The Z/Web Archive

Halloween is supposed to be some sort of horror classic, but frankly I found it boring and predictable (I watched a year or two ago). I was curious if the 20-years-in-the-waiting sequel would prove better. The results are mixed. This movie is more fun, about the same on the mildly scary level, and similar in its lack of plot. Basically Jamie Lee Curtis' evil brother is back, this time out to kill her son and his high school friends. Eighty percent of the "chills" are fake (the scary noise turns out to be a cat or friend walking past -- lame, lame, lame) and Michael Myers himself is boringly ordinary (though absurdly hard to kill). Doesn't have the gritty documentary feel of the original, but that's not saying much. The best bit is the casting of Curtis' mother, Janet Leigh (of Pyscho fame) in a small part (the car she drives is the same one sunk in the lake in Pyscho).

I picked this book up after noticing it was written by a local author (Rucker teaches at San Jose State University). My first impression while reading this book was that it was obviously his first as it's so poorly written. Sometimes the story moves from one scene to the next at a bewildering rate, and at other times we're treated to pages of exposition and computer science lectures. I found wading through it tedious at best. What makes it worse is that the plot leaves us in a state of incomprehension until the end of the book when all is revealed. I found these aspects so frustrating I almost didn't bother finishing the book. When I did a little research into Rucker, I discovered (to my shock) that he's been writing books since the 1970s! He's written over twenty books and has actually won writing awards. Maybe I was misjudging him? I went back to the book and ploughed through to the end. The bottom line is that the plot is worth the read, and from a technical perspective, this virtual reality tale is rather ingenious. While I haven't read other Rucker novels (I might check out one or two), I will concede that perhaps this isn't badly written as I'd first assumed, it's just Rucker's style. Whatever it is, I didn't like it. The fast-slow, start-stop aspect of the story drove me nuts. For instance, while many tiny things happen in the first 100 pages, it isn't until page 120 that the main plot point happens: the virtual ants of the title are released onto the digital TV network and cause a massive shutdown and lead to the arrest of the main character. When I got to that point I wanted to continue reading to find out if and how he cleared himself of the charges -- but the first 100 pages are just babbling with only a couple scenes crucial to the main plot. I also felt the characters were extremely one dimensional (I guess that's a pun since the novel deals with virtual reality). While Rucker gives us plenty of detail about the main character's history, he still feels like a cardboard man. For instance, we know he's going through a divorce, but we don't know why. Throughout the novel Rucker throws in stuff to make the character well-rounded, but it feels forced. For example, there are a number of sexual encounters which feel extremely out-of-place (like the hacker sleeping with a woman he met hours earlier -- yeah, like that happens to geeks in Silicon Valley). I figured he just put that in so we'd know the guy's a man.

From a technical perspective Rucker definitely knows his stuff and does a better job explaining futuristic technology than most authors (though his theoretical plot is a little unrealistic), but the bizarre and inconsistent pacing of the book ruined it for me. In the end I liked the plot and resolution, but getting there was not fun (nothing makes sense until the end). I can see why cybergeeks would like this, but most probably haven't read much real literature and think this is pretty good. I'd give it an average for overall quality, above average for technical details, and a below average for characterization and pacing.

Fun film, though like most techno films, takes a great deal of license with reality. I don't like the stereotype that hackers are criminals (true hackers are computer experts, not kids with mischevious tendencies). Fun to see faces like superstar Angelina Jolie in an early role.

This is an impressive collection of essays by "hacker" (computer programmer) Paul Graham. Paul writes on all sorts of topics, from censorship to creativity, all from the unusual viewpoint of the hacker. A hacker, in his definition, is a clever programmer, not a criminal as inaccurately portrayed by the media. Hackers are not understood by the average person -- a hacker's world is inside the mysterious computer -- so hearing what a hacker thinks of philosophical topics, politics, technology, and other issues is fascinating. You may not always agree with Paul, but that's not the point. He writes well with clear analogies and logical arguments toward his theses, and the unusual perspective is designed to make you think of things in a way you didn't before. Paul comes up with some unusual ideas as well. For instance, his essay, "What Not To Say," proposes the concept that every society throughout history has had an unspoken list of things people are not supposed to talk about. What's okay in one country is forbidden in another. In one time period it was okay to say something but today we see that as racist and forbidden. Or how about science: a while back you could be jailed for saying the earth revolves around the sun! That all makes sense but the key here is that in every one of those situations, the people at the time -- just like us today -- thought they were 100% correct in their way of thinking. So the question becomes, if someone came back to today from the future, what would they discover that is forbidden to say today but in the future is considered normal? That's an interesting question and one well worth your time pondering. And why is that important? Paul writes that hackers, by definition, are people who think "outside the box" and they cannot do that if they are trained by society to not think certain thoughts. A hacker's brain must be free.

Not everyone will understand or appreciate this book. However, if you're into computers, technology, hacking, or philosophy, I think you'll find it fascinating. It's a surprisingly quick read for a book about such big ideas.

(Spoiler alert: in order to cover this, I must reveal some plot points. You've been warned.) This is a confusing film. I don't believe it knows what it is either. It wants to be a superhero film, but wants to be both a traditional one and a new and different and edgy one. Hancock is the Superman-like superhero (excellently portrayed by Will Smith) who is nasty, mean, and drunk. In his heroics, he often damages more than he helps, and the people hate him. Then a PR guy befriends him and tries to reform his image and make him into a hero people will like. There's supposed to be some comedy in this, but it's done in such a nasty, negative manner, with a lot of foul language and dark humor, that it comes across as more uncomfortable than funny. If the film had stopped there, it might have worked. But it goes off the deep end with a bizarre plot twist: apparently the PR's guys wife, sheer coincidence, just happens to be another superhero, and one who knows Hancock's real identity and story (he's suffering from amnesia and doesn't know how he became super). The two fight and we aren't sure why and we don't know who to root for, and since this takes up ten or twenty minutes of the film, we're confused and disinterested for quite a while. In the end, things are explained (sort of) and everyone lives happily ever thereafter, but the ride to get there is bumpy. The special effects are cool, though often too fancy and fast to be visible, and are the main reason to see this. That and Will Smith's performance (and Charlize Theron as the wife). Unfortunately, the film just doesn't quite work or live up to its billing. It's not terrible, just a little disappointing. The jokes fall flat, the plot is weak, and the gimmick of a superhero as a mean drunk and a jerk grows old quickly. Still, it has some fun elements and scenes and is okay if you're not too discriminating.

