another dog film. The critics raved, but I wasn't too excited. But it turns out to be not only a charming family film, but has some surprising depth and reality to it. The dog isn't magical or anything. In fact, he has minimal personality and a lot of negatives (chews things up, barks and howls all the time, is terrified of thunderstorms). He's like a real mutt. But the ten-year-old girl, of course, falls in love with him. Her mother left her and she's alone in the world. Her dad's kind but distant, and as he's a preacher they move frequently, and she has no friends. But the dog opens the door to friends as he helps her meet all sorts of people throughout the tiny town and eventually, everyone is won over by the bubbly little girl and her mangy dog. The film isn't as dark or tragic as others (like the fabulous Bridge to Terabithia, which stars the same amazing young actress) and it occasionally drifts into slapstick territory, but it has its serious moments. Overall it was much better than I expected. It's not the best film ever made, but it's fun, interesting, gets an excellent performance from the little girl (she's going to be a huge star), and has heart without overdoing the schmaltz.

I knew little about this other than I saw that it was about the life of Jane Austen and how she became a writer, so I knew I needed to see it. It's very good, though the period nature of the piece does make the story a little difficult to follow and the flowery language hard to understand. Early on I was confused as to who was who and how all the characters were related (too many characters introduced too quickly) and some aspects of the plot -- concepts like doweries and social propriety -- are unfamiliar to modern viewer and make understanding conflicts challenging. However, if you just relax and enjoy the story, understanding will come. Basically the is the story of Jane falling in love with a man who her family do not approve of and all the difficulties that creates. Jane's experiences with love effect her writing as we see her begining to write Pride and Prejudice during the film, though I'd have preferred to see more emphasis on that storyline. Recommended.

Silly, predictable story with Elizabeth Hurley as the devil who trades wishes for souls, but her candidate eventually realizes the wishes don't work out the way you'd expect and he'd rather remain a dweeb. Not as bad as I expected: in fact, I rather liked it. Harmless.

I knew zip about this except for the incessant ads on TV. It's not that bad, but it's definitely a little weird. The plot -- losely -- is about a young bee that wants to see the world, falls in love with a human woman, discovers that humans eat honey, and with the help of the girl sues humans in court for theft. The bee is voiced by Jerry Seinfeld and pretty much is Jerry. Unfortunately, his humor is not "ha ha" humor, but "hmmm" humor, and thus the film, while pleasant, is not a laugh a minute like it should be. There are the requisite jokes in the background (punny signs, bee/honey jokes, etc.), but the story is thin, and in the end the film isn't quite funny enough for kids and not serious enough for adults. It's not bad, and most adults wouldn't find it too unbearable to endure, but I wouldn't go out of your way to see it.

Amazing movie. Bizarre and surreal, with a lot of depth. Weak ending, and doesn't completely live up to its early promise, but well worth the viewing.

Fascinating film about a controversial subject. Difficult to watch in places, and I liked that. It's the true story of a young Jewish boy who's a Nazi skinhead. Surprisingly, he's remarkably intelligent, and he gives impassioned speeches against Jews, especially of their religion. (Raised as a Jew, he knows Hebrew and everything about Judaism.) One moment he's rational, eloquent, and persuasive, and the next he's wildly violent. For me, that was the most significant aspect of the film, that this skinhead wasn't an idiot. It was also the scariest aspect of the film. How many more "rational" racists are out there? The kid was a mass of contradictions, and that made him interesting. For instance, in one scene, while vandalizing a temple, he tries to stop his skinhead buddies from touching a scroll of the Talmund as it is sacred Jewish writing. He talked and talked about wanting to kill a Jew, and in the end he succeeded by killing himself. Sad and troubling. A well-done original Showtime movie.

