The Z/Web Archive

This was a presentation from the University of California that aired on PBS recently. It was a one-man play about the life of writer C.S. Lewis. Basically Lewis came out and talked to the audience as though we were guests at his house, and he told us about his life, his conversion to Christianity, and his relationship with his wife Joy. It was execellent; witty and fascinating, and emotionally moving. There were a number of great lines. One of my favorites was when Lewis talked about being an atheist early his in life and what a contradiction that was. "I was extremely angry at God for not existing." His tales of his wife Joy proved she had a ready wit as well. Excellent, and helps one get to know Lewis the man versus Lewis the writer.

Another twist on the "end of the world virus" story. In this case it's morphed with the typical "trapped teens in the woods with a serial killer" plot. We aren't privy to where the virus came from (no silly lectures here on genetic research gone awry like in 28 Days Later) -- a diseased guy just shows up at some vacationing kids' cabin in the woods. The virus spreads, infecting the group, and we watch as the horrible skin disease mutilates them and they turn on each other in their fear and horror. In truth, the disease only kills one of them: the others all meet horrible fates but not by the virus. The idea's not that original, nor is the presentation, but it's done with such style and blatant gore that it's quite entertaining. There are a lot of "camera jokes" -- where the audience gets to see clues (like a closeup of the diseased water glass the victim is about to drink) the characters don't notice, which is the film's version of humor. There's plenty of blood and gore, but a surprising amount of the violence is off-screen. For instance, we hear a dog eating someone, but only see part of a leftover foot as evidence that it happened (hey, it could have been much worse). There's some bizarre stuff here as well: funny characters, idiot characters, and strange characters all keep you entertained and make you wonder who's going to die next. And oh, this is a wickedly horrible tragedy: don't hold out hope for anyone, as everyone dies. I do mean everyone. Pretty funny in a warped sort of way. Similar sense of humor to great gore films like Dead Alive.

After watching Tiger Woods complete the Grand Slam this morning, I had to watch a golf movie, right? Pretty dumb fun, but Rodney Dangerfield was great as obnoxious wealthy golfer.

I liked this. I'd never heard of it, but it's about Heather Graham as a wild travel writer with committment issues who, when her magazine publisher dad has a heart attack, has to take over one of his publications as editor. It turns out it's a wedding magazine -- exactly the opposite of her personality and beliefs (she's anti-marriage). While occasionally uneven and some of the conflicts feel forced or ill-defined and of course the overall plot is obvious a mile away (yes, the anti-marriage girl falls in love and settles down), Graham's bubbly performance carries the day and makes this an entertaining exploration of marriage and love.

What a book. I believe I read this when I was twelve or so; it's even better now. In fact, it's even better a century after it was written, as our society is less wild and (presumably) more civilized. Few of us know the rawness of the pure struggle for survival. It's amazing to read this book, written from the intimate perspective of an animal, and relate it to the petty concerns of my own life. Modern society, gripped by the madness of political correctness, is mocked by London with brutal reality, for the wild knows no mercy. I found it a breath of fresh air. The book reads quickly, like a flowing brook; there's not a false step anywhere. It's truly one of the best books ever written, full of truth and reality. Here's my favorite quote:

"There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise. And such is the paradox of living, this ecstasy comes when one is most alive, and it comes as complete forgetfulness that one is alive. This ecstasy, this forgetfulness of living, comes to the artist, caught up and out of himself in a sheet of flame; it comes to the soldier, war-mad on a stricken field and refusing quarter; and it came to Buck, leading the pack, sounding the old wolf-cry, straining after the food that was alive and that fled swiftly before him through the moonlight."

Exhibition matches are often boring. This wasn't, but it wasn't great soccer either. Canada, now led by San Jose's former coach, Frank Yallop, needed this game as they start World Cup qualifiying next week. The Quakes used the opportunity to give some of the lessor players minutes. At first it seemed like Canada could only foul (Canada's number six should have gotten a second yellow in the first half), but there were some small chances on both sides. Then Canada scored on a bad play by Quakes' backup keep Jon Conway, who blocked a hard but direct shot right to another Canadian who easily put away the rebound. In the second half, more problems. Rookie Ryan Cochrane made a horrible blunder at the back, completely missing the ball and stepping past it, leaving it behind him. Canada pounced, taking the ball in on goal in a two-on-one breakaway. The cross deflected off San Jose's Craig Waibel and into our goal to give the Canadians a two-goal lead. Their third goal came when a shot deflected, wrong-footing Conway. San Jose fought back, earning a penalty kick when Alavarez's shot was blocked by a Canadian's hands. Brian Ching finished off the goal nicely. A moment later, just as momentum was building for San Jose, the lights went out! A nearby electrical transformer blew, taking out most of the neighborhood. Fortunately it was still light enough to see and the came continue for a little while, getting an extra boost when San Jose's superstar Landon Donovan was finally put in the match, but just a couple minutes later the ref called it, as it was too dark to continue. So only 75 minutes was played instead of the 90, which was a little harsh on the Quakes and the soft result flatters the Canadians who should have out-played the home team to a greater degree. Still, it was an interesting experience! Final: 3-1 Canada.

I knew nothing about Truman Capote before going to see this film. I'd heard the name and knew he was a writer, but that was about it. I vaguely remember the title In Cold Blood, which was a non-fiction book about some murders, but not much beyond that. Well, I learned a great deal. I had no idea he was such an influential writer (or that he wrote Breakfast at Tiffany's). I definitely must get a few of his books. This film is not about Capote's life, as I expected, but entirely about his writing of In Cold Blood, which was his final work (other things of his were later published, but he never finished anything after Blood). I also learned that Bloodreally did invent a new form of writing: what Truman called the "non-fiction novel." That's how he wrote the story of the murders of an entire family in Kansas, and about the killers who were caught and executed for the crime. It's an amazing four years of research and writing, countless interviews with the criminals on death row, and he even watches one of them hanged. The film's incredibly well-done with a fantastic performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of my favorite actors, but I did find some aspects confusing, simply because I knew nothing about Capote. The film assumes we know things about him and I didn't. I would have preferred a little more biographical info, details about his other works, etc. I guess I'll have to watch a real biography to get that. Other than that, though, this is a terrific film, engrossing, deep, and thought-provoking.

