The Z/Web Archive

Not terrible, just predictable and routine, with stereotypical characters. It's about a group of misfits that aren't quite good enough for the L.A. S.W.A.T. team but are brought together by a specialist into a super-SWAT team, and of course they go about and save the day, hooray. Fun.

This is a low budget film from the 60's that has gained a cult rep. The acting is poor (only one professional actor in the group), but the story's interesting, though the title's misleading. The title made me think this was a serial killer type story, but the lead bad guy's a kid, a twenty-year-old punk who has no respect for life and murders indiscriminately. He and his girlfriend take hostage a group of schoolteachers on their way to a baseball game when they had car trouble and stopped in a small deserted town where the murder and his girl were hiding out. The kid shoots one of the teachers for fun after making him get on his knees and beg for his life. The other two know they'll be next, and they stall for time trying to fix the car and plot their escape. Interesting concept, claustrophobic atmosphere, tight direction, but mostly notable as this was the first film for Oscar-winning cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond (though he's credited as William). The lead bad guy, played by the producer's son who wanted him to be a star, is pathetically bad (he later dropped out of acting saying his father had pushed him into it), but a few others aren't too bad. Still, while "shocking" at the time of its release, it's mild like a TV movie for today.

This wasn't at all as bad as I expected; it actually was pretty good. It's a difficult film to make with the story as broad as it is, and there is definitely some plot silliness, but overall it's just action-adventure and in that regard I liked it. Harmless.

The worst thing about this movie is the title: it's meaningless and tells you nothing about the film. I thought it was some kind of thriller, but it's more of a dark mystery. It's about drugs and drug-dealing, though we soon learn that the narrator, a supposed druggie, isn't, and has a secret agenda. Overall the thing feels rather uncertain of itself: like the main character, who pretending to be something he's not, so's the film. It is an action flick? A drug pic? A thriller? A mystery? A revenge picture? It doesn't know and seems to waiver oddly between them. The actual plot, once we get halfway through and start to figure it out, is surprisingly clever and impressive, but we have to wade through a lot of crap to get there. The best thing in the film is unquestionably Vincent D'Onofrio as Pooh-Bear, a drug dealer who did so much crack he lost his nose and wears a plastic one. He's hilarious, unrecognizable, and an amazing character. Unfortunately, he's not in the film enough -- but the movie's worth watching just for his performance. Other than that, the movie's okay, though the second half is better than the first (which is unusual).

I did not know anything about "American Girl" dolls prior to this film, but they sound like a neat idea: a line of young girl dolls from various points in history so that children can learn about history by exploring the lives of these doll characters. The "Samantha" doll/character in this movie is a girl from 1904 New York and in the story she befriends a working class girl and learns about the working conditions of child labor in that period. It's well done with impressive acting for such young girls, and the story, while not being profoundly deep, isn't totally smaltzy and has some emotional impact. Definitely the kind of thing you wouldn't mind your daughter watching. The DVD has some interesting extras that explain the whole "American Girl" doll phenomenon.

It was an exciting day: for the first time in history, San Jose went to their home opener as the reigning Major League Soccer champions. Now it's up to them to prove to everyone that last year's worst-to-first wasn't just a fluke. Before the game, the players were presented their Championship rings (the first 10,000 fans received replicas, which are pretty cool, if I do say so myself). A first for me is that I bought season tickets this year, so I didn't have to wait in line at the entrance. Very cool.

The game itself was great: the Quakes were facing the Revolution, who had a horrible season last year, but with consolidation in the league ended up with five All-Stars on this year's team! But San Jose put a damper on NE's enthusiasm just 92 seconds in when a little feed by Ariel Graziani put Manny Lagos in on goal by himself and he first-timed it past Jurgen Summer to give the Quakes the lead. That started a trend of total Quake domination. They had about 70% possession for most of the first half and chance after chance on goal, looking extremely dangerous. New England could barely complete a single pass, giving up the ball right and left. I counted at least twice where every single player on their team was in their own half of the field! The Revs almost had a goal when a frantic clearance by Jimmy Conrad almost put the ball into his own net, but it hit the post. Joe Cannon was forced to make a save or two, but it was mostly all San Jose. A bit later, Ekelund made a terrific block to stop a shot, and I remarked to the guy sitting near me, "Look at that: New England almost got a shot on goal. Can't have that." Still, as the half drew to a close and San Jose hadn't increased their lead, I grew worried. They were easing up on possession, letting the Revs have more of the ball, and they were starting to actually connect a few passes and gain confidence. With their dangerous strikers, I worried that a slight mistake could let them in, and sure enough, late in the first half, Senegalese strike "Big Mama" Mamadou Diallo took a through-ball that gave him a slight opening and he finished it cleanly into the far post beating Cannon. It was a good goal, but it was still depressing and a little unfair considering how much the Quakes had dominated.

In the second half, New England played better, starting to look like a real team. But San Jose played excellent, controlling things well, though still unable to score. Finally, in the 77th minute, substitute Dewayne Derosario bolted aggressively up the right side and played a ball to Landon Donovan in the penalty box. Though Landon had his back to goal and was tightly marked, he still managed to control the ball, the slide it over to an on-rushing Ronnie Ekelund who side-footed it into the back of the goal. It was Ronnie's first MLS goal, which was great to see (last season he had assists, but no goals). That was the game winner, as New England was pretty much dead after that. San Jose kept up the pressure, looking for another goal and keeping the Revs afraid of leaving their half of the field, but mostly the Quakes intelligently kept the ball, knowing the other team can't score without it. Good game with a great result, though I'd certainly like to see Landon a little more involved with creative play, and the Quakes need to finish more their chances. I don't like games like their last one against Colorado where they dominated play but couldn't finish and lost. But this win does give them a 2-1-0 record (win/loss/draw) for the season, which is an excellent start. New England's lost both of their games, so they're starting to feel the pressure. Final: 2-1 San Jose Earthquakes.

[Click for full view of the Championship Ring presentation]

Excellent game, though San Jose didn't get the two goals for me to get a free chicken taco from Una Mas. San Jose dominated play pretty much the whole game, with the Fire's Zach Thorton forced to make nearly a dozen saves. Joe Cannon, the Quakes' keeper, only had to make a couple stops. The only goal came late in the first half, when Graziani headed it home on a feed by Donovan. Graziani almost had a duplicate in the second half, but Thorton impossibly stopped it. Donovan had a couple good chances himself, though he mostly played mid-field in this game. Good stuff and the result puts San Jose 8 points clear of second-place Dallas. Final: 1-0 San Jose.