This is a murky thriller about mysterious happenings on a U.S. submarine during WWII. It rescues three survivors from a British hospital ship that was destroyed, one of the survivors a woman. She realizes that not all is right on the sub: it turns out the captain isn't the captain, but his replacement, as the original captain had an accident. Or did he? Ghosts, strange sounds, and horrifying visions begin to haunt the crew as they try to evade a German U-Boat, while secrets threaten to be exposed. It's very confusing and things don't get better (it gets even worse when the power goes off and we have a sub in the dark, scenes illuminated via glimpses with flashlights, reducing the film to an annoying series of flashing images instead of a motion sequence). While sometimes confusion is okay, the pay-off at the end better be worth the wait. In this case, it's not. While there's an explanation, it's not explained properly -- I'm still not sure what happened. The ending's just as murky as the rest of the film! It's sumptuously photographed and directed with style (there are some excellent scenes), and the movie is excellent from a technical perspective. The sound is awesome -- sounds are everything on a sub and this does an excellent job conveying eerie knocks and ominous rumbles and creaks. But the overall story just doesn't work. We never believe in the ghost theory, which just makes those scare tactics annoying, and while there are hints of murder, the vague ending doesn't connect all the dots for us. It's a puzzling mess.

This is very similar in concept and tone to My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but about ten times better! It's terrific. Like Wedding, it suffers from predictability (girl has culture clash with Indian parents when she wants to play soccer and they want her to marry a nice Indian boy), but it also features a terrific cast of wonderful characters. The biggest difference between the films is that Bend It, is more thoughtful. The cultural conflict is treated as a serious thing, not a joke. Even the minor love story is taken seriously. That's not to say there isn't a lot of humor: it's very funny and entertaining. It's got a lot of action as well, with some interesting camera-work designed to make the soccer exciting. Unfortunately, the soccer itself isn't clearly delineated, with several scenes shot in close-up, making it impossible to really tell what's going on (soccer is a game that needs to be seen from a distance to appreciate field strategy). The lead actress, the terrific Parminder Nagra, does a great job, though her kicking skills are questionable. Her co-star, Keira Knightley, is a delight -- she just lights up the screen every time she's on it. Plus she actually looks like she can play soccer. ;-) The other cast members, Parminder's family in particular, are excellent -- everyone's personality comes across and no one is given a sword-carrying role.

Considering this country's disrespect for the world's greatest sport, I found it deeply ironic that in this very British film, the soccer-playing girls' dream is of going to the United States to play soccer (the U.S. has the best women's league in the world), when, of course, most American male soccer players dream of playing in England (one of the best leagues in the world). Americans are even featured -- Keira's character has Mia Hamm posters all over her bedroom, and in one sequence she shows her friend video clips of goals from the WUSA featuring Hamm, Brandi Chastain, and others. Of course with America's success last summer at the World Cup, our Major League Soccer becoming bigger and bigger and blossoming a slew of new American superstars like Landon Donovan, the future of American soccer is huge worldwide, and this film, which promises to be extremely popular here in the U.S. (the matinee I went to was crowded!) will boost soccer even more. I'm relieved this is such a good film -- I worried it would hurt U.S. soccer by being mediocre. Awesome!

I was really impressed by this film. It sensationalizes certain aspects of the story but even those are part of historical accuracy since the whole point of the Beowulf story is about the legitimacy of our heroes and legends. The computer animation is generally phenomenal, though there are one or two shots where something feels a little artificial (like Angelina Jolie's face from a couple angles). But most of the time the animation is stunning: the water droplets dripping off Beowulf's chest when he climbs out of the water looks photographically real. Amazing. The key for me, however, is not mere realism but how well the characters act and provoke emotion from the audience, and in this regard, the acting and animation worked extremely well. The tormented monster Grendel is truly a hideous creation, but somehow still conveys human-like emotion and evokes sympathy.

The story is quite authentic. It tells of the hero Beowulf coming to the Danish king to rescue his kingdom from the dreaded monster Grendel. Beowulf boasts of his prowess but there are some questions as to his legitmacy. Is he a real hero or a fraud? But after he kills Grendel, all are convinced. But then Grendel's mother, a demon-thing, attacks the town in revenge, and it's up to Beowulf to deal with her. So far the story's simple, but then it becomes complicated, as we learn there are secrets hiding: Grendel is the old king's son, a hideous creation, the spawn of human and demon coupling. Grendel's mother transforms herself into a beauty and seduces Beowulf, and he falls into the same trap as the old king. We then cut to many years later with Beowful now the old king and history repeating itself as his own son, a new monster, is attacking the village. This time Beowulf, after decades of hero worship and feeling guilty because he knows he is no hero, must save the kingdom again. This story is an incredible one, especially for such an ancient tale, and this version of it brings its lessons and message to a modern audience where hopefully people will see how vital and current those teachings are. Who are our heroes and why? What does being a hero feel like? How must today's celebrities, today's "legends" feel about their role? Are they frauds or merely playing their part? Lots of fascinating questions.