On a soccer kick, I ordered this book at the same time as Pele and I just finished it. Terrific book, detailing lots about John Harkes' career I didn't know about, such as his time playing soccer in England. The whole fiasco about him not being selected to go to France 98 is dealt with, though not exlained: only former U.S. National Team coach Steve Sampson can explain that irrationality. Still, the behind-the-scenes look at the team and the building conflicts with the coach explains a lot of why the U.S. did so poorly in France (essentially Steve changed the lineup too frequently, didn't announce his decisions until the last minute, and destroyed both player morale and unity with his chaotic decisions). It's obvious Harkes was tremendously hurt by the whole mess, but he doesn't come across as whiney or complaining, just as a competent professional attempting to make the best of a poor situation. Good read, though probably only of interest to soccer fans.

This movie seemed so blatantly one-dimensional I wanted to find out if it really was. Besides, I'm an Elisha Cuthbert fan and this couldn't be that bad, could it? Well, yeah. Sadly, it is just as one-dimensional as the trailer makes it out to be: a pretty model is captured and tormented by a psycho. The film tries to include a "twist" but it's lame (extremely predictable) and not especially twisty; in the end there really is no point at all to this film. Fortunately, it was not as grisly as it could have been, other than a few gory shots early on. Weird. I can't figure out why this was green lighted and why Elisha would have signed up for this. She must be desperate for a career or something.

Terrific documentary about a strange sexual abuse case and how it tears a family apart. The Friedmans seem to be an ordinary upper-middle-class family until the father, a computer teacher, is caught by a postal inspector receiving child porn in the mail. That starts a police investigation and when it's learned he's a teacher, his students are interviewed. While students had been attending his computer courses several times a week for years without a complaint, suddenly under pressure from the police the boys claim sexual abuse. And not just from the father, but from his youngest son, who was 17/18 at the time. The abuse described is extreme: hundreds and hundreds of cases, many times violent, yet the students were in computer class (in the family's home) for only an hour or so at a time and never showed any signs of trauma. The truth appears to be that the children were coached or pressured by the police into lying. This is not as unusual as it might seem, for children by their nature want to please adults, and if they sense a certain answer is expected, that's what they say. The result is that the father, who did seem to be a closet pedophile, is sent to prison and eventually dies there (possibly by suicide); the son, who seems to be innocent, is also convicted and locked up for many years. The film ends in modern day when the son finally released.

While this is an unpleasant topic and it's obvious the emotions of parents and those in the community are extreme, the film raises many questions about such cases are investigated and prosecuted. If the Friedmans were innocent, as they claim, then why did they plead guilty? Because if they did not, they felt they'd have been convicted any way and go away for a much longer time. It's a strange, sobering tale, and while the story asks many questions, it leaves many unanswered and we'll probably never know the truth. Really interesting look at a troubled family via personal videos and interviews, however. Highly recommended.

On the way to the Earthquakes game tonight I was traveling over Highway 17, a horrible road over the Santa Cruz Mountains. It's two lanes each way, separated by a concrete divider, and there's rarely a shoulder on the right. The road's winding and cars travel at ridiculous speeds and there are frequent traffic jams. I've often thought someone needs to make a video game of the road: Highway 17: Corridor of Death.

Anyway, I came around a corner and saw traffic slowing, so I slowed. Then I saw traffic in my left lane wasn't just slowing but completely stopped. I put the brakes on full but was still traveling. I quickly realized I wasn't going to make it. With only a half-second to make my decision (there was no shoulder on the left, just the concrete divider), I threw the car to the right where there was an opening. I didn't have time to look behind me and collided with an SUV in that lane. Fortunately it wasn't too bothered by my tiny car and there was some room on the right for it to shift over, so I missed the stopped truck I would have hit. My little Neon was badly damaged. Pretty much the whole right side, from tire to tire, was thrashed. Fortunately, no one was hurt, and the car was drivable, so once all the info was exchanged, we were able to go on to the soccer game just fine. About ten or twenty cars behind us, another accident happened at the same time (ripple effect, I guess), and that one was much worse. That car rear ended someone and looked like it was totalled, and we did see an ambulance arrive though I don't know how seriously anyone was hurt. That's an evil road.

My car's been getting old (I've had it for over 10 years) and it lately started acting up. The air conditioner was making noise, it was creaking and not steering properly, and other weird things. Then last week I drove to Modesto and Fresno to visit my Aunt Joann and go to the eye doctor (my first visit in over two years). I had planned to get an oil change but when I went they were closed: it was Labor Day, the morons. So I left without having my car checked out. I was nervous, but everything worked great until I got to Fresno. Suddenly the car started making weird sounds (the engine was snorting during idling), the air conditioner made screeching sounds so I had to turn it off, acceleration pooped out, and then a strange bell began dinging randomly. I thought the car was toast for sure.

That evening I headed for home. I got on the highway and the bell began ringing again. It's the same warning bell that rings when you leave your keys in the ignition and open the door. I thought something wasn't working right with the system. I couldn't see any warning lights on the dash. Then I noticed that the temperature gauge, which I've never seen above 30%, was at max. As I watched, it went all the way to the top and the bell rang. That happened again and cleared up the bell mystery: it was telling me my car was overheating.

I got off at the next exit and went to a gas station. There I sprayed water on the engine and after a 20 minute cool-down, added water to the radiator. Then I called my Uncle Phil for advice (I know less than nothing about cars) and added some oil (it seemed low). The odd thing was that after the car was cool, just sitting and idling made it overheat! I had to cool it down a second time (after turning off the engine, of course).

Once I got on the road, the wind kept the engine cool and I made it home just fine. But idling for more than a few minutes -- in a parking lot, in traffic, etc. -- would make the car overheat.