Awesome game, as useful. The Quakes come alive at home, and this was a celebration of soccer with the return of Landon Donovan from the great American success in South Korea. Before this game was a mediocre match between the Mexican side Morelia and the Argentinian River Plate. I like Argentinian soccer, but I wasn't familiar with this River Plate team, which seemed to be made of up extremely young players (probably River's "B" team). Morelia scored four minutes in and then just defended, while the young River players seemed to lose composure when they got near the goal and couldn't finish. Finally, late in the second half they equalized, and then the game got a little more interesting as both sides fought a bit. In the, however, it was a politically correct draw. The bigger news of this double-header, however, was that the match drew a large crowd of Mexican fans (there were a few Argentinian fans, especially one group of about 50 in the South end that danced and cheered wildly during the whole game). Most stayed for the Earthquakes game, and that changed the atmosphere of the game a great deal, as Americans still seem to be learning how to cheer.

In the Earthquakes game, we scored just five minutes in on a header by defender Jimmy Conrad. Great start. Then the Quakes struggled a bit. They had some good opportunities, but the mid-field got clogged and they couldn't work the ball up the way they like. Colorado never looked truly dangerous (though Cannon did have a couple solid saves), but it was worrying having the ball at that end of the field. In the second half, the Quakes played better, attacking with purpose and determination. DeRosario made a cool run up the left side, pausing before two Colorado defenders right in front of where I was sitting. I shouted "Go Dewayne!" and he listened, splitting the two brilliantly and charging toward the goal. The keeper blocked him, so he crossed the ball. I watched on my feet screaming, the action seemingly in slow motion, as the ball hit a Colorado defender on the chest. The player was facing his goal and the ball deflected behind his keeper (who was facing DeRosario) and into the goal! It was a bummer Dewayne didn't get credit for the goal, because he did all the work. Minutes later, another terrific attack. A ball was sent toward the near post with Grazianni sliding toward it. Since it was the near post and the keeper was flying there, and Ariel had to catch it with a difficult volley (while sliding), I had visions of it rebounding into the side netting. Suddenly the play was over and there was the ball bouncing inside the Colorado goal! Wow, what a great goal! But the Quakes weren't done. Superhero Landon Donovan, just 38 hours after playing against Germany half a globe away, came in with five minutes left in the game and immediately created a chance with a head-ball pass, but Colorado stopped that attack. Minutes later, however, he threw in the ball to DeRosario in the penalty area. DeRosario succeeded in getting the ball over the diving keeper (former San Jose keeper David Kramer, in his first start for Colorado this season -- his goals against average went down the tubes after this game), but in the mix-up the ball was put into the goal by a Colorado defender. Another own goal! Dewayne was again bummed he didn't get credit, but as far as I'm concerned, this night was a two goal game and an assist for him. Great play by the Canadian international. (With Donovan coming back, Dewayne knows he's got to produce to keep his starting place.) So it was another fantastic shutout for Joe Cannon (his goals against drops to a league-low .91), Graziani moves to third in the league in scoring, and the Quakes increase their lead at the top of the MLS table with 26 points (six points ahead of runners-up L.A. and Dallas)! Final: 4-0 Earthquakes.

I didn't hold out much hope of success going into this game: the Quakes lost the first game in Guatemala 4-2 meaning we had to win this one by three goals to advance. Plus had two of our best players red-carded, meaning they couldn't play in this match. Combine that with the fact that it's a new team this year and we're already suffering from a number of injuries, and that the MLS season hasn't started yet, I figured it was a long shot. But the first half went extremely well. The Quakes looked solid and Landon Donovan scored 20 minutes in, quickly followed by a goal from newcomer Brian Chin in the 35th minute. Everything was going sweetly -- just one more goal in the second half and a clean sheet and we'd be all set. But the Quakes seemed tired in the second half, and the Quatemalans played enthusiastically, and eventually scored on a good play, capitalizing on some defensive problems. San Jose fought back and almost regained the two goal margin on several occasions, but eventually ran out of time. Overall the Quakes played well and created a number of exciting chances, but it wasn't quite there. They lose the series 5-4 on aggregate goals. Though disappointed with the result, I was pleased to see some of the new players play well. Hopefully the Quakes will still be competitive this season, though many consider it a rebuilding year.

This game started off slowly, with neither team moving very fast, but after a half hour or so, the Quakes got it going. Wade Barrett put forth a ball up the left side which Ariel Graziani ran on to, giving him a one-on-one with the keeper. Ariel finished it neatly, and the Quakes had the lead. Minutes into the second half Graziani got his second, pouncing on a rebound of a DeRossario shot, and as San Jose continued to dominate, Richard Mulrooney, who rarely scores, took a crack from long range and it curled into the top corner! Late in the game K.C. had a terrific chance with a shot that was going into the top corner, but keeper Joe Cannon made an incredible leap to palm the ball over the bar and away. And that's the way she ended. Great stuff. Final: 3-0 San Jose.