First, let me say I liked the book -- most critics did not. The film is very similar to the book, except at the very end. Why they changed the ending, I don't know: I thought that was the crux of the book. For me, it was Harris' statement about society and the way we celebrate and glorify criminals (haven't you seen a Charles Manson T-shirt?). But I can see why people didn't like the book -- it's very different from Silence of the Lambs. That didn't bother me; I liked the humor and cheesy thrills. Harris gave the audience exactly what they wanted: a sequel, with lots of Hannibal.

That said, the early buzz on the film was that it wasn't going to be good. So I wanted to see it early, before I had my mind distorted by the media. I'm glad I did, because I liked the movie. It was loyal to the book in most regards, and well-directed and written. It would have been better with the original ending, and there were some confusing and rushed portions: Mason Verger's gory history was poorly edited and incomprehensible for those who haven't read the book, and the new ending was filled with bizarre inaccuracies and "clever" plot points which made no sense. The film is certainly not going to win Oscars for anyone; it is not the least bit ground-breaking like the earlier film. But it's a fun ride. Think of it like the new super roller coaster put in to replace the old one. There are many of the same thrills, and it's good fun, but it will never be as good as the original.

I bought Crichton's Next as a printed book and listened to this one as an audiobook; I should have done them the other way around. Harris' book is much better written, but confusing as an audiobook -- it's too easy to miss vital pieces of information if you aren't paying attention. Harris himself reads it, which is cool: he does an impressive job, even doing character voices and speaking various languages. The story is simple enough: this is about the childhood of Hannibal, the serial killer from several of Harris' other books. Here we meet Hannibal's parents, his tutor, and see Hannibal's keen intelligence. We also experience the horrors that turned him into a cold monster who eats human flesh. As you might expect, the book's exceedinly grim at times, though Harris' writing even makes that pleasurable (take, for instance, his description of a formerly bald man "who is now hirsute," with "green tendrils" coming from his head... and we gradually realize the man's head is severed and has been floating in a barrel for an extended period of time). The plot is not speedy, but the journey so delightful, filled with Hannibal's key influences and experiences, that we are happy to let Harris' pace things. We witness Hannibal's first kill, and then it becomes obvious that the main plot is Hannibal's quest for revenge. One by one he will kill the people who killed his family and abused him so cruelly as a child. Of course this is Hannibal Lector -- these cannot be ordinary killings -- and Harris makes them appropriately different and dramatic. The end result is surprisingly literate, considering the topic; Hannibal is without a doubt one of the most unusual and memorable characters in literature, and this book finally explains what created him, and why his character can be simultaneously sympathetic and horrific.

I'd just finished the book when I heard the movie was coming out; unusual timing. Unfortunately, though I really wanted to like the film, I can't recommend it. It has a lot of good things -- the cast, though unknown, is decent, and it's well-done from a technical perspective. Unfortunately all the book's profundity is lost and all that's left is a mere revenge story, a meaningless and extremely ugly story of violence and hate. In the book there were aspects of the story that revealed things about Hannibal's character; in the movie those are forgotten as the story's reduced to mere action plot points.

Shyamalan has made his reputation making suspense movies with unexpected endings. These have not always worked as they often rely too much on the gimmicky ending. They also can be inscrutible during the watching as you have no idea where the film is going or what is happening. This one follows the latter formula, but fortunately or unfortunately, it has no twist ending. Instead, the mystery is never fully explained. In a way, that is good: it's different and it fits with the film's message, but it's also exasperating if you're expecting a resolution. Instead you leave the film just as bewildered as before you went in! That said, I still liked the film. The premise is interesting -- a toxin of some kind is causing mass suicides and panic spreads as people flee to towns to rural areas to escape, and we follow a couple and their friend's daughter as they run away. No one knows why this is happening or how to stop it, which is the mystery which is never solved. But some of the characters are interesting (the wife and little girl are particularly good, though Mark Wahlberg as the man is poorly cast) and there are some shocks and frightening scenes which keep you intrigued. One thing Shyamalan did that was smart is to keep the film short: if it was longer than 90 minutes it would have felt too long. As it is, it's just long enough to feel creepy and fascinated, but not so long as to get annoying. I ended up liking the film, though it's certainly nothing remarkable. It's mildly interesting and has some good scenes and an idea or two, but in the end, like most of Shyamalan's recent films, it depends too much on a single idea and there's not enough depth or story. As entertainment, it's not bad, but don't expect much. Get out of it what you can. I did and liked it, but your mileage may vary.

Terrific, clever French film about fate and coincidence, slightly similar to Serendipity and Amelie. The story deals with the interconnecting lives of a dozen or so people (so many it's difficult to keep track of them) and how the tiniest detail can change a person's future. For example, a girl abandons a bag in the subway and the train skips that stop because the authorities need to check the bag as a potential bomb. A man on the train therefore misses his stop and his reunion with his old girlfriend, who just happens to be the former roommate of the girl who left the bag! (And that's a simple example of the complex interlinking in this film.)

Remarkably clever and fascinating, but ultimately many of the coincidences fail to go anywhere (or aren't explained), which is a let down, and the abrupt ending leaves us a little puzzled. Still, this is way more ambitious than typical Hollywood offerings, and I think it would get stronger with repeated viewings (you'd notice details you missed earlier).

Bizarre, quirky film that deals with extreme subjects (like pedophilia) in a loosely satricial fashion. The whole point is summarized in the title, as in, the search for (Happiness) and what it all means. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really uncover anything too revealing, though the presentation is unique, and it has fun poking fun at society's trivialities. Some great characters and great moments, but falls a little short of a great film. Sample moment: fat slob loser geek with crush on beautiful neighbor (a successful writer with too many boyfriends and no painful life experiences) finally meet after his anonymous phone sex calls have got her extremely interested, and after a long, awkward silence, she finally says, "You're not my type." and that's that. Realistic. Best moment? When the fat neighbor with crush on fat slob loser geek finally go on a date and the unexpected happens. Hilarious!