I dreaded taking the car to a shop. Who knows how much I'd be charged? Probably they'd tell me the engine was dead. Except the car did work fine on the highway. I was so nervous I actually checked out the prices of new and used cars. What I found was depressing, because used ones that I could afford were in even worse shape than my Neon, and because new cars are way out of my price range (which is pretty close to zero).

Finally, I decided I at least had to know how much it would be to fix, so I took it in. The shop had given me a $108 estimate to find the trouble and called a couple hours later. "You car's fixed!" they said.

"What? Seriously? What was wrong?"

"It was simple: the relay to the cooling fan was bad. So the fan wasn't turning on when needed. We replaced the relay and everything works great now."

The total bill came to $88 labor/diagnostic and $12 for the part. Not bad at all. The odd thing is the overheating seemed to be the problem all along. The air conditioner now works fine (no more weird sounds), the engine noise I'd been hearing in retrospect was water boiling, and the sluggish acceleration is cured, probably because higher RPMs generated more heat. I don't understand why overheating would effect the steering, but it's fixed now, so I can only assume it was also related.

Weird the way a single problem could create such a variety of symptoms.

Well, today was not a good day. I had plans to take a trip toward Portland to go to Costco and Fry's Electronics, but on the way my car overheated. I had to stop and add water and head back home and it overheated going home -- I barely made it. I took the van instead, but noticed it was getting hot as well, so I decided to get the long-delayed oil change it needed. I never did make it to Costco, though I did get to Fry's to return something I bought at Fry's in California. What sucked about that is the Oregon Fry's won't refund the sales tax I paid in San Jose, so I lost that. Stupid!

Well, I am bummed. Yesterday I drove the Neon to a repair place -- barely made it without overheating -- and the guy told me it was a blown head gasket. Apparently that's expensive, at least $1000, and the car's hardly worth that. And of course the problems could be even worse. I drove the Neon home, sort of -- it took me an hour to go five miles as I had to stop every 200 feet and let the car cool. I didn't quite make it, leaving the car a few blocks from my house as it was overheating on idle even after ten minutes of cooling time. I went back later that night and moved it. Cooled, it worked just fine. Meanwhile, I took the van down to have that alternator belt looked at. And this morning I got word that the van also has major trouble -- to the tune of $1200+. So this afternoon I'm out two vehicles.

I was disappointed my new car didn't have power door locks and keyless entry, something I've always wanted. So I had them added! It cost money, yeah, but I decided if I'm going to the trouble of getting a new car I might as well get it with the features I want, so I went for it. Why not? Now it's got everything: power windows and locks, keyless entry, cruise control, AC, CD player, XM Radio (via my portable MyFi unit), and GPS navigation (I have a portable Magellan Roadmate GPS). Pretty cool! The only thing missing is a way to connect my iPod to the stereo -- I'll either have to invest in an addon, replace the stereo with a different model, or buy an FM transmitter (the latter's the cheapest, so I'll probably start with that). Anyway, I'm pretty happy now. It's taken me a while to get used to the idea of a new car and car payments, but I do feel much better about having reliable, comfortable transportation, and it's nice having room in my driveway again. But I will be having regular oil changes on the PT, I can guarantee that! I learned my lesson the hard way. (I don't know for sure if my lack of oil maintence killed the old cars, but I'm sure it didn't help. I still don't know why cars need stuff like that, though. I'm used to computers: plug them in and they work for years. With all our technology, why the heck can't we invent maintenance-free vehicles?)

This morning I took my mom to the airport. She's flying to Togo, West Africa, for three months. She'll be staying with a missionary friend and helping her. It's been a ton of work getting everything she needed: passport and visa, innoculations, medicines for three months, setting up automatic bill paying for during her absense, packing, etc. She's been working very hard. But today was culmination and she's off. She hasn't traveled internationally for years, and with her recent health issues, wasn't sure if she'd be able to do so, but a short-term mission trip like this seemed an ideal way to try it.

Wow, what a great movie! It's the best movie of the year so far. How does Pixar do it? I wasn't sure going in if I was going to like this -- I'm not a racing fan and don't know much about cars and the story, about a hot shot racing car that gets stranded in the middle of nowhere didn't sound particularly unique or exciting (think Doc Hollywood for the same plot with a human) -- but to my surprise, Pixar turned a simple story into magic. The "car world" of the story (there are no people, only talking cars) is wonderfully complete with absolutely fantastic detail. Everything's a car pun, many of them quite subtle and clever, from business names to idioms, with the result that the world feels real. Even better, Pixar's animation quality is unsurpassed, with their "Route 66" town and desert graphics rivaling photographs for detail. Some of the highway scenes were truly astonishing. But Pixar never lets the graphics overshadow their characters -- the story always come first, as the pictures support the story. Here again Pixar takes the simple -- an arrogant race car who learns his place -- and doesn't trivialize it with easy solutions. The ending is surprisingly emotional and fulfilling. The film is fun, clever, and filled with all the right touches of emotion and humor. And stay tuned for the closing credits, which are hilarious (the cars go to the drive-in and watch clips of previous Pixar releases with cars as the stars). P.S. the opening short -- a Pixar tradition -- is worth the price of admission alone.

Unusual talky film about a group of American women in a hotel in a Latin American country waiting for their baby adoptions to go through. What's neat is that the film is half in Spanish as we observe both sides of the transaction: the hispanic workers and hotel owner, a pregnant teen who will give her baby up, as well as the stories of the American women who a desperate for babies. Nothing too dramatic happens, but characters are revealed and relationships formed. It's interesting. The film has flaws in momentum and an awkwardly abrupt ending, but it's a unique slice of life as scene from a different perspective. It makes you think about a number of things -- the meaning of motherhood, racism, nature versus nurture, abortion, America versus foreign cultures -- but in a low-key way and it never tries to manipulate your thinking or tell you to think a certain way. It's just a brief picture of a reality you're forced by its pressence to contemplate. I liked it.