Wow, what a game. You really appreciate a win when it comes this hard. San Jose started well, controlling the game, but gave up a soft goal early to K.C. The goal was at the other end of the field and I couldn't see it very well, but it looked like a keeper error. Cannon wasn't in goal tonight -- it was his backup, Jon Conrad. Sloppy play no matter what. The crowd wasn't worried, figuring the Quakes would equalize soon, but then something bizarre happened. After a routine foul by Richard Mulrooney on Mike Burns, Burns went nuts and attacked Richard. To me it looked like Richard was just defending him -- he was on the ground with Mike above him, striking at him, but after the melee that resulted, the ref gave both players red cards. With both teams at ten, the Quakes were hurt worse since Mulrooney's such a good player and controls the midfield for San Jose. For the rest of the game, K.C. did what I hate worse than anything: attempt to hold a 1-0 lead. While San Jose attacked and attacked, K.C. just sat back, smugly confident their lead would hold. Even worse, the Wizards resorted to fouling and play acting to slow up the San Jose attack. The Quakes have several attacking styles, but when down a goal, they usually resort to the "slow buildup" attack, starting the ball at the back and playing it forward in a series of passes until they can (hopefully) get a shot on goal. In this case, that strategy proved difficult, as K.C. constantly disrupted the attack. The ref sided with the Wizards on every 50/50 ball or challenge, and San Jose couldn't get anything going. Every time an attack was stopped, they had to build from the back again. San Jose really needs to try some alternatives: long shots, through-balls, something. If they get behind, that slow attack is just what the other team wants. In the second half the Quakes put in Landon Donovan, and he tried to get things going with some excellent touches, but the other players were asleep. Ekeland generated a few sparks, but again, the others were asleep. Time slowly eeked away and the crowd became restless and furious at the ref, who continued to call everything in K.C.'s favor. (I don't think Graziani got a single call all night, though several times he was obviously fouled.) In one sequence, a shoulder charge by San Jose was determined a foul. But two minutes later, a shoulder charge by a K.C. player in the penalty box was not a foul! Crazy, inconsistent refereeing. (I remember this ref from previous games, and he's always bad. I don't care if he makes a bad call or two, but he must be consistent.) Time was running out. The Quakes were trying, but either missed chances, gave the ball away trying to get an extra touch, or watched Meola save it for K.C. I was becoming depressed. I have so much to do before I leave town I had debated not going to this game, and now I was depressed at the thought of this feeble game being my last home game for a month. (I will miss the Earthquakes next few home games.) But finally, with just five minutes left in the game, DeRosario crosses to Graziani in the box. Ariel shoots and it deflects into the goal. But wait! A defender makes a spectacular goal-line clearance. The crowd gasps and moans. Everyone was on their feet, holding their breath. Suddenly the ref points to the center circle -- the ball crossed the line and it's a goal! Everyone is screaming and dancing. The Quakes surge forward with renewed momentum, suddenly a different team. With two minutes to go, DeRosario gets a one-on-one with the keeper. Instead of shooting however, he feeds an open Ramiro Corales who bangs it home for the game-winner! Amazing. All that time with no goals, and suddenly, two in three minutes. At that point K.C. decided they'd better play, but San Jose held the off with a great save by Jon Conway (he had a couple and amended himself for that early goal). After five minutes of extra time (K.C. players spent a lot of time on the ground, pretending to be injured), it was over, with the Quakes scoring a huge three points on a comeback victory (and preserving their long home win streak). Great stuff. When the Earthquakes scored that second goal the crowd was screaming so loud I couldn't hear the announcer over the loudspeakers! It was incredible: 88 minutes of pent-up energy and nerves released in a massive scream of excitement. Even Coach Yallop and Assistant Coach Dominick Kinear were screaming and jumping up and down like twelve-year-old girls at an N'sync concert. Very cool to see even the coaches so happy with a win. Wow! Final: 2-1 San Jose Earthquakes.

Most sequels start off great and end weakly; this one was the opposite. The first fifteen or twenty minutes are totally boring: nothing happens. It's all exposition for us learning that Santa's got to get married by Christmas or he'll cease being Santa. But once we get that out of the way, things start to happen and the film gets good. A machine is used to create a duplicate Santa to stay at the North Pole and keep the elves making toys while the real Santa goes to help his son (who's been put on the "Naughty" list) and find a wife. The robot Santa ends up taking over the North Pole and forcing all the elves to make lumps of coal instead of toys (since boys and girls deserve coal). Meanwhile, Santa starts the process of "desantification" -- losing weight, his beard, and his magic. I liked that. The first film got a lot mileage out of Tim Allen physically becoming Santa, and this one cleverly does the reverse. Of course this is happening while he's attempting to find himself a wife, creating comic situations. What's impressive about this film is the way it really creates a believable romance in an extremely short period of time. Elizabeth Mitchell, who plays his love interest, is terrific and brings a nice dose of reality to the over-the-top stuff happening elsewhere. Overall, no huge suprises, but a pleasant and appealing film like the first one.

Christianity Today has released their "best of 2001" and Sara Groves' album Conversations is number two!

Sara is my second cousin. I hadn't seen her since we were both children so I was excited when I heard her tour was coming to a local church. A whole bunch of us relatives showed up. It was amazing to see how she's grown up! She was even better live than on her album. It was an informal gathering, which suits her style precisely, and the "concert" was more like VH-1's Storytellers. Sara sat at the piano and told wonderful stories introducing each song, revealing what inspired her to write it. The stories were funny and touching, and taught important life lessons. Her style is similar to Suzanne Vega -- almost talking through music. She's a great writer and a gifted musician. Her lyrics are simple and deceptively plain. I loved one phrase: "He didn't recycle for our gain," (speaking of Christ's sacrifice on the cross). What a neat way to put that! One other interesting occurrence: two or three times during the concert I'd been mentally comparing Sara with one of my favorite singers, Keith Green. At first this seemed like a strange comparision since she doesn't sound anything like him, but she does have a similar intimate style; friendly, yet with a serious point behind her smile. At the end the pastor of the church got up to say a few closing words. I nearly fell out of my chair when he compared Sara with... Keith Green! Sara's new album comes out soon -- I can't wait to get a copy!

A year later, Sara Groves is back on her California tour, promoting her new album (Conversations) and her new baby, 11-week-old Kirby. As usual, she was excellent, blending entertaining and meaningful stories in between her excellent, moving songs. For example, she had the place rolling with her embarrassing stories of birds pooping on her (which happened four times in her life, once during a first date)! The story brought the audience close to her, however, and then she quickly turned the humor into seriousness by relating how embarrassing moments tend to happen when you're trying to please other people, not God. That led into her song about "You face God alone," reminding us that we aren't validated by the people we try to impress, but by our relationship with God. Excellent. Download one of her songs from her website and give it a listen!

Hideously bad, even worse than I expected. The film opens with the cliche of the dancing girl about to audition to Juliard, angry because her mother isn't there, intercut with her rushing mother crashing her car and dying.