This film was written and directed by the guy who did one of my favorite films, Heathers. Unfortunately, even though this movie is above average for its genre, it's still a silly teen sex comedy. It's about growing-up adventures by camp counselors at summer camp. It's mildly interesting and has a few good moments, but really can't get escape its genre.

Wow, what a FANTASTIC film. I realize that the subject matter might turn many people off, so this could be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of film, but I thought it was incredible. The story's incredibly simple: a fourteen-year-old girl meets a 32-year-old guy online, meets him in person, and goes home with him. Then the tables turn as we discover the prey is the guy and she's the hunter, out to make him pay for his perversion. That's the gimmick, of course, and most films would just stop there, but this film was created by smart people: the script is written by a playwright, important for a film that almost entirely takes place in a house with just the two primary characters. Every line of dialogue is brilliant and subtle, charged with extra meaning, and the actors in this are incredible: Ellen Page as the girl and Patrick Wilson as the guy both deserve Oscar nominations. The girl is an incredibly intelligent teen and Page plays her with just the right amount of strength and volunerability, confidence and nervous fear, a fascinating mixture that makes her astonishing and fascinating to watch. Wilson doesn't play his villain as purely evil but as ordinary human, and many times during the film you're sympathizing with him, as horrifying as that seems later. Both characters are confronted with their demons and forced to see themselves for who they truly are and it's not always pretty. This film will make you think and think again, and you'll come away thinking and wondering. The film asks many questions and while it has a satisfying conclusion, it doesn't wrap up every detail and leaves you plenty of meat to gnaw on later. Wonderful!

I will date myself horribly here, but not only had I never seen this film, I am unfamiliar with the Beatles. In fact, for the first twenty minutes or so I had to keep scratching my head in amazement that Paul McCartney was a Beatle! (When did that happen? ;-) But it makes sense: my familiarity with Paul, John, and George comes from the late 80's and their single careers (John of course was gone but still had hits like "Imagine"). I never connected those people with the Beatles, and the glimpses of the Beatles I'd seen showed young boys and I never really made the connection with them as adults. I'm sure that's strange for Beatle fans, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that way. Anyway, this is a pretty cool movie. I'm not sure if it's fiction, scripted or not (it feels unscripted like a documentary), but it's fun. It's basically just a day in the life of the Beatles, following them throughout London as they get ready for a TV appearance. They periodically sing, so this is in many ways the 1960's equivalent of the music video. The dialog between the four guys is totally like The Monkeys TV show -- I assume the show got that from this movie. As to the music, I recognized some of the classics and liked those, but the ballads put me to sleep. The piece is dated in some funny ways: the guys look pretty ordinary to me, but apparently there was some kind of scandal over their "outrageous" hairdos. I couldn't really figure that one out. Overall, two thumbs up.

The idea sounds good: a young, quirky cameraperson at a TV network gets a lead on an "innocent man imprissoned" story she wants to cover. She must find evidence to free him, but people and circumstance conspire against her. Unfortunately, the book's resolution is convoluted and doesn't make that much sense, and there are distracting personal stories that confuse things even more. The whole thing feels unfocused and directionless, though in the end progress is made. This would be a good novel for condensation. It's not that bad and it's got some interesting situations, but the overall story is weak.

Woo's American movie debut. I'd never seen it before, but it's a superior action flick despite staring Jean-Claude Van Damme (I like him, but his movies are usually routine). The plot's a familiar variation of "The Most Dangerous Game" (hunters hunting humans, in this case homeless veterans), but the action's cool and stylistic.

Routine, saccharine tale about a loser with gambling debts roped into to coaching a projects kids baseball team. He gradually learns to love the kids, they soften up to him, and the team of losers and misfits wins the championship against all odds. Hooray. Predictable as rain in May, but still competently done. Fun if you don't mind being shamelessly manipulated.

Excellent medical/legal thriller, with an anesthesiologist, wrongly convicted of malpractice and second-degree murder, jumping bail to prove his innocence. Intelligent, well-drawn characters, believably paced (no superheroes here), with lots of medical detail, action, and suspense. I couldn't put it down (I started it on Saturday). The ending was a little suspicious (lawyers were at the heart the conspiracy), but it's such a feel-good conclusion you don't care.

I figured this for a stupid stoner comedy and it is: but except for a few places where it tries to out-crude Dumb and Dumber, it's hiliarious. I rarely laugh out loud at a movie, but this one had me in stitches in certain places. Perhaps I was just in the mood (Could it have been the medical marijuana they gave out at the theatre entrance? Just kidding!), but it's just so outrageous, silly, and absurd I couldn't help but giggle. It's really cool. The plot is simple: two stoner dudes, one an Indian (Kumar) who keeps avoiding medical school and the other a straight-laced Korean (Harold) who's stuck working in a boring financial firm, decide to go to White Castle for some yummy burgers and find all sorts of odd obstacles in their way. It's a road trip film, with all sorts of detours and bizarre characters on the way. Of course the two stoners just blink and go right on, practically oblivious and single-minded in their determination to get to White Castle. Some of the scenes are classics. For instance, Kumar pulls the car over in the middle of nowhere and runs to pee in the woods. While he's doing his business, suddenly a strange guy -- I'm pretty sure it was Jamie Kennedy in a cameo -- comes up next to him and starts peeing in the same bush! They have this surreal conversation about what the heck's going on and it's just so out-of-place, uncomfortable, and funny you can't help but laugh. The whole film's like that, with strange moments that just make you grin. I won't spoil the details of all their adventures -- just trust that if you like silly comedies like Dumb and Dumber, you'll love this one. There's even some not-too-subtle jabs at society, such as when the entire police force attack an unarmed black man harmlessly reading a book for "attempting to escape his jail cell." The ending is awesome, with the two stoners growing from their experiences, but not too much: we certainly wouldn't want them being too responsible as that wouldn't be very funny.

My number two favorite film of all time. Amazing, mesmerizing, and hilarious story of a lifeless young "poor little rich boy" who discovers a vivacious 80-year-old woman who teaches him to enjoy existence. Every scene is masterfully orchestrated: not a word of dialogue is excessive, every happening is critical to the plot, every shot is flawlessly composed, and the performances are genuine. This is truly a perfect film. After 30 years it has lost none of its power: perhaps it's even gained import considering the pointlessness of modern life. This is a film I could watch every month and enjoy more every time.