Another one of those "I'll see it someday" films. This happened to be the someday, and it was well worth the wait. I was expecting a routine mellodramatic romance along the lines of the supposedly great Gone With the Wind and discovered several surprises: 1) the main plot was WWII intrigue, not romance; 2) the romance was mostly handled in flashback, which minimized it's focus; and 3) plenty of witty humor, which modernized the movie considerably. Terrific film, with dozens of familiar lines. The romance angle was minimal, which I preferred, as the driving plot was much more interesting and that made the romance more significant.

This is definitely a different Bond. My feelings are mixed: there are things I liked and things I didn't. Daniel Craig is fine, and I like the "reboot" of the Bond franchise, but Craig's grittier Bond isn't carried through all the way leaving us with a fractured, mixed-bag Bond that is quite like the old Bonds yet isn't new enough to be his own. I was also somewhat disappointed with the rather ordinary plot; while there are some action scenes, they feel inserted rather than part of the story, and much of the talky scenes go on way too long to the point of ponderousness. Craig is also given exhorbitant highlight scenes (him coming up dripping wet out of the water, etc.) which feel like silly Baywatch style slow-mo. There are a few sparkling moments: the super-human acrobatics on the cranes at the construction site, the delightful repartie Bond shares with his female love interest, and some of the poker scenes. But too much feels too ordinary; I wanted either the glamour and pizzaz of the splashier Bonds, or gritty realism. Instead I got this awkward mix. Note that this isn't Craig's fault and we can't judge his Bond on this one script; I'd give him one more shot and see what he can do with the role. I suspect that the series will only get better (new Bonds are always a slightly awkward fit at first, Pierce Brosnan being the exception). All that said, this is definitely worth seeing. People have different tastes and you need to judge for yourself. I should also add that there wasn't enough of the Bond theme music. Why was that? That great theme totally sets the tone and gets you in the mood. Without it the film just didn't feel like a 077 movie.

This was apparently meant to be a farce about the famous lover. It doesn't take itself very seriously and is basically in line with Shakespearean identity comedy. Unfortunately, it falls flat and doesn't quite succeed as a love story or a comedy. There are some good moments, and it has its charm -- it certainly was not as bad as I expected from the previews -- and the cinematography and recreation of ancient Venice is stunning. But the plot was too convoluted to be taken seriously, and though that was intentional, it still demeaned the whole project as a nothing but a broad joke. It's fun, but frivolous.

I didn't want to like this movie. It seemed like just another retread of Robinson Crusoe, and yes, that's exactly what it turned out to be. I saw very little that I didn't expect: I swear I could have written out the plot myself in advance. Much of the drama was forced and heavy-handed. For instance in the first few minutes Tom Hanks' calls his girlfriend from Moscow and just happens to mention he needs a dentist appointment for a tooth that's bothering him. "Oh great," I immediately think, "we'll be having an overly dramatic home dental surgery demonstration on the island." Sure enough, that's what happened (though I didn't know he'd use an ice skate). At other times the direction is too obvious: Tom flicking a lighter that instantly flames to show how "easy" it is to get fire (in contrast to his having to create fire via friction). But despite all that, I did like the film. It was well done, though there was nothing earthshattering about it. Just a realistic story about a man surviving for years on a deserted island. Hanks did a good job; he blended into the role completely, which is excellent acting, but I thought his character was a little boring. The special effects and plane crash and storms were very well done. Overall, a decent film, though lacking in depth. It tries to explore some complex issues (like Hanks coming home to find his girlfriend married with children), but it doesn't explore them beyond introducing the potential problems. For me, the film Alive did all this so much better with a positive message.

Terrific Ausie film about a hilariously dimwitted family that lives near the airport and receives an eviction notice as the airport wants to expand (their home is being bought under eminent domain). They refuse to move out, however, fighting the action (with ineptitude) in court. Extremely well-written with sharp dialogue that's full of irony. It gets a little outrageous at times, but mostly stays grounded to its premise and is ultimately a feel-good story about a David-versus-Goliath battle. Funny and well-worth your time, and it just might make you think a little about what you've got in your own life.

Another terrific film from Miyazaki. This one again features a young girl, an orphan being hunted for the necklace she wears which contains great power. It turns out she's a princess from a lost world -- a floating city in the sky that's long thought to be legend. There's a slew of wild characters, from a female pirate and her offspring crew to an orphan boy whose father died trying to find the floating city to an odd-looking hulk-like giant metal robot, and it's quite a fun journey. Terrific story, good morals, and wonderful animation. A must-see!

I had zero interest in seeing this in the theatres after seeing the horrible previews. It turns out it's not as bad as I expected, but it's way overdone, tampered with by adults who don't have a clue about Dr. Suess, and includes much non-Suess material that falls flat. The parts where the film shines is when it uses real Suess material, actual rhyming lines from the Cat or the Fish or the narrator. Sometimes the sets are cool, and the special effects are amazing, but the core of the any movie must be the story, and there the producers destroyed what made the original great. Read the book instead of bothering with the film.

Supposedly the "Italian Hitchcock," this is Argento's second film and his most popular. It is a lot like Hitchcock in terms of camera angles, but certainly not in terms of depth of story and symbolism. The plot deals with a series of mysterious murders, including anyone who is investigating them. A blind man and a journalist team up to track down the killer, but there are too many leads (the "nine tails" of the title). Well done, especially for its time, but not that shocking or original today. The climactic unmasking of the murderer was a letdown, but I did like the poetic justice ending. Definitely a director to check out: I'm going to see more of his stuff.

Here's my latest tip for cat lovers. Have a problem keeping your cat off your kitchen table or other non-kitty places? I bought a little battery-operated motion detector alarm at Radio Shack ($25) which is awesome. I leave it on pointed at the coffee table at night. Now when one of my cats jumps onto the table, the alarm chimes, and the cat runs and hides. They don't like loud sounds. The first night I tried this the alarm went off twice, but the second night only once. I think my cats are getting the message. I figure a week with it on the coffee table will cure them of that bad habit, then it's on to the kitchen counter!