I was very curious about this film. It sounded blasphemous as it's a sort of parody of Christianity, but there were aspects that sounded promising as well. It turns out it isn't sure what it is. It's not an out-and-out attack on the Church, though it doesn't seem pro-religion. It's a comedy about Christianity, making fun of hypocrites and Christians, but it's not really very funny. Much of what it mocks is true (even Christians don't like Christian hypocrites), but much of the humor falls flat. The concept's a neat idea but ineptly done. While it's obvious the producers know something about Christianity, they are obviously not Christians, and their mockery comes across as an attack more than constructive criticism. I much prefer it when Christians do something like this. For example, musician and songwriter Steve Taylor's the master at satric Christian attacks, but he does so wanting to help Christians see their own hypocrisy and get them back on the right track. This film just wants a cheap laugh and unfortunately, that's all we're left with. That's not to say that the film doesn't have some good moments (it has some bad moments as well). The casting of the innocent-looking Mandy Moore as the evil Christian hypocrite is ideal; in fact, everyone in the cast is pretty good. I liked certain aspects of the plot, which is about a good Christian girl who gets pregant and questions her faith, but unfortunately this isn't a film that challenges intellect or discusses religion: instead it's just a movie that takes obvious shots at "weird" Christian things, like religious jargon or speaking in tongues. It's not a terrible film, but it could have been a realy great film if the creators had been more willing to go all out and

The first one was surprisingly intelligent for a horror film and this one continues that trend. It is on the grim side, but the devilish traps are horribly clever (i.e. the drug addict falling into a pit of used syringes -- eek). Pretty cool if you like the genre.

A remarkable book. Definitely the kind you could read fifty times and still not completely understand. I've never done drugs, but if I had, I'm sure this book would describe the experience exactly. It's set in the future (the 1990's) and deals with a narc out to find drug dealers. Fred goes under cover as Bob, a drug addict. As part of his cover he must take Substance D, also known as Death, a powerful drug that has a side effect of splitting the mind into duelling consciouses. Slowly Fred (and Bob) lose the ability to distinguish reality. Worse, Fred's secret identity is a secret even to his police bosses, and they assign him to monitor and keep tabs on... Bob. Yeah, that's right, he's to narc on himself! Eventually Fred can't tell that he is Bob and the book gets really bizarre as paranoid Bob does things to avoid Fred and Fred does things to stop Bob... and they're the same person! Incredibly powerful book on the dangers of drug abuse, but Dick doesn't play God: he doesn't judge these people, but he also doesn't protect them from the consequences of their actions. From the opening line, "Once a guy stood all day shaking bugs from his hair," to the end, this book is a trip. In some places it was so funny I had to stop reading to literally wipe tears of laughter from my eyes (like the part where the druggies argue that they were cheated on the ten-speed bike they bought because it only has seven gears, a two-setting gear and a five-setting gear for a total of seven). In other places it was so hard to read I couldn't get through more than a few paragraphs without having to put the book down and breathe for a bit. The novel is hilarious, scary, and sickening, occasionally all three at once. It's also a profound exploration of reality, unreality, consciousness, perception, personality, identity, and the meaning of existence. Very complex, very bizarre, very sad. Dick had his own drug problems, so this book speaks from experience. At the end he includes a list of close personal friends effected by drugs (some forming the basis of various characters in the novel), all of whom are either dead or permanently damaged by their habit. Frightening. He uses the analogy of a group of children playing in the street, being smashed and slaughtered by cars that pass, yet the children keep playing in the street, mindless of the deadly consequences of their actions. They just wanna have fun. Chilling. Highly recommended.

I'm a huge fan of the book (it's one of PKD's best) and thus I was wary of the film. But the adaptation is excellent. It really captures the spirit and essence of the novel and makes it much more accessible (as the plot, about an undercover narcotics cop tripping on drugs, is [deliberately] confusing to say the least). The rotoscoping animation technique is incredible: you can still recognize the real actors but the animation is totally appropriate for such an otherworldly novel. Excellent!

A hilarious, outrageous spoof of the Scream-type movies, which is funny in itself, since those are basically parodies of the traditional slasher: we now have a parody of a parody. Laugh-a-minute film is occasionally overly crude, with a few too many gay jokes, but a lot of fun with some terrific "break the film barrier" type humor (my favorite was when the camera guy gets so close to the horror-stricken the lens smashes into her face). A few really brilliant moments like that save this film.

Pretty much what you'd expect from this spoof franchise, though a little less raunchy than usual (though not by much) since this one is rated PG-13. The key films mocked are Signs (which needs mocking) and The Ring (which is also easy to mock). There are a number of laugh-out-loud moments, a lot of grins, a few gasps ("I can't believe they did that!"), a few jokes that fall flat. Overall it's harmless good fun.

Decent follow-up to the original, though just as raunchy and with plenty of bad taste. It's definitely got some funny bits, though. The DVD's cool as it's got over 30 minutes of deleted scenes (a few are better than the scenes in the film). In a nutshell, if you liked the first one, you'll like this one.

Undoubtedly the feel good movie of the year. While not the least bit complicated and totally predictable in plot, this film just hits all the right notes and is great fun. Jack Black is over-the-top magic and he carries the film, but the way they focus on the kids is great as well. I was worried Jack Black's more adult-oriented rebel side would put a sour note on the mood, but the producers kept this at an above-crude level for wholesome entertainment the whole family can enjoy. Cool.

Normally I like this sort of weird stuff and I'd wanted to see this before it vanished from theatres, but for some reason I just couldn't get into this at all. Utter disinterest. I'm not even sure what it was about. Something about a young Mexican artist moving to Paris after his father died, him struggling with a relationship with a woman, mixed in with lots of bizarre animation and weirdness and periodic television broadcasts from the dream center of his head. It's got some interesting visuals -- some of the funky hand-made animation is cool (like stop-motion cellophane used for flowing water) and I liked the multi-language approach, the way the film would randomly switch between English and French and Spanish -- but everything's so disjointed and illogical, like a dream, that the film cannot hold interest. It's just like hearing someone else tell you, in vague terms, about their dream. Who cares?