Almost as soon as I finished the first one, I started on the second. It's just about as good, picking up right where the previous book left off, and continuing to delight and inspire. Harry's a terrific hero: modest, imperfect, and with a heart of gold. He always wins, but not without help from his friends, and not by how you'd expect. Yet he's perfectly believable as the hero. Too many stories create larger-than-life heroes that are just ridiculous, while others take a nobody and suddenly have them doing noble and heroic things that just don't fit their mediocre character. Harry's wonderful! Makes me wish I had children to read the books to!

I had to see this one on opening day, so I went to a matinee to beat the crowds (there were still a couple hundred people in the theatre). It's not the event the first film was, but as a film, it's excellent -- better than the first (just like the book). With the setting established, this time we could concentrate on a more complex plot and other adventures of the main characters. It's three hours long, but you won't notice it: there's always something happening and it's never boring (the first one bogged in exposition in a few places, like where they explain the rules to Quiditch, etc.). For someone who hasn't seen the first, the lack of explanation could be a problem, but who'd want to see this that hasn't seen the first one? Just great. It's been a while since I've read the book, but it appeared to be extremely faithful, though a few minor details might be been left out. I do love the attention to detail in these films -- they are special effect heavy, but in the world of Harry Potter magic is so ordinary that they don't bother making a big deal about it, so you'll have a scene and notice that in the background, all the pictures are moving (the way they do in the magical world). Cool. I can't wait for Harry Potter 3!

Wow. This book is the best since the first, and a terrific cap for the series. If you thought Rowling was making all this up as she went along, this proves she was not, for everything is revealed in this book. All the little storylines are wrapped up and questions answered. There are flashbacks to previous books and we suddenly see all sorts of hints and clues in those that we never noticed before. Rowling knew exactly what she was doing. It is brilliant. I can't think of another multi-series of books that are so tightly plotted. As for the story in this one, it's also brilliant. All the books so far have followed a similar plotline: Harry goes back to school, learns stuff, gets into mischief, and stops some evil Voldemort plot. But this one is different. This is a different Harry. In this one, he and Ron and Hermione skip school and set right out on the mission left them by Dumbledore in the last book, looking for additional devices containing portions of Voldemort's soul. If even one of these is not destroyed, Voldemort can rebuild himself, so all of them must be destroyed before Voldemort can be battled. This all leads to a dramatic wizard war at Hogwarts (I can't wait to see the battle on film) and the final controntation between Harry and Voldemort. (Come on, that was obvious -- I'm not giving anything away by telling you that.) I won't leak the ending, but I will say that it is exactly as it should be: appropriate, dramatic, and utterly satisfying. It's the perfect conclusion to the perfect series. This book is one of the fastest reading, too: it's just non-stop excitement and you can't put it down. I didn't start reading until late Saturday night and finished it Monday night. Highly recommended.

I finally got some time to finish this. Excellent, excellent book. Best of the series, though they are all very good. I was most impressed at how Rowling reinvents the series with each sequel, including enough familiar elements we're all comfortable with it, but with plenty of new stuff to delight us all over again. For instance, in the first three books a major part of the story was the annual Quidditch tournament. By the third book I was getting pretty tired of reading about Quidditch matches. But in this book the Quidditch tournament is canceled in favor of something else (I'll let you read to find out what) -- brilliant. And once again, Rowling surprises us with the twisting ending. Another change: this book ends with an ominous opening for plenty of sequels. I don't know what's going to happen, but I can see that she's set herself up for major changes in the wizardy world.

What's there to say? A good adaptation of a good book. It's fairly faithful (especially considering the length of the original source), is entertaining, fun, and has some good drama as the tone of the series becomes more serious. Nothing remarkable here, however. It's everything we expect in the series. Recommended, of course, but just don't expect more than the book.

I didn't particularly like the last book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, so I wasn't sure what to expect of this new one. At least it reads quickly (I started reading it on Tuesday). This one is more fun and interesting than Phoenix, but I will warn you that it does not end. It's basically a pre-quel for the final book (book seven), so don't get your hopes up that anything's resolved her. I can see where Rowling is going and I like it and can't wait for the next one: she's really got Harry growing up and becoming a man and a viable foe to the evil Voldermort, which makes sense (the idea of a child beating the wizard always seemed a little too David and Golioth). Unfortunately, this book is mostly growing pains -- there is no real plot to speak of, which is a little disappointing. Instead we just have Harry and the gang growing older and learning new responsibilities. It's a bit tedious at times, though Rowling's magical world is amusing enough to make it endurable. I don't think this book would make a very good film, though: you'd probably have to combine with a bit of book seven so that something would happen. The odd thing is that I still liked this one better than Phoenix. I am prepared, however, to really like the seventh. That's where the fireworks hit the fan.

Well, after years of waiting, the seventh book is finally published. It's a big book and took me just over a week to read it. Now I'm sad because I'll have to wait for years for the next one!

I don't want to make this a review of the book; that's not the purpose of my comments. I'm here to record my impressions, the aspects I found significant to me. In that sense, I found I was less impressed with the plot and the conclusion in this one. While Rowling does her usual excellent job of dotting all the i's and crossing the t's, connecting all the plot points, this book ends without Potter really doing anything heroic to stop He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Instead, it's Dumbledore who saves the day. While it makes sense in the context of the book, it's just not as satisfying as the previous novels. The bulk of the book is also quite depressing: Hogwarts is taken over by a horrible politician who has an evil agenda and is cruel to all our favorite characters, which makes for glum reading. While Rowling does keep funny things happening and the mystery makes things entertaining, this book is my least favorite of the series. That said, Rowling does an excellent job of preparing us for the battle and war to come in the future books. By the end of this one, it's obvious that the kids are not kids any more, and the conflicts upcoming will be serious ones involving death and mayhem, not just mild magical maladies. I love the direction she's going because it automatically keeps every novel fresh. This is a series, after all, and it's really one very long story. Rowling certainly hasn't lost her witty writer's touch, and I look forward to the future novels. This one certainly isn't bad by any means -- it's just an obvious stepping stone to the future instead of a complete story on it's own. (It's similar, in that respect, to Matrix Reloaded, which is weakened by being only a part of a longer story.) If you're a fan of the series, you've got to read it, of course. It's a little darker, but mostly it just hints at future darkness. By the end we can sense Potter has grown a great deal.