Really cool little film about money-making schemes going all wrong. Neatly directed, with some cool plot twists. I've seen other films that wanted to be this one. Written by the same guy who wrote Ravenous.

Unusual film from an Asian-American perspective. The main characters are high school seniors, overachievers working hard to get 4.0's and master extra-curricular activities in order to get into Ivy League colleges. In the process four Asian boys form a club to pull scams, sell cheat-sheets, and eventually get into drug dealing and murder. The plot's thin -- there isn't as much of a story here as a sequence of events -- but what holds it together is the terrific performance and character of the lead, Ben (Perry Shen), who comes across as intelligent yet naive, cool yet completely approachable. His love interest, Stephanie (Karin Anna Cheung) is also excellent, as are the actors who play his crime buddies. But it's Ben's moral confusion which fascinates, as he waffles between wanting to be cool and rich, wanting to earn his way on his own merits, and yet tempted by crime that is so easy. The conclusion does not end the way I might have guessed: in fact, it's left unresolved in some ways, which is an interesting choice. Overall this is a stylish, thoughtful film, reminiscent of teen classics like Pump Up the Volume (except without the big budget and spectacle). This has elements of the small town creepiness of Blue Velvet (see opening scene of each), along with many drug cartel movies you've seen. But in the end this is unique. One of the things I really liked is that while the Asian-American aspect is important and it enhances the film, it's presented in such a way that it doesn't alienate -- in fact, these guys are so American it's a clear demonstration of what we all have in common. Great flick.

An action movie with a brain. John Woo's films are classics not only because the action is so stylish, but because he puts his characters into moral dilemmas. While I didn't like Tomorrow quite as well as Woo's incredible The Killer, this is a very good film. The plot has an idealistic young kid joining the police force not realizing his much older brother is a leader of a criminal syndicate. Because of his brother, the criminal decides to reform, but the young cop is devastated and decides to hate his brother. Then the cop's career is hampered by his criminal "connections" while the criminal's attempts to reform are met with resistance by the syndicate. It's complex and intelligent, rare items in the U.S. action film genre. I recommend the subtitled version if you can find it. (I watched the dubbed and it really cheapens the acting -- everything seems melodramatic and silly when the lips don't match the dialogue.)

Stylish action flick picks up where the previous film left off, resurrecting Chow Yun-Fat's character as a twin brother. Well done, though overly complicated by a plot that gets forgotten in the ending's huge shoot-em-up. Some remarkable images and acting, including some poignant moments and a bizarre sequence in which one character goes catatonic for an extended period. Not quite up to the original, but worth it for Woo fans.

I was surprised at how much I liked this. I was a big fan of the TV show and the premise of the movie sounded dumb. The premise was a team remaking the TV show modern day casts Nicole Kidman's character as Samantha without knowing she's really a witch herself. This creates a complex environment where we really have three sets of witch-mortal groups: the original 1960s TV show characters, the remake's characters, and the actress playing Samantha and her mortal co-star. Things definitely get confusing! But I liked the realistic approach taken by the script, which is intelligent and doesn't take things into silliness. Kidman's witch character is wonderful, full of innocence and wonder at the human world, and we love to see her grow and prosper and fall in love. Will Farrell's arrogant actor is a harder to love (I fail to see why she's attracted to him), but the whole thing adds up to a pleasant adventure with lots of fun homages and references to the original. Several scenes are extraordinarily good (like the one with Kidman and the dog), while others are ordinary or fall flat. Kidman really is the movie, though Will has a moment or two of charm. Overall, it's a nice flick; not particularly mindless, almost brilliant in places, but lacking depth similar to the TV show.

Odd that this Netflix rental would arrive today, right after I watched Super Size Me, a film about how Americans eat too much: the opening half of this film was about starving Africans. Unfortunately, that ironic coincidence proved to about the most interesting thing in the film, which tells the story of a refugee camp doctor and a socialite who tries to help him and their romatic relationship that develops. Unfortunately, nothing about this film is pleasant or complete. Most of the time it's plodding, and when it's not boring, it's self-indulgent bullcrap. It's a muddled mess that's not really a romance nor anything else. It's preachy to the point of silliness, overacted, and even when something does happen, it's predicatable. Stay away, far away.