Silly mess. I was never a fan of the TV series (I pretty much hated it), but was curious about the big screen rendition. It wasn't as bad as I expected, but that's not saying much. First rule Hollywood needs to learn: animated hijinks don't translate well into live action. Seeing a Wylie Coyote stand in midair for a few seconds before realizing he's run off a cliff and then falling is hilarious: do that in live action and it's just dumb. This film works best when it concentrates on characterization, not the lame plot or silly cartoon-like special effects. The translation of the characters to live action is pretty good. Matthew Lillard's Shaggy is fantastic: it's like he's channeling the original character. Velma is great. The others are so-so (of course Fred and Daphne are the blandest of the characters anyway, so no great loss there). Scooby Doo (the dog) is better in the film than in the promos. Here you can actually understand him (something I liked from the show), though his animated reality is less than realistic (too cartoony for live action yet too realistic for animation). Weak for the title character. The plot is typical of the series (which, unfortunately, is not good as the series' plot were horrible): bad guy disguised as something else and scary strange things happening. Some mildly entertaining moments. My favorite, honestly, was cut from the film: on the DVD are deleted scenes and there's a terrific one of shy Velma doing a drunken lounge act on a piano singing "You're Too Good to Be True" -- hilarious! Why they cut it who knows: about par for the judgement of people who create this kind of dribble. I can't believe they're making a sequel.

Pointless sequel. More misadventures of the Scooby gang. I didn't like the cartoon much and the movies are even worse. In cartoon from the overacting and stereotypes are bearable, but in live action it's astonishingly bad. I guess it's a form of humor, but a low one. The cast is good for what they've got, but there isn't much to work with scriptwise. Mostly dull with only the occasional smile. Appropriate if you're in the mood for something mindless (like I was).

I liked this. It's typical Woody, with fast-paced humorous dialog, fantastic elements, and a moderately clever plot. In this case we've got a young girl journalist played by the stunning Scarlet Johanson who's recruited by a recently deceased famous journalist who has a scoop for her: a certain millionaire playboy is the famous Tarot Card Killer. The only problem is the journalist has no proof, so the girl will have to find that. In trying to get close to the man she falls in love with him and then isn't sure if her suspicions that he's a serial killer are her imagination or reality. The girl's partner in this adventure is Woody Allen playing a talky stage magician, who's hilarious. Overall it's a lightweight story, but there are some classic Allen lines. My favorite is when the girl's debating over her boyfriend's guilt and Allen says in classic deadpan style something like, "Your parents will have a problem with having a serial killer in the family?" Fun stuff.

Surprisingly decent action film. Not a sequel to the The Mummy Returns, but staring The Rock who was in that film and made by the same people. The climax came sooner than I expected and thus seemed anticlimactic -- but that impression might have been caused by the lame rental DVD I had that skipped 15 minutes in the middle. Fun.

Excellent, hilarious, and a worthy conclusion to the horror parody series. It's been a while since I've seen the first couple Screams, so I'm sure there was humor and references I missed, but this one was the best of the three (though the first had originality going for it). The plot uses one of my favorite tongue-in-cheek techniques of having a movie within a movie: the story of the murders in the original movie has been turned into a series of slasher films, and it is during the filming of Stab 3 that we find our heroes being threatened yet again. There are hilarious confrontations between the characters and the actors portraying them in the film, and jabs at Hollywood, the horror genre, and at the Scream franchise. A lot of fun.

I had zero interest in seeing this film. It's long at over two hours, it's about a horse (I'm not much of a horse person), about horse racing (even worse), and set fifty-some years ago. Boring! But the timing proved fortuitious. At the time I was ready to go see a film, this was the only one showing, so I decided to give it a whirl. It turns out the film's not about a horse, but about America. This is the story of how a nation was broken and battered by the Great Depression, but found inspiration in a broken horse that became a champion.

The film follows the life of the horse's owner, a penniless bicycle repair man (Jeff Bridges) who turned his talents to the new horseless carriages and made a fortune, but lost his son to accident and now carries a broken heart; the horse's trainer (played by the always excellent Chris Cooper) who's more horse than man; and the horse's jockey, a battered loser who's too tall and has no peripheral vision in his right eye. The group sounds like a setup for chaos, but the personalities all mesh with Seabiscuit, a horse of good lineage but poor treatment, who's tossed aside as worthless. With the proper training and loving attention, Seabiscuit becomes a champion, and eventually takes on the reigning champion. But just when you think the story's over, there's another twist: the jockey's horribly injured and will never ride again, and the horse ruptures a tendon and will never race. But despite those predictions by doctors, the two fight back and prove the naysayers wrong. Yes, it's long, but it's surprisingly interesting and keeps moving. It's not boring at all. I saw no evidence of the supposed $100 million budget: if there are special effects they are carefully hidden. The horse races are mildly interesting, but predictable (of course). But it's the characters you care about, and there's humor in their interaction. But mostly this is a story about an important time in American history. It's an excellent movie and worth seeing.

Not a sequel to The Killing Game, but it does involve many of the same characters, particularly Sarah Patrick and her dog Monty. A romance is in store for John Dugan, who was shut out in first one, so that's rather nice. But the two are so obvious in their dislike of each other it takes forever for them to get together and yet we saw it coming from page one (rather annoying). The plot of the story is a bit weird: a guy from John's past wants to kill him and so is bombing John's research facilities, killing his workers. He won't stop until John's dead, so John must kill him. There's some good mystery and action, but it feels a heavy-handed and forced. Still, the characters are likable, but the real stars are the animals in Monty and Maggie, a wild wolf. I'd like a book just about them!

Took a nice trip up to Seattle yesterday and today (see yesterday's report on the soccer game). Got to eat at the Space Needle (hadn't done that since I was a kid) and see some of the city (fish throwing place, etc.). Went to the new Science Fiction museum which was pretty cool (lots of incredible SF memorabilia). Nice looking city from a distance; not as impressed with the dirty downtown and horrendous traffic. Suprised at how hilly it is, which made walking a pain.