This is one of my least favorite of the books and I wasn't expecting the movie to be very good. To my surprise, this is one of the best Harry Potter movies. The book is long and rambling and unfocused; it's too dark and missing some of the clever Potter humor, and the grim ending is depressing. The movie trims all this down into an excellent action-filled storyline. The plot is basically about how the Ministry of Magic is trying to cover up all rumors that He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named has returned, smearing Harry Potter's name in the process, and putting the marvelously acted Delores Umbridge in charge of Hogwarts School. She instigates a campaign of terror that rivals Hitler; all with a chillingly happy smile. Harry is worried because defensive magic skils are not being taught so he undertakes the task of training a group of student volunteers in secret. In the end, those students end up helping him to stop Voldemort, who's out to steal a prophecy about Harry from the Ministry. The ending is just as grim as the book, but in the film it works as the whole film is on the serious side with plenty of ominous foreshadowing. The climax between Voldemort and Harry is excellently done, with some impressive performances. All and all this is a Harry Potter who's growing up: he's still young but is believable as an adult in this one. Some people may not like that Harry and the film's are changing, but that is reality. I really liked this movie.

Well, Rowling's done it again! I thought the first two were amazingly well plotted, but Azkaban is even more complex. The plot deals with an escaped convict who's out to kill Harry. He's Harry's godfather, the man who betrayed Harry's parents to You-Know-Who and got them killed. Of course, nothing's ever quite what it seems in a Harry Potter novel. This third book in the series wears a little, and many aspects of Harry's school are familiar and rather boring. (The subplot to win the sporting match was routine and not the least bit exciting.) Still, we learn a lot more about Harry's father, meet some interesting new characters, and there's plenty of magical mayhem and mischief to keep us hooked. All-in-all? A little uneven. Certain aspects I liked better than previous books (I loved the concept of the Dementors, the horrible prison guards from Azkaban), but there were other parts that felt flat. I especially didn't like the very end, which didn't really resolve anything and left a huge opening for a sequel. Still, if you're a Harry Potter fan, this book isn't to be missed!

Terrific film, my favorite of the series so far (it's also one of my favorite books in the series). In this one the kids are more grown up, the adventure more serious, the evil more ominous and sublte. And for once the bad guy isn't He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, but escaped Azkaban prisoner Sirius Black, out to kill Harry Potter. All the same gang is here, and everyone contributes to the satisfying resolution. The film moves at a good pace, and its darker tone is fitting of a Harry Potter who is less innocent and shows signs of frightening power. The way the dementors are graphically presented is excellent, well-done considering their power is mostly psychological. Excellent all the way around; two thumbs up for the hippogriff special effects: astonishingly believable creature. Great stuff.

I first heard of Harry Potter on a TV news report describing the British phenomenon -- kids lined up for blocks at bookstores in malls waiting for the next book in the series! My mother, as a teacher, had to find out what Potter was all about, and so this weekend when I visited, I read her copy (I started at 10 p.m. Friday and finished it before noon on Saturday). First, just forget the controversy that the Potter books are light or weird or demonic or whatever. This book is a delightful fantasy. Though geared toward children, it's very well written and surprisingly literate (and long at over 300 pages). It's witty and the silly adventures of the kid heroes are wonderful. I loved the charming characters and the plot was surprisingly complex -- about one hundred times more intelligent than a typical children's book (like a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew mystery). There are clever twists and nothing's quite as simple as you assumed. This book is good enough I wouldn't mind reading it again the second I finished it (instead I rushed out and bought the sequels). If you like humor, fun, and adventure, you'll like this book. While it's not metaphorical like C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, it's a good versus evil story using magic as the medium. If this is what it takes to get children today to read, I vote for hundreds of sequels!

Excellent film -- amazingly faithful to the book. I've never understood why Hollywood changes books when making films, but this one they did right. It's a bit long, yes, but the screenery is so lush and spectacular I doubt you'd mind (just empty your bladder before the film starts). The casting was wonderful -- far better than I could have hoped. Usually casting is awkward, since the readers feel they already know the characters and the movie feels too different, but this one worked. (I can only hope the same is true for the next month's Lord of the Rings -- I'll reserve judgment until I see it, but I have misgivings.) Overall, a good fun film.

Not a movie but a short-lived TV series from X-Files creator Chris Carter. This series was just released on DVD -- all nine episodes. Apparently six of those never even aired on TV as the series was canceled after just three shows! Was really pisses me off about that is that though I am an ideal candidate to watch this show -- I loved the X-Files, I'm a big Chris Carter fan, and I love science fiction -- I never even heard of this show until it was released on DVD! That's ridiculous. Why the hell wouldn't Fox promote the show? At least tell us it's a Chris Carter show! That would get me to tune in. And canceling it after just three shows? That's really dumb. Why even bother to make it in the first place with such a lack of commitment? As you can tell, I am rather vexed by this. That a show that appeals to me as much as the premise of this one and I never even knew it existed is just lame. I don't blame myself, I blame the morons at Fox. When I first saw this DVD set released I thought it must have been some weird Chris Carter cable show that only aired a few episodes -- I'm shocked that it was on a major network and I never heard of it. Just ridiculous.