As a fan of Isaac Asimov's robot stories since I was a child, I really, really wanted to like this film, despite the negative press. Sadly, the critics were correct: this is a terrible movie. The story is simple and wonderful (I had to read it in my college literature class): a unique robot spends his life attempting to become more and more human, with his ultimate quest being that he can officially be considered a man. He does this, in the end, on his 200th birthday, by allowing himself to become mortal, the ultimate human characteristic.

The early robot portions of the film, while terrific examples of Hollywood special effects, are corny, badly written and acted, and filled with inappropriate humor (such as the robot learning about the "birds and the bees," how to swear, and how to tell dirty jokes). It's awkward and lame. Once Robin Williams (the robot) becomes more human-like, the film is better, with the occasional touching moment. But during the whole film you feel manipulated; it's very obvious where you're supposed to be sad, sympathetic, or happy. Gone is all the surprise and gentle touches of the original Asimov story. Let me give you one example. In the original short story, the family likes the robot from the start (though they initially don't see it as human). In one scene, the little girl give the robot a piece of wood and orders him to carve her an ornament. He's never done such a thing, but he's governed by the Three Laws of Robotics and thus must obey any human order. The object is beautiful, and shows imagination. His owner is amazed -- it seems their robot is creative, an artist! In the movie, however, the family distrusts the robot. This creates an awkward, uncomfortable tone for the first part of the movie. The little girl (terribly acted by the "Pepsi girl" from all those dumb TV commericals) has a crystal horse which the robot accidentally breaks, and so she tells him she hates him (very unconvincingly, I might add). The robot then carves her a replacement horse, and then she loves him. (There's a "poignant" scene later in the film, when the little girl is a dying old woman, and we see she's clutching the ancient wooden horse in death. Oh dear. Start up the heart-stirring music, please.) The differences between the two versions are subtle, but significant. One shows us the Robotic Laws in action, cleverly implying that the girl is, in a sense, responsible for kickstarting the robot's creativity. (She essentially ordered him to be creative, so he was.) In the other, we have bratty kids and a clumsy robot, and shameless, obvious manipulation of emotion. It's stupid and melodramatic, and as a result we actually feel less emotion with the second version than the first (unless we count revulsion to all the saccharine).

The film got better in the final third. The romance angle, not in the original story, was not bad, though it could have used another scene or two for more depth. The courtroom scenes where the robot fights for freedom and humanity, were okay, but could have been more powerful, like they were in the short story. For instance, in one scene in the short story, the robot explains his desire for freedom like this: "I should think any creature capable of understanding the concept of freedom and desiring freedom, is capable of being free." In the movie, his quest for freedom is incomprehensible. In another sequence, the legal manipulations to get the court to declare him a human being take decades. One clever part of the process is his law firm takes a lawsuit all the way to the World Court, declaring that a human with an artificial heart should not have to pay debts because he's not human any more. Of course they lose, which is exactly what they want: they want a precedent that shows that non-human organs do not make a human non-human (thus the robot, which has some non-human organs, is not necessarily not human on those grounds). This stuff is a little complicated, but intelligent and realistic: the film dumbs this all down to single "climactic" courtroom scenes and the story suffers.

But the final straw that totally ruined the film was the ending. My jaw dropped in disbelief at this one. The fundamental part of all Asimov's robot stories is the Three Laws of Robotics. The First Law is that a robot may not harm a human being (or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm). The Second Law is that a robot must always obey a human, unless it conflicts with the first law. The Third Law is one of self-preservation (as long as it doesn't conflict with the first two laws). These laws are critically important, for they govern all robotic behavior. There's even a science called robopsychology which deals with psychological aspects of these laws upon robots. (For instance, would a robot allow you to smoke a cigarette? What about letting you eat a potato chip?) So what do they do in this film? They explain the Three Laws at the start of the film, then never use them. Dumb. But the dumbest? At the very end of the film, when the Bicentennial Man dies, his ancient wife asks the nurse to "unplug" her, which the nurse does. Then it is revealed that the "nurse" is a robot! Yeah, right! No way a robot would be able to take a human off of life support! Impossible. A colossal mistake, even for Hollywood. Disgusting, revolting, and the ruin of a classic science fiction story. I wish this film had never been made, so it could have been done right at some point, by someone who loves and understands Asimov's robots, not some Disneyesque 1950's-style vision of what robots might be in the 21st century.