Surprisingly, a Kerr SF book that works! The plot's cool: it is 2069 and most of the earth's population is infected with a deadly blood virus called P2 that's an automatic death sentence. Many live for years, but when the disease is triggered, you die within three months. The cure is simple: a complete blood transfusion. However, the new blood but not be contaminated with the virus, of course. And thus clean blood has become the most precious commodity on the planet. The eleven pints of blood in a typical person has a value of over 7 million dollars. Frozen blood is stored in high-tech blood banks which are protected by elaborate security systems. The biggest blood bank is on the moon, and the designer of the security system, Dallas, has decided to rob it. He puts together a team of experts and sets out to do the impossible. Great concept, and well written, with a caveat or two. First, the actual robbery, though promised early on, doesn't take place until near the end of the book, and it's a little anti-climactic. Second, the narrator of the book is an important character, revealed at the end, which is a great twist. Unfortunately, he's a little inane. Almost every page of the novel has footnotes, which go into mind-numbingly minute detail about science and medicine. The narrator's interesting because he brings philosophical questions and observations to the events, but unfortunately he contradicts himself, in some places "proving" there is no God, in others proving that God must exist, and in others questioning God's existence as though he doesn't know. I'm not sure what Kerr's intent was in doing that: I don't doubt it was intentional, but whatever the reason it isn't clear and it doesn't work. It just makes me the think the narrator's a little unbalanced (maybe that was the point). The book's pacing could also use a work -- it drags on and on, mostly because we're told about the robbery early but since it doesn't happen until late in the novel, all the set-up stuff (which is important) seems to be a waste of our time. The book's bad guy (conflict) is also weak, almost a red herring with the ease in which he's dispatched when the time is right. That takes away some of the suspense. Overall, though, this is very good. It's definitely Kerr's best technology-related book, and the philosophical musing by the narrator are certainly thought-provoking (though many of the conclusions are inaccurate and incomplete, though as you'll see, that could be intentional).

This is an older book I picked up at a discount store. Somehow I missed it when it was published. As a huge fan of Jobs and Macintosh and Silicon Valley lore, it's a book I wanted to read. It tells the story of how Steve was kicked out of Apple, founded NeXT and rebuilt Pixar, and how he ended up back at Apple and took it to unprecedented success. All this was written back in 2000 and is, of course, pre-iPod -- Apple had their most successful quarter this past Christmas, selling nearly $6 billion worth of iPods and Macs, and making a huge $500+ million profit, and last week's Disney/Pixar merger just made Jobs a multi-billionaire -- so the book is ironic in that Jobs' turnaround was hardly started! The book uncovers fascinating personal details about Jobs, private conversations, both the Good Steve and the infamous Bad Steve. It's an amazing portrait of a private public man, a man who is full of seeming controdictions and despite being famous for more than 25 years, is still a mystery to most (even those who know him). This is excellently written and appears balanced, though of course I don't know the truth more than anyone else. It was fascinating to me that as I was reading about Jobs' dealing with the Pixar/Disney contracts, Disney and Pixar agreed to a merger. What a huge deal that is! Steve now has a seat on Disney's board and who knows where that will lead. The three companies -- for Apple, as the leading supplier of digital music and video content, is part of the trio -- are primed for massive growth. It's a fascinating time!

Another one of those films I wasn't terribly interested in seeing, but timing meant I saw it, and it turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I was worried it'd be a bit smarmy and pretentious and too saccharine for my tastes, but it turned out to be an enjoyable film. The "plot" is about a little boy who goes to live with his two grumpy uncles for the summer in the early 1960s. The old men are rumored to have millions hidden away and thus are pestered by every distant relative and saleperson in the state. Their main activity is sitting on their porch with shotguns to scare away people. The boy's arrival disturbs their lifestyle and gradually the boy learns to love his uncles and vice versa. Predictable overall, but there are many humorous little sidesteps in the plot -- such as when the old men, who used to be in the Foreign Legion in Africa, buy a used lion which they plan to hunt, only to discover it's so old it won't even get out of the shipping crate. In the end the lion becomes the boy's pet (his first). The title refers to the movie's thought-line of how you don't throw away a life, implying that the old men (who don't act their age) are also secondhand lions.

There's a lot about the story that's unbelievable (intentionally: we hear fabulous stories about the old men's past and we're supposed to wonder how much of it is true), but the genuine performances help ground the film. The direction has some nice touches as well. My favorite was this: when the boy arrives at the uncles' home, there are "no tresspassing" and other forbidding signs on the long dirt driveway leading to the home. The final sign says "Turn back now!" But at the end, when the boy is being driven away and he doesn't want to leave, he's looking longingly out the rear window of the car and we see the signs in the reverse, including the one that screams "Turn back now!" in huge letters -- and this time the meaning is completely different. Really cool. Brilliant, in fact.

I'd heard of this and wanted to see if for some time. It's an unusual movie. The direction and dramatic music are overdone: you keep expecting something fantastic to happen, but nothing much does. It's still good, just not great. The plot is about a man who gets a mysterious phone call from an old friend... and old friend who's been dead for years. The man goes to a place specified by the friend and it turns out it's a company that will "kill" you and give you a new identity, a new start on life. I guess the "seconds" in the title has nothing to do with time, but with a second chance. The ending typifies the film, by being predictable and overdone. Odd film. It has a great deal of potential that's wasted. Favorite scene: when the man, now portrayed by Rock Hudson, visits his old wife (she thinks he's dead).

Interesting early Hitchcock film about secret agents trying to track down another secret agent. Great Peter Lore role. Quite sophisticated special effects for the train wreck at the end, considering the technology of the day. Hitchcock was famous for pushing movie-making technology; it's scary to think what he could have done with today's computer-generated stuff.

A nice little Stephen King story about a writer going mad as his life falls apart (he's in the middle of a divorce). It all begins when a stranger appears accusing the guy of plagerism, and then bad things begin to happen, like his dog being killed. As the stakes go up, intensity does as well, and the twisted ending is very cool. Johnny Depp, as the writer, is the best thing about the movie, giving a fantastic performance. He's a bit bizarre, a bit quirky, and yet still likable. Unfortunately, the film isn't perfect: the first half is slow, with not much happening, but once it gets going, it goes fast, and the ending is excellent. One of the best things is that the ending just ends; there's no series of silly red herring endings Hollywood seems to like so much. Good film.

Wow, what an amazing film! This was a "controversial" movie since it deals with nonstandard sexualty. I'd heard good things about it (it won an award at Sundance) and was curious, but suspected it couldn't be as good as I'd heard. To my surprise and delight, it's better!

The story is about a troubled girl who has a history of "cutting" -- she cuts herself with knives, razors, whatever she can find. After being released from an institution, she goes to typing school and then seeks out a secretarial job. The fragile girl winds up working for a strange lawyer (an excellent James Spader) who alternately builds her up and tears her down. Eventually their relationship develops into a full-blown dominant-submissive relationship, where he spanks her for typing errors and she makes errors on purpose to get him to punish her.