Of course what makes that even worse is that the show is very good. It died too early to say if it would be great, but judging from the quality of the nine episodes, I'd say it started out good and was getting better and better (the ninth episode was my favorite). It's a real shame the show died before it was born. While this show came out the same year as The Matrix, this virtual reality premise is much better. Instead of robots running the show, the U.S. military as created Harsh Realm, a virtual reality world that mimics the real world. Unfortunately, a rogue general has hijacked the world and is remaking it in his image. He's created his own armies and is taking over Harsh Realm. The military in the real world can't do anything about it because they don't know where or how the general's gaining access into Harsh Realm. The only way to stop him is within the game. But that's almost impossible considering his power. So the military sends in volunteers and problem soldiers, leaving them in the game forever. Our young hero is one of these. Just before he's to leave the army and marry his fiance, he ends up trapped in Harsh Realm. The only way out is to kill Santiago, the rogue general. Unfortunately, Santiago makes a South American dictator seem like an amateur. So the TV series has twin plotlines: the adventures of the hero soldier within the game, and the conspiracy coverup his fiance faces in the real world as she searches for clues, trying to find her lost love (the government told her he died, but she's figured out that's a lie). Very cool premise. There are some things I don't like, just like in the Matrix: that death is real (i.e. you die in VR you die in real life); that certain people have "magical" abilities to modify "reality" within the game and "cheat" (i.e. heal bullet wounds, walk through walls, etc.); and the whole mystical "the one" silliness. Harsh Realm adds a couple new improbably technology wrinkles to the mix. First, that the Realm is an exact duplicate of the real world, down to the mole on your grandmother's neck and the fact that Aunt Sylvia loves strawberries and whipped cream, and second, that many of the "people" in the Realm are virtual characters (not real). Preposterious! No way even the military has storage capability to simulate the idenitities and behaviors of six billion people, let alone have some way to scan every human being and know everything about them. And virtual characters that act like real human beings? For that to happen the computer would have to understand language -- it would have to be human. We are hundreds of years from anything like that, if ever. But beyond those two conceits, the show's entertaining. It has an anthology, Twilight Zone feel to it. Since anything goes within virtual reality, stories have a wide range, often not having anything to do with the previous episodes. That's probably part of the reason the network balked at the show: anthologies are difficult to attract an audience because the stories are completely different every week. For instance, one episode of Harsh Realm had the two main characters stumble into a WWII simulation and get stuck, unable to escape, reliving the same battle over and over again. In another (my favorite), the two get caught up in a feud between two families living in the radioactive rubble of NYC who are after the same pile of gold (which turns out to be radioactive).

Good stories, stylish production, conspiracies, and more, the show had a great premise and should have been given a chance. Unfortunately, Fox sucks. They also cancelled the Lone Gunmen before it could get a foothold (though at least I heard about that one and tuned in). I guess Fox doesn't remember how long it took The X-Files to become popular.

Nice idea -- a group of insomniacs stay at a haunted house as part of what they think is a sleep study (but really is a fear study) -- but it soon drops into a derivative ghost story. Impressive special effects, especially the amazing house. It's sad -- the film could have been so much better. For instance, I loved the concept that the insomniacs are so unstable that all the "ghost" effects are just their sleep-deprived imaginings. The director could have used that to better effect, making us, the audience, wonder if what we see is real or fake. Unfortunately, we are treated to exotic special effects right off the bat, making us realize that these "ghosts" are real -- there's no suspense or ambiguity. The conclusion's a gimmicky, far-fetched twist, and the overly complicated "ghost story" is interesting but ultimately unfilling. I never did figure out how the heroine suceeded. I didn't really care either. Not the least bit scary, this film is a good "might have been." Worth seeing only if you like the stars or want to see some cool special effects.

Now this is the way to do a film! This clever movie lets us see it twice: once through the romantic eyes of the perfect Audrey Tautou, and then it rewinds and we watch it again from the perspective of her lover. Unlike Femme Fatale, where the rewind gimmick didn't quite work, here it works brilliantly. We totally buy the initial premise: that sweet, lonely Audrey is in love with a married doctor who teases her with promises of leaving his wife. We hate him and feel so sorry for her. But gradually Audrey's obsession with him becomes unhealthy, and soon that leads to tragedy. It's then the film suddenly starts over, and we watch the same events again, but this time from the man's point of view. Our first shock is that he doesn't even know who she is! In the first viewing, when she had a single rose delivered to him, he reads the card and smiles, and it only when we see it from his perspective that we hear him tell his secretary that the rose is from his wife (the card is unsigned). Slowly everything we knew about Audrey's character is ripped to shreds and we see that she's really a dangerous stalker and the poor doctor is an innocent pawn in a game he knows nothing about. Wonderful. The film's ending drags on a little and has a puzzling flaw -- surely the police would have picked her up before she attacked him -- but that's a minor gripe and the final scene is just wonderfully creepy. Tautou is absolutely perfect. She's got the romantic firepower of a Meg Ryan with the emotional depth of Meryl Streep. She plays her role with just the right mixture of innocence and lunatic obsession, coming across as sympathetic even as she's being diabolical! That's a feat few can master. Yes, the film is gimmicky, but like The Sixth Sense, it's a gimmick that works exceptionally well. Terrific film -- I can't wait to see it again.

Not a bad concept, but the film is too complicated and too slow at times. It takes place in France before WWII, and deals with three people, a guy and two women. One woman is the free spirit who loves the other woman. The second woman is from Spain and wants to be a nurse. The guy loves the first woman but is involved with politics and wants to fight in the Spanish civil war. He and the nurse go there against the wishes of the first woman, who cares nothing about politics. Later, however, when the man is involved with the Allies in WWII and goes on spy missions to France, he meets the first girl and discovers her secret: she's really a spy passing information she gets from her German lover. The ending is sad and rather unusual (I guess it's meant to be ironic). Unfortunately, the whole movie takes way too long to get going. The real plot doesn't begin until the WWII spy stuff begins and that's not until 2/3rds of the movie. Not great, not terrible, above average at times and slow and boring at others.

The conference is over -- it was great. Lots of neat people (really, really smart people), some great sessions that will make me a better programmer, and some fantastic new products. I cannot tell you how excited I am about Yuma. It's a PHP replacement built using REALbasic as the language: not only does that make it much easier to program than PHP, but I can reuse existing code to easily turn my RB projects into web apps! Wow.

In other news, the new Association of REALbasic Professonals was formed and I have the honor of being elected as one of the five board members. I guess someone thinks I'm capable of something!

It's now Saturday morning and in an hour I leave for the airport and my flight home. I sure hope it's uneventful. I've had enough travel adventures this time to last me for a long, long time.

Did this do well in the theatres? I saw the previews and thought it looked fun, but it seemed to disappear quickly. I don't know why: I liked it a lot. It's about a mother-daughter team of con artists. The mother marries rich men, the daughter seduces them and manages to get caught in the act, and then the mother divorces for a nice settlement. As the mom, Sigourney Weaver's good, but her character's too immoral for us to really like her. But we love Jennifer Love Hewitt, who's quirky, silly, arrogant, and drop-dead gorgeous. She really holds the movie, somehow managing to be an innocent sexy seductress. She's desperate to leave her mother and strike out on her own, but her mother won't let her go, to the point of conning her own daughter to trick her into staying. Best scene? When JLH, dressed to thrill, goes into a bar following a rich mark, a guy walks up and asks her if she'd like a drink. "Is that the best you can do?" she asks, scorning his offer. She then delivers a blistering speech on the stupidity of the guy and men in general. Finally, she stops to catch her breath. "So why'd you offer me a drink?" He smiles. "Because I'm the bartender." Wow, there's nothing more satisfying than a beautiful woman full of herself getting shot down! Of course, she and the bartender (who it turns out owns the bar) are such opposites they become romantically involved.