Usually Leonard's stuff is pretty good plot-wise, but this one's weak. The most surprising thing for me was that despite the cast and fun premise (con artists in Hawaii) the film was rather boring! In between the interesting scenes the film dragged. Part of the problem was the lack of stakes: the guy and the girl are going to steal $200,000. What's that? Some kid's lunch money? They're supposed to split that? Come on. Make it at least a million. The film had a few good moments. The opening scene where Owen Wilson hits a guy with a baseball bat is good, but after that we really aren't sure about him. Is he an idiot or a genius? That mystery taints everything that happens afterward and makes everything confusing. The end, when it comes, is convoluted and doesn't exactly make that much sense. It's an awkward film period.

Very talky political movie about a guy running for governor who has a deep dark secret. We think it's that he's gay, but it turns out to be something else. Unfortunately we don't find out for too long so the film's boring, and by the time we do find out, we no longer care. The film's dialogue and photography are all designed to make us think things of great import are happening, but who cares?

Very funny silly film, like most of Adam Sandler's stuff. Goes for the cheesy, easy jokes sometimes, and it's a bit crude in places (especially inappropriate for such a young kid), but overall a good flick.

Surpisingly good kiddie flick. I wasn't sure what to expect from the promos, but the plot sounded lame: a kid's story is stolen and being made into a Hollywood movie and he goes to L.A. to convince the evil director to own up to the stolen story. The way it's written, however, makes it believeable. On his way to turn in a story for his English class, Jason crashes his bike into a limo. In the limo is Marty Wolf, Hollywood director. He gives Jason a ride to school, but Jason accidently leaves his story in the limo. The story's called "Big Fat Liar" and is about a boy who gets larger every time he tells a lie. Later in the summer, Jason is at the movie theatre and sees a promo for an upcoming movie called "Big Fat Liar." Since his parents never believed that he wrote the story he couldn't produce, Jason and his friend Kaylee head for Hollywood to get proof. Paul Giamatti steals the film as the evil director, perfectly playing the comic villain in such a way that you both hate and love him. The two kids torture him in various ways (such as putting blue dye in his pool so his whole body turns blue) to try to get him to admit he stole the story. He continually refuses, of course, until the climactic finale. Fun and silliness, but done with such a genuineness that it works. Good performances, lots of clever cameos, and just a fun flick.

I love Tim Burton's weird movies and this is no exception. However, it's not his best. It's too light and not quite weird enough. There isn't the magic of Edward Scissorhands or the wonderful imagination found in Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The story's about an old man dying and his son, who's starting a family of his own, troubled by the man's ridiculous tall tales of the adventures of his life. The boy thinks his old man's a liar, but soon learns there are glimmers of truth in the tales. How much is left ambiguous: that's for us to decide. The tales themselves range from mildly outrageous (when the old man was born he shoots out of his mom and slides across the hospital corridor threw the legs of doctors and nurses who fail to catch him) to the wild (he meets a circus director who turns into a wolf at night), and while they are uneven, they are mostly interesting. We learn how the man fell in love and pursued his girl, eventually married her, and more. The tales try to do a nice blend between legend and modern life, which is neat, but I felt Holes did that better. The problem with this story is that it sets itself up for outrageous things but doesn't quite deliver. It's too tame, and we leave slightly unsatisfied. It's good, very well done, and entertaining, but if you're expecting magic, you're probably going to be disappointed. Think along the lines of the okay The Neverending Story and you'll be fine. But don't expect the genius of Roald Dahl.

A predictable plot, this goes a little slow for my tastes. It's about an 11-year-old boy in Northern England who decides to become a ballet dancer. His dad and older brother are miners on strike and of course can't stand the thought of him being a sissy boy. The boy must learn to stand up and fight for his dream. Well done, with excellent acting (the boy is great in the lead), but way too much fighting and swearing for such a feel-good film (I certainly wouldn't call this a family film). And while visually impressive, the pace is slow for such a predictable plot. It's good at 2x on DVD, though (turn on subtitles and you won't miss anything).