So far, nothing too controversial. The girl likes to be punished, but of course that's because she's mental case, right? Here's where the film takes a different approach and upsets feminists and others who can't handle reality. In this story, the girl's healthier in the "abnormal" relationship. She goes from a fragile wallflower who cuts herself for fun to a brave, bold, assertive woman who knows what she wants and demands she get it. That's the controversy. There'd be no controversy if her passions were depicted as irrational.

What impressed me about this film is that it doesn't take advantage of the salacious nature of the subject matter. Most Hollywood films that deal with unusual sexuality do it primarily to exploit the topic for the purpose of higher viewership. I can envision this film being made into a vulgar, blatant sex-flick, full of scenes designed to shock and titillate. Instead, we're treated to an intelligent, unglorified presentation of a reality that most of us don't know about. The characters are real, the situations intense, the events thought-provoking. The photography and direction is spectacular, dramatizing seemingly ordinary situations to make them extraordinary. The camera hides more than it reveals, forcing us to use our mind to understand what's going on.This film reminded me a great deal about my favorite film, Harold and Maude . That movie's a black comedy about the sexual relationship between a twenty-year-old man and an 80-year-old woman. That relationship is completely consensual as well, and that's part of the controversy. In fact, there's a terrific homage to Harold and Maude toward the end of Secretary when a series of people try to persuade the girl to change her mind -- just like in Harold and Maude when the psychiatrist, priest, and others try to convince Harold he can't seriously love Maude.

Those who think Secretary is about violence toward women or something silly like that have missed the point. The film's a fantasy: in the end the two live happily ever after with their strange kink. There's a great scene where Spader tells the girl, "We can't just go on like this 24-7!" and she responds, "Why not?" It is her fantasy to have someone to dominate and "control" her (in reality, of course, she's the one in control by her willingness to allow the man to dominate her). It is the man's dark fantasy to have a sexual partner he can dominate and punish. His power is all an illusion, of course: she's the one running the show. But it's that illusion -- for both of them (his of power, hers of submission) -- that inspires their mutual passions. There is no genuine violence here; it's all an act. The girl understands that at a subconscious level as revealed when at one point, after Spader tries to fire her, she panics and cries "Time out!" She's realized that their relationship is a form of role-playing, and when he's doing something out of character -- firing her -- she's desperate to get back to the comfortable pretend world.

What makes the movie really good and takes it beyond a mere S&M show-and-tell, is that both the man and the woman's characters are fully-developed. Spader's character struggles with his dark desires. He hates and resents them, but he cannot control them. In one scene he writes a letter apologizing for his "disgusting" behavior. I found this deeply ironic: the man loves to degrade the woman, and she loves to be degraded; yet because society says their behavior is weird, they must not continue. The climax of the film is the resolution of this conflict, and the film does this in an unusual way as the girl stages a sort of hunger strike until the man gives in. That's rather over-the-top, but oddly, it works, especially if think of this film as a fantasy love story like Amelie.

Speaking of Amelie, America has produced their own Audrey Tautou with Maggie Gyllenhaal (who plays the secretary in Secretary). She is the find of the new century. Like Audrey she's got huge eyes that are amazingly expressive, and she uses them frequently in Secretary to tell worlds of stories with just a glance. (Half the film is her and Spader exchanging power-draining looks.) The final few seconds of the film, where she turns to look straight at the camera, is some of the best acting I've ever seen. Her expression barely changes and yet a dozen emotions flitter across her face, including her arguing with all the critics of her decision (both as the character and as an actress in taking on this role). I rewound that a dozen times, just mesmerized. Amazing.

Throughout the movie Maggie is perfect in every scene. Have you ever seen one of those lame Hollywood movies where they try to take a beautiful actress and make her pretend to be unattractive so they can later have her get a makeover and reveal how pretty is? Pathetic, isn't it. We're never fooled: even ugly the girl's gorgeous. Well, Maggie does it for real here, not with makeup and a bad 'doo, but with acting brilliance. Her transformation is astonishing. She begins the film fragile and vulnerable, shy and naive. She doesn't feel attractive or wanted, and reality frightens her. By the end she's in complete control of herself and the world around her. She knows how to manipulate. She's discovered her sexuality and realizes she's beautiful. I loved that the filmmakers didn't try the cheap trick of changing her makeup or clothes as the film progressed to "symbolize" her transformation. No, she wears the same unattractive outfits at the end as at the beginning, but she looks completely different. It's all in how she carries herself.

Secretary is a challenging film. It's not for everyone. It reminds me of a European film in many ways (similar to the difficult-to-watch Irreversible). It's a bit too polished for that, however, and the happy ending candy-coats reality too much. But it's interesting; that's more than I can say about most American movies. It's well worth seeing if you can handle your reality a little twisted.

I worried it'd be hard to convince Grandpa to sell his beach house, but I explained it carefully and he seemed to understand, even pointing out that it's better for him to be more inland and that he doesn't go to the beach any way. This afternoon we met with the notary to have Grandpa sign. I'd given Grandpa a note that explained what we were doing and every time he wondered what we were doing I reminded him to read the note: "Sign papers to sell the Oceanside house." Everything was great until the actual signing. Then he balked. It wasn't that he wasn't wanting to sign it -- it was that he insisted on understanding every word of the one-page contract (power of attorney for my mom to sell the house). Nothing wrong with that, except his short-term memory is so poor he couldn't remember our explanations and kept asking the same questions over and over! Finally, however, after nearly an hour, he seemed to conclude that everything was in order and he signed. Whew! I'm glad we don't have to go through that again!

This is written by the Democratic lawyer who was put in charge of the impeachment investigation. It's the story of how Democrats voted along party lines and spineless Republicans wouldn't stand up for principals. "A pox on both your houses!" might be an appropriate phrase. The politicians sold out the Constitution and allowed a sitting president to get away with lying under oath, abuse of power, witness tampering, voter manipulation, illegal campaign contributions, and even rape. If you thought you knew the details behind the impeachment (regardless of which side you were on), you don't. As this book shows, only a tiny fraction of the evidence was made public. You don't know anything. Some of the dramatic details unveiled in this book are things like how Clinton crony Janet Reno refused to release critical records so the investigation could proceed, and a witness having all four of her tires slashed and being stalked and threatened if she didn't sign a false affidavit. Of course it's tough connecting the President directly with such tactics, but, as the author shows, the coincidence of timing is too strong to be an accident.