The film's comedy comes from outrageous characters and from putting the grifters in awkward situations, like when Weaver, pretending to be a Russian immigrant, is forced on stage at a Russian restaurant and told to sing a Russian song. You're fascinated, wondering how she'd going to get out of it, but somehow she does, all without her mark suspecting she's a phony. Most of the time the film moves at a rapid pace, providing us with interesting things to see. Unfortunately, it begins to fade after 90 minutes of excellency. The plot become complicated and takes off in a new direction, bringing back the ex-husband Weaver had divorced at the start of the film, and while I was expecting several "conning the con artists" twists, these were mediocre and too predictable. (I kept hoping the daughter would finally put one over her mother.) Still, the ending was appropriately pleasant, and the mother-daughter relationship was extremely convincing (Sigourney and JLH have great chemistry). The bottom line: a fun, sexy, and pleasant film that's just 20 minutes too long. (What's frightening is that the DVD includes over 20 minutes of deleted footage! Most of these explain plot things that are inferred anyway and are thus unnecessary, but a few are funny bits trimmed for time.)

This is an amazing film. It's the true story of two New Zealand teenage girls in the 1950's who conspire to commit murder. That alone would be sufficient spectacle for most films, but Jackson brilliantly takes it a step further. He gets us into the girls' heads by playfully making their fantasy lives real. In one sequence, as the girls play on the beach with the sand castle they created, the camera zooms inside the castle and in it we meet the prince and princess the girls imagine live there. The benefit of this technique, besides making for a fascinating visual presentation, is that it shows us the power of dementia, for these girls believe in their fantasies even more than they do their real lives. As the film darkens and becomes more tragic, the playful aspects of fantasy become morbid and disturbing; what was once an idle game is now grim horror. Amazing writing, acting, and directing. This is a must see film.

Good crime thriller, though it gets a little too convoluted at the end. The main guy's a con artist/master thief. After he pulls his last job, ready to retire in South America with his girl, his fence partner won't give him his share of the loot unless he completes one more job. Reluctantly, he agrees, and he and his team pull off a gold heist. But there's lots of back-stabbing, betrayals, and sleight of hand until the final frame. It's a bit much. Still, it's interesting, well-acted, and the gold robbery is cool.

Surprisingly fun little comic-book adventure. The plot's rather pointless and obvious (evil guy wants to open portal to hell or some such nonsense and Hellboy must stop him), and most of the supporting characters are one-dimensional and stereotypical. One makes the film work is Ron Perlman has Hellboy. His sarcastic, self-depreciating attitude brings a rude humor to the proceedings that is delightfully subtle and grim. For example, in one scene while wrestling with a monster he mumbles something about "not on the first date" and it took me a second to realize he was talking about the monster's tongue wrapped around his body. That's great stuff. Too many films have fallen into the Shwartzenegger-style quip where the line mimics the situation too obviously (parodied so excellently on The Simpsons). While routine, this film was more fun than I expected.

I liked the first one mainly for its sense of humor and this one continues that trend. It's still a comic book movie with lots of action and special effects, but it doesn't take itself too seriously. The creatures/mutations (or whatever they are) are also humorously inventive, so that the whole thing is a fun crazy ride instead of being implausible. The plot's okay, but nothing special; this one is just one, especially Hellboy's sarcastic and blunt approach to everything.

I like Clive Barker the writer and artist, but I hadn't seen his movie. It's actually pretty good, though in a gory fashion. It deals with a mysterious puzzle box that takes people into heaven/hell where monsters torture them for eternity. The people who open the box end up with more horror than they wanted. Kinda bizarre and flimsy concept, but the film is better than that: it primarily deals with a brother who was destroyed by the box coming back to life when given blood -- he convinces his brother's wife (with whom he had an affair) to kill people for him so he has more blood and can heal. Intriguing concept, and I liked the way the normal woman becomes a monster to help her former lover. The graphics were pretty good, too: the guy's a walking skeleton but each dead man adds flesh. Quite horrible, but interestingly, I found the human woman more frightening.

This picks up right where the other left off, with the daughter put into an asylum because they think she's crazy with her story of the demons inside a box. It's pretty much more of the same after that, with the evil woman who died in the first movie coming back to life the way the man did in the first one (she needs fresh blood to revive). The daughter is looking for the soul of her father, who's in torment, but it turns out it was just a trick to get her back into the box. Okay. At least these are a different kind of horror film.

In the trail of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon comes this Chinese action film that's even better. It's more complex on a moral level. Less fun, perhaps, for the stakes are higher, but marvelous direction makes it a treat for all the senses. The story seems simple: a young "hero" is brought to the court of the King to be rewarded for killing three deadly assassins who wanted the King dead. The King is skeptical: how could this nobody defeat three warriors when all his armies and top killers had failed? The hero tells his tale. But that's when things start to get complicated. Soon we wonder if the hero has an alternative agenda: is he telling the truth? Alternative versions of what happened swirl into the picture, truth emerging as the stories converge. The twists are delightful, completely logical and marvelous, and the moral dilemma at the conclusion will leave you pondering: what is a hero? In terms of its exploration of the morality of killing, this film strongly reminded me of the awesome Unforgiven. It's a film full of amazing action, color, striking visuals, and awe-inspiring vistas. The acting is also excellent (thankfully the film is in Chinese with subtitles, not dubbed, so we get the real performances of the stars). This is a film that will appeal to everyone: it's Chinese history, it's martial arts action, it's profound and thought-provoking, and it's emotional and moving. I expect it to win some major awards. Astonishing.

This seemed pointless and derivative when I saw the trailers, but I actually liked it. The twist at the end explains things (it's a Sixth Sense sort of thing). But unfortunately, without that twist, you don't have much. The Sixth Sense was fascinating even without the ending; this one is dreary, puzzling, and confusing until you get the explanation. All you know is the mother committed suicide and the daughter's troubled. She has an imaginary friend who's apparently doing bad things. As those get worse and worse, it's more and more serious. But without understanding what's going on, it's difficult to really steep yourself in the story. Still, I liked the ending, which was clever.