Interesting story about a murder that might have been committed by William Randolph Hearst way back when. He took a party of famous people (including Charlie Chaplin) out on his boat, but one member died and there was never an inquiry. This film is one possibility of what might have happened. Well done, with a great cast, but obviously a lot of history and Hollywood knowledge is required to really appreciate this: I've heard of Hearst and Chaplin, but those were the only ones, so I missed most of the rest. Still, it was interesting, though a llittle heavy-handed (I could tell there were aspects of the characters I was supposed to react to, assuming I knew the real-life person, but since I didn't, the references went over my head and I found that got boring after a while).

Good film, though somewhat average. It's well done, but nothing extraordinary. The performances by Hanks and Leonardo are very good, though. The true story is remarkable, especially the feel-good ending: in the 60's, a teenage boy impersonates a Pan Am pilot and goes around the country cashing forged checks while an FBI agent tracks him. Eventually he's stolen more than $4 million, worked as a doctor at a hospital, and passed the bar to become a lawyer! Very cool, but not a classic or anything. It was much too long: at over 2 hours, it really only had enough solid material for an hour forty-five. I also hated the animated opening credits, which were full of themselves, like some sort of cheap rip-off of a Pink Panther movie.

What is it with Hollywood producing kid movies with adults with negative IQs? This is actually a fun film, but several of the adults are just absurdly moronic (i.e. security guard shocks himself unconscious with electric cattle prod) and it really means that only kids age five could completely enjoy this. Overall it's a decent concept for a film: a young girl teams with her friends to rob a bank to steal the $250,000 her dad needs to a critical operation. The bank robbery is overly elaborate to the point of being silly, but still fun. Unfortunately, everything is dumbed down. Why couldn't this be done intelligently and realistically? It could have been really cool? As it is, it's on about the level of a cheap sitcom, okay but not great.

Silly but fun high-tech adventure about the war between cats and dogs. The two species do commando raids and use secret agents to foil each other. Terrific special effects (the animals were a combination of live animals, puppets, and digital and the result was seamless). Ultimately it gets rather ridiculous and carries the one joke premise too far, but it's still fun.

Why does Halle Berry pick such sucky movies to be in? She does her best with a feeble script, but she's the only thing good about this dud. What sucks is mainly the plot, which is thin, lame, predictable. The premise of Halle dying and having life breathed back into her by a cat, that giving her cat-like abilities, is fine. The idea that she's not exactly a good cat -- she initially uses her cat skills to rob a jewelry store -- is great. The special effects are good, even impressive, making Halle really move like a cat. But there just isn't anything to work with. The story's so thin you can see through it. Cosmetics queen Sharon Stone is about to go public with her new line of adictive, deadly face cream (How stupid is that?) and Catwoman must stop her. So after Catwoman has easily beaten up dozens of men, the "climax" of the movie is Catwoman versus Sharon in one of the silliest fights ever filmed. Why not give her a real opponent, someone challenging? Just stupid, stupid, stupid. This movie has a few good ideas and a nice scene or two, but basically it's about three or four rewrites from being ready for filming. Back to the drawing board, folks. Halle in a skimpy cat suit does go far, but not even she can replace an actual story.

Waters' big budget pictures just aren't as much fun as his low budget spoofs. It's partly the nature of his type of humor: he tends to take one premise and do a whole film, and the more Hollywood movies just can't support a one joke premise. This one is a great idea: a mockery of independent and big budget moviemaking via a renegade filmmaker who kidnaps a Hollywood A-list starlet and forces her to be in his film attacking Hollywood. There are some great lines, a fair amount of crudity, some excellent satire, but in the end it seems like a lot of fuss over nothing. Waters fans will enjoy it, of course, but the average viewer won't find too much too cheer.

Amusing, lightweight comedy. It's different, perhaps the most successful working of an episodic film I've seen. Nice use of real-life celebrities in various low-key roles. Kenneth Branagh does a good Woody Allen imitation, but I think I would have preferred Woody in the role -- Branagh's too good looking for his bad luck to be believable. Overall, not up Woody's usual intellectual standard (it never really makes the statement I expect), but then that might make it more approachable for non-Woody fans.

A visually striking film, with interesting special effects, but not much of a story. Well, actually, the story sounds fascinating -- a woman goes into a comatose serial killer's mind in order to find out where he hid his latest victim -- but doesn't deliver as much as promised. If the film had a better script and a real story, it would help. It's too one-dimensional, with all the psychological aspects of serial killing reduced to the obvious and routine (i.e. the killer was abused as a child). Not as bad as I'd heard, and the DVD's got some good extra material on the creation of the special effects.

It's a bit of an absurd premise -- a pulse or some signal hits all the cell phones on the planet, erasing the minds of anyone who hears it. This causes instant insanity, as people resort to mindless beings of extreme violence. Since cell phones are everywhere, this is basically the end of civilization as we know it. People driving crash, kill their children, children attack their parents, planes fall out of the sky, and pretty much all authority -- fire, police, rescue, etc. -- use cell phones and are destroyed. Some withiin a couple days civilization is back to the stone age. Partly this is King's playful attack on cellular phones, partly it's just an excuse for a good zombie flick (since the "phoners" are essentially zombies, except the aren't dead). King takes pains to vividly describe all the gory details of society's derailment, and the result, while interesting, is too grim and not particularly enlightening. It's a one-joke premise stretched out too long. Cell phone users are bad, we get it. They're rude, wealthy, privileged, we get it. Using them to destroy the earth is ironic, we get it. But come, enough already! Move on. But King doesn't. Fortunately the book is saved by King's unique prose and an actual plot, though the latter isn't evident until late in the novel. The book does remind me a lot of King's Dreamcatcher, which was similarly gory and depressing, but like that one he does create an ensemble of interesting characters that make the story bearable. In the end, I liked this, I'm not unhappy having read it, but I'm mostly glad I read it in two days so I'm done with it.