This book reveals why I abhor politics: Senators swearing under oath to uphold the Constitution and investigate the President's crimes thoroughly, and then not a single one went and looked at the evidence! (The author opines that the Senators were afraid to actually see the evidence, because if they did, they would have found it difficult to acquit. By not seeing the evidence, they could pretend the charges were "just about sex.") Excellent, remarkable book, though very sad. Whatever you thought of impeachment, this book is a must read to anyone concerned with the future of this country. As Schippers pointed out in one of his presentations to Congress, if we don't convict a sitting president for lying under oath, for whatever the reason, it sets a new legal standard for future presidents -- they can get away with a lot more. I, for one, want my politicians accountable for their actions. Disgusting. The whole Senate ought to be impeached.

This evening I went to Lighthouse Venture Forum's premiere event at Peachwoods restaurant, with special speaker Guy Kawaksaki (former Apple Fellow, CEO of garage.com, and author of Rules for Revolutionaries, The Macintosh Way, and other classic books). The place was filled with nearly 200 people, many of them CEOs of local companies such as Aladdin Systems, Thuridion, Tartan Technologies, and many others; I recognized a number of SVP's printing customers. Guy's presentation was amazing. He has such a flare for speaking, so relaxed and comfortable and witty he makes you feel the same. Nearly every sentence out of his mouth was a clever phrase, designed for you to remember (such as "Eat like a bird, poop like an elephant" -- his way of saving absorb information and spread it around, not just in your own company, but in your entire industry). He actually gave several presentations (each about 15 minutes), and he had a question-and-answer follow-up. Full of excellent tips on entrepreneurship, business development, and securing venture capital funding, he had the crowd laughing at his great stories and hilarious examples of business stupidity (including making fun of both Microsoft and Apple, calling "Apple Marketing" an oxymoron, and saying, "If Apple had licensed the Mac OS in 1987 the desktop market would be 95% Mac and 5% Linux."). Guy managed to offend most of the audience in one way or another, making Santa Cruz, women, men, guys with goatees who drive German cars and wear Armani, and other groups the butt of his jokes. It was hilarious, considering the CEO of Thuridion, founding member of the conference, drives a German car and has a goatee! (Even better was Guy's attack on Herman Miller chairs: he declared that if a start-up buys Aeron chairs they are guaranteed to fail. In fact, he's banned them at garage.com. I was at the Thuridion table, where the CEO was turning purple: everyone at Thuridion has an Aeron chair!) Note that Guy handled all this very well -- when he realized the event's sponsor had Aeron chairs he tried to use a different chair in his example, but finally gave up and picked on Herman Miller anyway. It was all in fun, but made a serious point about not wasting money just for the impression money creates. If you ever get the chance to hear Guy speak, take it. You'll remember it for the rest of your life!

I wanted to like this. It looked interesting from the previews. Unfortunately, it's rather pathetic. The concept that there could be a mole in the Secret Service is the lure, and the idea that our hero is the fall guy and has to prove himself innocent while on the run from the feds is the intriguing action, but the film's choice of villain is obvious and stereotypical. The film starts out well but peters out into an anti-climatic nothing. I also didn't like that our "hero," Michael Douglas' Secret Service agent, was having an affair with the first lady and that's why some of his actions appear suspicious. Not only is that lame, unrealistic, unprofessional, and immoral, but we're supposed to feel sympathy for this idiot? Worse, he's apparently gotten himself into this kind of trouble in the past. I had zero respect for this moron and therefore I didn't really care if he got caught, found the mole, or got the president killed. In other words, with me not caring about the characters, I didn't care about the movie. The worst part was the films' laissez-faire attitude toward this indiscretion, making it seem almost heroic. Disgusting.

I really liked this romantic comedy. It stars Kate Beckinsale as a woman who's convinced that Fate rules us, so she refuses to tell the wonderful man she just met her name. If they are meant to be together, they'll find each other. He writes his name and phone number on a five dollar bill which she then spends, and she puts her name and phone in a book which she sells to a used bookstore. If they're meant to be together, they'll find each other. Crazy, but charming, and I loved the way the film is absolutely jammed with fascinating little hints and clues and coincidences. For instance, in one scene the two are in New York at the same time but don't know it. We see Jonathan (John Cusack) getting tangled with a Dalmation being walked by it's owner. Later there's a scene with Sara (the girl) and the same dog is passing by! Of course the two get together in the end, which is exactly what we want to happen. Because of the predictable story the pace of the film is fast (it's only 90 minutes long) which is just perfect: any longer and we'd start getting antsy. Cool flick.

This is an excellent film! Though I was a big fan of the TV series (it's based on Firefly, the show Fox cancelled after 11 episodes), I was a little unsure how everything would transfer to the big screen. This film answers that easily: it's even better on the big screen! Perhaps that was the problem with it on TV. The story was too big, too large for TV. It's the same cast, which is awesome (the actors are so tied to their characters it would have been hard to watch with other actors in the roles), and the story is excellent. It's high-speed action, great dialog, and terrific performances and special effects. About 90 minutes into the movie I was dreading the thought that it was going to end! That's the opposite of my feeling in most movies. I sure hope they make this into a series and do more movies. It could easily become the next Star Trek.

This was one of those rare, odd games that was terrific only because of something that happened at the very end. Basically, the game was fairly routine. Bologna started things off with a goal in the first half, while Milan's defense seemed confused, but Milan answered with better play and a goal in the second half. Then the real game began and there was about 15 minutes of terrific action, but ultimately it looked like a 1-1 draw was to be the outcome. But four-and-a-half minutes into injury time, with just seconds left, Bologna's veteran defender Piacentini got open at the top of the key, wheeled, and scored on a terrific blast into the far corner. It was a magnificent strike, leaving the keeper helpless. Any forward would have been delighted by such a goal, but it was all the sweeter for Piacentini, as that was just his fourth goal in sixteen years of play! Bologna wins, 2-1. Awesome.