Decent little military court-martial flick, but with an overdone "Hollywood" plot. Good performances by Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, but the plot's just too much. Judd plays a top San Francisco lawyer who's husband is arrested for military crimes. She discovers he's not who she thought he was: he has a different name and a past he never told her about. But he claims he's innocent so she sets out to prove it, enlisting the help of former drunk Freeman who used to be a top military lawyer. Throughout the rest of the movie she's fighting the dirty tactics done by the evil military cover-up people, plus wavering on whether her husband is innocent or not. Like I said, too much. Still, not a bad film, just not great.

Essentially this film is about a record store owner griping about his shabby love life and trying to figure out why girlfriends keep breaking up with him. What's interesting is the perspective: John Cusack narrates directly into the camera, and his style of delivery and constant use of "Top Five" lists (best records, top five worst breakups, best jobs, etc.) is unusual. As for plot, there isn't much of one. Towards the end the griping gets on your nerves and you're ready to kick Cusack in the head for being such a moron, but finally he resolves his relationship and becomes an adult. Pretty good flick, especially interesting if you like music, though I'm not such a music geek as to actually have heard many of the albums and songs mentioned (my definition of "classic" music is music I've never heard of).

A surprisingly decent comedy caper about a couple women in London who happen to overhear a conversation about a bank robbery and decide to blackmail the gansters involved. Of course everything goes wrong and the gansters are not amused, but our plucky heroines, through dumb luck and the occasional bit of intelligence, manage to outwit professional killers. Quite fun.

A classic Western I'd never seen. Perhaps not quite as good as I expected, but excellent. A town's Marshall retires and gets married. Minutes later he's informed a killer he put away is returning to the town on the noon train. So the Marshall decides to stay and face him. His bride's a Quaker and against violence, and she gives him an ultimatum: she will leave if he stays. He stays. During the time before the villains arrive, he sets out to recruit some deputies, but everyone in town is afraid of the killers and won't help him. In the end he must face the killers alone. The gun battle is actually impressive: not a simple "fastest gun" shoot like you might expect, but a dodge-and-run shootout. Unfortunately, it takes place in the final five minutes of the film, and then the movie just ends. There's no follow-up, no explanations, no finishing of the story. Nothing wrong with that--I just would have preferred more story--especially why the wife changed her mind. There was also a lot of history regarding the Marshall and why the town wouldn't help him that was never made that clear. Sometimes that's fine--the author wants us to think--but in this case I felt a lot of the ambiguity was there to make things seem mysterious and profound. In other words, depth is implied, but it's not really there. Still, the film has a terrific atmosphere, superior acting, and a cool gunfight.

I wanted to see this in the theatres despite the negative reviews but the timing didn't work out. Now I'm glad I didn't bother. The worst thing about this movie is that it is boring. It shouldn't have been. The premise is great: an American long-distance riding champ goes to Africa to race 3,000 miles across the desert and beat the purebred Arabian horses with his wild Mustang. Unfortunately, endurance racing is like matching a marathon. It's just endless riding, boring as watching sand blow. So the writers throw in all sorts of ridiculous side plots, involving battles, kidnappings, attempts to cheat, etc., to keep the movie interesting. The result is a dreary mess. You already know Hildago will win the race, so there's no drama there, and the side plots are so obviously secondary we really don't care about them. The film's about 40 minutes too long, too. There are some good moments, but they are too few and too far apart. Mildly entertaining but mostly boring and meaningless.

I taped this from IFC last night. Not bad, certainly exciting and well done, but not particularly scary. More of a survival story than a horror story. It has a typical plot: family gets stranded in the desert unaware they are being watched by a bizarre family of mutant cannibals that want to eat them. As the family gets picked off one-by-one, it's up to the last remaining members to survive. Decent characterization, but doesn't have the shock of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

I wouldn't say this is a great film, but it's certainly above average. It's an intriguing premise: a regular guy working in his diner defends himself from criminals and shoots and kills two of them. Where did he learn such skills? What is his background? Suddenly questions are being asked, and the man's family begins to wonder who he is. Mysterious strangers visit the town and claim they know the man, that he's not Tom, but Joey, a gangster. The film is a lot like Clint Eastwood's amazing Unforgiven, which deals with the nature of a killer. Unfortunately, this film, while similar, doesn't give us much more of an understanding of that nature. The killings and violence are brutal and shocking, quite gory, but take place so quickly and suddenly that we wonder if we saw what we thought we saw. It's a profound effect, powerful, and makes the violence something disturbing -- a near-impossible task in today's jaded world where casual violence is a media constant.

That's impressive, but the film has two key flaws. One, the story is too linear and ordinary. On the one hand I like that -- it's better than the overly complicated plots most films use -- but this film hints at so much more that we're left disappointed at the ordinary ending. We're wanting to do something superhuman and have him kill like 50 people at the end instead of just a handful. This could have been corrected by less foreshadowing that something amazing was going to happen at the end. The second flaw is that the film only hints at the complex inter-personal relationships of the man with his family. When it does it's very good, but it doesn't go far enough. There are lots of scenes of "profound looks" between wife and husband, but I wanted more dialog, more literal expression, where she can question him about his past, ask him what it's like to kill, etc. Instead she's quietly angry and frustrated, sealing him off with silence, and he's not the most talkative man. The result is that we're left unsure of what we've seen. Is the man a hero? A murderer? An anti-hero? The silence leaves us with more questions than answers. While some abiguity is good, in this case, it weakens the most powerful aspect of the film. If you watch Unforgiven, it is filled with lectures on the nature of violence and evil, and it clearly condems killings. History has one such moment, where the killer dad scolds his son for fighting at school, but the moment is thrown away when the kid reacts angrily and storms off, reminding the dad of his own violence past, and the dad is left puzzled and unsure of himself. Granted, he's a different character from Eastwood's, but there are still many similarities, and Clint's film is better. History isn't bad at all: it's just not quite great. I'd still recommend you see it for yourself and make your own judgement, however. It's a deeply personal film and everyone must understand it in their own way.