A decent thriller. It starts off a little weak: too much exposition, some pointless explanation. We're forced to see the mother kiss her son off too school (shows she loves him), hear that she's a science teacher (important as she'll use those skills throughout the movie), etc. Though why a science teacher doesn't leave for school before the boy gets on the school bus isn't explained (in my experience, teachers arrive before the students). Once the story gets going, however, it doesn't stop. The woman is suddenly kidnapped. She's locked in an attic room and the wall phone is smashed so she can't use it. But she figures out a way to rewire the fragments and make a call, but she can't control who she dials. She dials randomly and a kid answers on his cell phone. Since she doesn't even know what number she dialed or even if she could dial again, her life depends on that call. If he hangs up or they are disconnected, she's dead. Things take a little time to get going here -- at first he doesn't believe her story, then he tries to take the phone to the police -- but eventually it's just him and her. The kidnappers are going to go steal her kid from school so she pleads with the stranger on the phone to help her, to get to the school before the kidnappers. Thus a race is started and continues, with "drama" like the cell phone's battery dying, crossed lines with another cell phone user (Can that actually happen with today's digital phones?), signal problems within a tunnel, etc. It's a bit ridiculous but the performances keep you involved and things move too fast for you to be concerned about logic. The resolution is good, but the final fight in the boat house is too long and convoluted, though I did like the fight's conclusion (which cleverly involves a cell phone). All and all, this is an odd film. It's got moments that are obviously B-movie quality, but then it's got good actors and some good action and a story that keeps you involved. The sum of its parts is therefore slightly more than the whole, resulting in a decent -- but not great -- thriller. It's fun, but most of that fun comes from not knowing what's going to happen and wanting to see what the producers will do with the interesting premise. I don't know that there's enough here to want to see the film again, which means it isn't a classic, but it is entertaining. It's certainly better than a lot of current films.

This book comes before The Protege, but I read it second. In this one the main character has just been elected chairman of the company and is struggling against conspiracies designed to destroy him and the company. The plot's overdone (there are several plots going on) and there's not enough interesting money stuff, but it's still rather amusing and harmless entertainment.

What a terrific game! I missed the first leg of this series as the schedule was changed at last minute, so I didn't get to see Houston win their home match 2-0. Unfortunately, this second leg was at high-altitude in Mexico in front of a packed stadium of soccer-crazy home fans. Houston are still in pre-season (the new MLS season starts on Saturday) and rusty, while Pachuca is in mid-season and firing on all cylinders. Houston got off to a bad start, surrendering a goal just 3.5 minutes in; but the replay showed he goal was offside and shouldn't have counted. That encouraged Pachuca who attacked even more, and by fifteen in Pachua were up 2-0 after Craig Waibel tripped a player in the box and the ref called a penalty kick. But Houston started playing better after that, holding off Pachuca until the second half, when Houston began to play much better and actually put together some attacking runs. When Ching and DeRossario combined to get the ball to an open Brian Mullan, he didn't disappoint, scoring to give Houston the aggregate lead. But it was too much to hope for, as shortly thereafter, the ref gave Pachuca another penalty, this time on a phantom foul (there was no contact). But Houston came right back with a terrific headed goal from Ching, and as the clock wound down it really looked like Houston might advance to the finals. The Pachuca fans were crushed, but their team was resillient, keeping up the tremendous pressure and scoring with just a few minutes left in the game. Now it was 4-4 on aggregat (combined score between the two games). That led to 30 minutes of overtime and an exhausted Houston could hardly walk, let alone run. But somehow they kept in going and DeRo had probably the best chance of the entire game with a point-black header that was miraculously saved one-handed by the diving Pachuca keeper. Then more controversy as the ref didn't blow the whistle at the overtime half-way mark, but allowed Pachuca one more opportunity on goal. As the Houston players dropped off, the player took a wild shot from long range. Everyone -- even the Mexicans, I think -- expected one of those "row Z" shots that miss the goal by a mile. Instead the rocket curled right into the top corner not even giving Houston keeper Zach Wells a chance. Wow. Nice game winner. Unfortunately Houston couldn't score in the second half, though they had a couple chances and nearly tied it on a Ching header. In the end, I can't say either team didn't deserve to advance. This was a game worthy of the final.

Rather an annoying game: quite boring at times, and the only goals came from penalty kicks (all of them questionable). Valencia was awarded one just three minutes in and Medieta put it away. Bayern had one of their own not long after, but missed! It looked like it was Valencia's day, but shortly into the second half Bayern were awarded another penalty and Effenberg did not miss. The tie game went into overtime, and then to penalty kicks. The penalty kick contest was dramatic and exciting, as the Bayern missed their first kick and it was touch and goal for a while. There were a number of misses, but going into the fifth and final round, the teams were tied with two misses each. That's when my tape of the game ran out: I'd only recorded 45 minutes extra and that wasn't enough! Arrgggg! Well, I found out later Bayern won, and though it almost seems unfair that one team should be so successful, I did feel they deserved it slightly more, if only because Valencia deliberately wasted time in the overtime, wanting the game to go to penalty kicks. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I lie offensive teams best. At least Valencia played better in this year's final than last years (where they were dreadful). Final: 1-1, Bayern Munich win on penalty kicks.

Not a bad game, though a little dull: Deportivo tends to not win by scoring a lot of goals. It certainly was competitive, with chances on both sides. But late in the first half Milan went ahead on a goal by Helveg. He volleyed in a poor clearance off a corner kick, keeping the ball to go under the surprised keeper. In the second half, Deportivo came out kicking and dominated the play by a huge margin -- at one point they led on shots 18 to 5 -- but they couldn't score. With just a minute left in regulation, Helveg knocked heads with another player and was taken off the field with blood running everywhere. But Milan held on to win, 1-0.

Both teams needed a win in case Lyon won their game in Moscow. As it turned out, Lyon tied, so both Arsenal and Munich go through anyway, but the games were played simultaneously, so no one knew that. Still, Arsenal didn't play up to expectations at all: Bayern scored ten minutes in on a great diving header by Elber, but Arsenal just kept trying useless long balls all night and all except one were called offside. Really lame. Bayern deserved the win, and based on this game, Arsenal does not deserve to be the in quarter-finals, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Final: 1-0.