Today's my birthday. Happy birthday to me! Most of my family is out of town (the nerve) so we'll be celebrating in the future (which is fine with me).

Well, today was my birthday. My thirty-second. Unbelievable. I don't know where they all went. I certainly don't feel that old. I told my uncle that since the first ten or twelve years of life are basically non-sentient they don't count, so really I'm twenty-two. That strikes me as more accurate. Of course I still feel like I should have done something with those twenty-two years. But then, half of those were in school, and what can one accomplish in school? So really I've had little more than a decade of independence -- and I feel I've gained a few things during those years though I haven't done many of the things I wanted to do. On the one hand I read stories about famous writers (like Oscar Wilde) who died young yet accomplished so much in the few years they had, and on the other I hear about people (like Colonel Sanders) who didn't start their famous careers until their sixties! So there's hope at either end of life, I suppose. I've decided to not worry about it. My writing career will take off when it is time and not before.

Well, today was my birthday, so I had to endure a birthday dinner with friends and family. Just kidding -- I had a great time and ate too much. I chose Hungry Hunter restaurant, which has my favorite meal, steak and fries with whiskey peppercorn sauce. The sauce wasn't peppery enough and the fries were wimpy thin fries, not thick steak fries, but it was still delcious. The family was in good humor, teasing me about reaching the halfway point in my life (I'm 35), but I told them the average lifespan is always increasing and "halfway" is in the forties now and will be 50 by the time I'm forty-nine. It's all irrelevant to me: I still have trouble thinking of myself as an adult, let alone a middle-aged man. Hopefully the "you're only as old as you feel" phrase is true, for I feel like my life has scarcely started.

I wonder why I'd never heard of this? It's an interesting idea. A lonely British bank clerk sends off for a Russian bride. She arrives not speaking a word of Russian, but since she's played by Nicole Kidman, he can't bear to send her away. Especially when she's so... willing. But when some of her male Russian friends visit, we sense something's not right. Then the Russian friends tie her up and threaten to hurt her unless the bank clerk brings them the money from the safe. So he does, only to discover that the girl was in on the scam. He's furious, but when the girl is abandoned by the Russians, he befriends her, still wondering if he can trust her. Interesting idea, and overall I liked the film, but it has some awkward aspects. For instance, there are entire scenes of Russians arguing in Russian with no subtitles. I guess we're supposed to figure out what's going on from their gestures or something, but often it's not clear what's going on. By the same token, the first half of the film Kidman's character pretends she can't speak English, so she and the guy never talk, meaning we've got scene after scene of near silence. Overall it's an interesting (though implausible) idea, but's a little dry to be as good as it believes itself to be.

A few weeks ago my aunt read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Marco Senghor, the nephew of Leopold Senghor, the president of Senegal for many years. Marco has his own Senegalese restaurant in San Francisco and it's getting rave reviews. My mother is in town visiting this week, so she and my aunt and my cousin and his girlfriend and I all went downtown to check out the restaurant. It was really neat! A year ago I went to a Senegalese restaurant while I was in New York; that was a more authentic experience. There my cousin and I were the only white people in the whole "Little Dakar" area. At Bissap Baobab the clientele was almost all white, for a very different atmosphere. Still, the food was excellent (the Yassa I had was spicy for me but not as spicy as it is often made in Senegal) and the desserts fantastic. We got to speak to Marco and tell him about our experiences in Senegal. He's a really neat guy, very friendly and unassuming. We had a nice long chat before we left. We didn't get home until midnight, so it was a long day, but well worth it for the experience. If I'm ever in the City around a meal-time, I think I'll stop by again and try some of the other dishes.

This is a strange film. In so many ways it's old school, a classic film noir with great visuals and mysterious characters. But in other ways it's much too modern, with an overly convoluted plot, multiple "surprise" endings, and too much gore and sex. The story's supposed to be about the murder of a girl, but that storyline only takes about 20 percent of the film -- the rest is about the lives of the police detectives we don't really care about (though in the end their personal lives end up being part of the mystery). The problem is everything's so dark and mysterious and we don't know where the story's going or who's good or who's bad, that we end up not caring about anything. We don't care about the police, who seem corrupt; we don't care about the dead girl, who's too sad and strange to be likable. We just don't care. And in the end, we don't even care about the messed up ending.