WOW! What an incredible game. The UEFA Champions League is my favorite (only the top couple of teams in each country compete) and this game shows why. Barcelona lost their last two UCL games (they won their first) to put them at the bottom of their group, and so they really needed a big game. The game started off with a great free kick goal from last year's world Player of the Year Rivaldo kicking the ball under the wall as they leaped up. Minutes later, while Barca was in confusion after Cocu and Petite clashed heads and were carted off, leaving the team playing with just nine men, Milan's Albertini scored from a half mile away (at least it seemed like it). Unbelievably, Albertini scored a second -- only his sixth goal in league and international play -- on a free kick. Just minutes later, Rivaldo was brought down at Milan's end of the field to give Barca a free kick at almost the exact spot where Rivaldo scored his first goal. This time the wall didn't jump and Rivaldo put the ball high, just curling it under the crossbar and in! If that wasn't enough for one half, Milan busted back with a shot from Bierhoff that was blocked by Milan's keeper, only to the see rebound blasted in by a charging Jose Maria (three goals for Spain in the Sydney Olympics). Like I said, wow. Five goals in one half. Could the second be any better? Of course not. Both teams slowed down in the second half, with Milan defending their lead. Finally Rivaldo broke through with a terrific diving header to complete his hat trick and tie the score, and that's how the game finished, 3-all.

Incredible game. In the first match between these two, Barca whomped Leeds 4-0 and everyone expected the little club to die off quickly. This time around, their positions have reversed: with a win, Leeds would advance and Barcelona, incredibly, would be eliminated from the Champions League. No team has suffered more from injuries than Leeds, with half their team out. And with 20 members under age 25, Leeds is by far the youngest team in Champions League competition.

The game started off well for the smaller club. In the fifth minute, Lee Bowyer's cross was miscalculated by Barca's keeper and went straight into the net! After that, Leeds really turned on the offense, but Barca's defense held and they got their own fifteen minutes or so of offense. In the second half, it was all Barcelona. Leeds attacked only a couple times, and then only on break-away counters. Amazingly, though it seemed like Barca would surely score, they didn't. Leeds second-best keeper (Nigel Martin is out for six weeks on injury), 20-year-old Robinson came up huge, making at least a half-dozen world-class saves. Time drifted on and Barca attacked and attacked, but Leeds kept clearing the ball away. Could they hold out? The huge crowd booed when the ref put up 4 minutes of extra time, but Leeds held on, though they'd only made one substitution and all their players (many just back from injury and not fully fit) were exhausted. Two minutes past, then three. Still the one goal held. With less than a minute left, Barcelona made another run toward the Leeds goal. Lee Bowyer, exhausted, slipped and missed a tackle, which allowed a Barcelona player to put a cross into the box. Desperately Cocu headed the ball but it struck the post. As Leeds scrambled to recover, the rebound went to the dreaded foot of Rivaldo, who didn't miss his point-blank chance. With just thirty seconds to the win, Leeds had missed their chance! Final: 1-1. The tie mathematically keeps Barcelona alive, but Leeds can advance with a tie or win in their next match against A.C. Milan, or a Barcelona loss.

A surprisingly boring game, with Palo Sergio scoring for Munich in the 86th minute. Where was Man. U.'s offense? Final: 1-0 Bayern.

It was miserably cold and snowy in Moscow, and the field was a muddy mess, but both teams gave it their all. Bayern moved ahead early when Scholl put in a great shot seventeen minutes in. Elber passed him the ball and he ran onto it, kicking it between two onrushing defenders to blast it past the keeper. Spartak really fought back but couldn't break the German side. In the second half a bad play on a counterattack gave Bayern a penalty kick and it was Scholl who roofed it to give his team a two goal lead. But that wasn't enough: substitute Paulo Sergio entered late into the game to head in a great goal with just minutes left. Final: 3-0 Munich.

Boring game, even though it was a must-win for Milan. Deportivo finally went ahead on a soft penalty kick in the 74th minute, but Milan got one back with their own penalty twelve minutes later. But it wasn't enough. Final: 1-1.

Does it make sense to insult your opponent before playing them? Probably not. It doesn't do you any good and it can only hurt you. No doubt Deportivo's coach regrets his critical comments on Leeds before this game. His team was roasted. Ian Harte scored just 26 minutes in off a wonderful free kick, and Smith and Ferdinand added to the total in the second half. Deportivo hardly had a shot on Leeds' goal all night. They'll have a tough job scoring more than three goals against Leeds at home. Final: 3-0 Leeds.

Started off slow, with neither side doing much, but slowly PSG gained momentum and soon dominated. Then, on a weak shot from Algerino, Deportivo's keeper misjudged the ball and let it slip under him for a PSG lead. In the second half, PSG had several early chances to increase their lead but failed, and Deportivo made them pay with a great volley by Naybet inside the penalty box. Minutes later, Deportivo's Emerson was taken down in an obvious penalty kick, but the ref didn't call it. Deportivo had a one-on-one chance moments after that, but the attempt to chip over the keeper failed. It looked like a tie might be the result of the day. But then Deportivo's Turu Flores, in a brilliant run up the left side, feinted a stop at the edge of the box, then bolted past two defenders to free some space, and slotted the ball home. Both teams had a couple more chances (PSG's keeper made one great save), but in injury time Deportivo put the matter beyond doubt when Roy Makaay took a great feed to go one-on-one with the keeper and he calmly dribbled around him and kicked the ball into the open net. Final: 3-1 Deportivo!

Excellent game. Started off slow, with Lazio missing lots of chances and Shak keeper Yiriv Virt (great name, eh?) making a number of excellent shots. Shak got on the board late in the first half with a terrific angled shot by Vorobyey from twenty-some yards out. In the second half Lopez almost immediately put in a goal for Lazio, and that started the rout. Six minutes later Favali did a great move, nutmegging a defender, running around him to catch up with the ball, and putting it between the keeper and a defender to go 2-1. Just a minute or so after that, Veron added to the score with a fantastic free kick from the side that seemed to defy gravity. Picture this: he's on the right side of the penalty area. The ball goes around the three man wall on the right, so you'd expect it to continue the same curl and go away from the goal and into the center of the penalty area. Instead, it goes into the goal! Crazy! Shakhtar got some chances after that, but in the 68th minute Claudio Lopez got another. On a clearance from a Shakhtar corner, Lopez received the ball all my himself at the halfway line. He ran, alone, with the ball, all the way to the penalty area, dribbled it to the side, allowing Virt to dive and miss, and Lopez calmly put the ball into the empty net. Lopez got his hat trick in injury time, putting the matter well beyond doubt. Final: 5-1 Lazio.

Good game, but the Turkish club was sadly out-classed. They could do little against the Spanish champs, who were really in form. Victor scored first just 40 minutes in, and Djalminha added in a penalty kick in the 72nd minute, but the 2-0 scoreline doesn't show what a one-sided affair it really was.

Well, the Turkish club had a chance coming into this game, but Real was having none of it. They easily won, scoring three goals in the first half! Raul got things going with a goal fifteen minutes in, followed by Helguera in the 28th, and Raul got his second with ten minutes left in the half. After that Real just had to hold on for the win. They advance to the semi-finals. Final: 3-0 Real Madrid.

A meaningless match, as Leeds is already through in the group, and Lazio can't advance even with a win. But instead of taking it easy, these teams battled ferociously. Awesome game! Lazio got going first, with a goal from Ravenvelli in the 21st minute, but Bowyer tied it miutes later with an unbelievable shot standing with his back to the goal and spinning around as he shot. Minutes later a penalty kick was awarded to Lazio, and Milhajlovic easily scored. But just before the half Wilcox got a goal on a corner kick to level everything. Viduka had an easy goal shortly into the second half, and Leeds hung on to their lead until the end of the game, when Milhajlovic got his second in injury time. Wow, six great goals! Great game, though ultimately it doesn't mean anything. Crazy. Final: 3-3.

Real Madrid is at the top of their group while Lazio hasn't had a single win, but Lazio started things off boldly with a goal by Nedved in the fourth minute. His shot went through the legs of a defender, then went through the legs of the surprised keeper! Crazy goal, but they all count. Though Real Madrid had the most possession, Lazio looked more dangerous. So it was odd that the next goal was Madrid's, when Solari scored in the 32nd minute. Shortly into the second half Lazio regained the lead when Crespo poached a goal with pure persistence. But a perfect cross onto Raul's head allowed his header to tie the score with less than twenty minutes left. I thought there would be more scoring, but that was it. Madrid was happy with a tie. Since Leeds United won their game, Leeds and Real Madrid advance to the quarterfinals while Lazio's Champions League dreams are over for this season (even though there are two matches left, Leeds and Madrid have so many points the others can't catch up). Final: 2-2 draw.

Well, we knew it was going to be an uphill battle for Leeds, but their fantasy season finally came to an end. They couldn't even score, and rarely looked dangerous, in fact. After Valencia's first goal by Sanchez (which looked suspiciously like he scored with his hand), Leeds had to press more and more forward, and gave up space at the back. Sanchez got his second just minutes into the second half, and Medieta got one on a counter when he was left on his own against the Leeds keeper, Nigel Martin. Just too much for Leeds to come back against. A disappointing way for Leeds to drop out. Final: 3-0 Valencia.

After a last-minute tie against Barcelona, Leeds was in the position where they had to get something from this game: at least a draw to advance to the second round of the competition. Milan was already guaranteed to go through, so they had little to play for except for pride. The game started off poorly for Leeds when a very questionable handball penalty was called against them. Milan's top striker Shevchenko stepped up... and hit the post! Leeds was still alive. The game was even after that, with Leeds getting very few chances, and Milan frighteningly close on occasion. Then, as we entered first half injury time, Leeds got a corner kick. Matteo headed the ball toward the near post and it beat the keeper! Leeds was ahead! In the second half, Milan stepped up the offense, with Shevchenko desperately trying to redeem himself, but it was Serginho who broke Leeds with a goal late in the game. After that, it was nail-biting time as Leeds tried to possess the ball and Milan occasionally went forward, but basically the game was over, both sides satisfied with a 1-1 draw. Milan wins the group, Leeds advance in second place, and "poor" Barcelona is knocked out!

What a terrific clash! Leeds struggled over the weekend in league play, while Lazio triumphed, yet both had problems in their last Champions League games. Who would survive? Well, the first half didn't tell us, as the teams were about even. Leeds started out dominating, but Lazio took over towards the end of the half. Leeds almost had a goal in injury time, but Lee Bowyer just missed. In the second half it was mostly Leeds. With twenty minutes to go and still no score, manager David O'Leary took a huge chance and put in another striker in place of a defender. Keeper Robinson made the save of the game a few minutes later, stuffing Crespo and keeping Leeds in the game. Then, with ten minutes left, Viduka, who'd been brilliant all game, gave a tremendous backheel flick to youngster Alan Smith, completely baffling two Lazio defenders. Smith, who'd started the play and kept running, picked up Viduka's pass with a splendid side-footed shot under the keeper to score! It was a goal worthy of the admittance price. It turned out to be historic, too, with Leeds winning in Italy for the first time ever! Final: 1-0 Leeds United. Very cool.

Excellent game! Both of these teams were already through to the quater-finals, so the match was somewhat a formality. But the result would determine who would win the group and have home field advantage later in the competition. Leeds started off great, with Alan Smith scoring on a break-away just seven minutes in. But victory was very short-lived when Madrid struck back just sixty seconds later, when Raul finished. Before the half was over Madrid had pulled ahead on Figo's long cross that turned into a shot, and the awkward bounce fooled Leeds' keeper, Nigel Martin, and went into the goal. Viduka brought Leeds back ten minutes into the second half, but just a few minutes later Raul got his second goal to secure Real Madrid the victory. Great to see L