The Z/Web Archive

Bizarre game. The Quakes have been struggling lately; I home this game is a sign that they're finally returning to form. Coming in to this game most figured it would be a rout: San Jose hasn't lost to D.C. in three years, and D.C. hasn't one a single road game all season (and only scored three away goals). But astonishingly, some sloppy play right off the bat allowed D.C. a goal in the fifth minute. The Quakes pressured and pressured and finally got a goal back on a penalty kick. In the second half the Quakes finally started to play better than they have in weeks, looking much more like themselves. But more sloppy play in not clearing a ball quickly from the penalty area resulted in another goal by D.C. (very similar to the first goal). With the Quakes down again, they fought back, and minutes later scored on a Ronnie Ekeland free kick (his first two-goal game for the Quakes). What was the coolest about the free kick was the positioning. From where I was sitting in the stands I could see the opening that Ekeland saw and I was thinking to myself "Go right through there!" and sure enough, that's what he did, putting it perfectly through the tiny gap and off the far post. Wonderful! That's the way it ended, preserving the Earthquakes' "no loss at home" record, but ending a long home winning streak. They're now just two points in front of a surging Dallas (whom they play on Wednesday), and the playoff crunch is looming. Still, the Quakes looked better in this game and I'm hopeful. Ariel hasn't scored in a bit, so it's time he gets a couple. Final: 2-2.

Better than the book, which isn't saying much. I was surprised at how well the gobbledy-gook puzzles translated to film, but overall this still doesn't rate the hype. It's like it takes a big screen movie for people to realize how lame the book is!

Silly premise about a layed off executive who can't find a job or cheap day care and so decides to start his own day care center. Modestly funny, with the predictable humor of uncontrollable kids and diaper jokes, but has a decent heart and is ultimately a feel-good movie. Nothing profound or revelatory here, but okay for a few smiles.

The Earthquakes are back! Finally, a decent performance from the good guys in blue. The Quakes totally dominated, with chance after chance after chance, just the way they did earlier in the season. Dallas didn't deserve a goal, but got one anyway on a phantom penalty call. Speaking of that, what's up the refereeing in the league lately? It's really gone downhill. I've been noticing it at a number of home games and thought it was just me being biased for my team, but I've also been seeing it in other games as well. It's like league's gotten better but the refs are stuck back in 1996-quality. In this game the ref was totally inconsistent, giving out yellow cards to San Jose for the tinest thing, but hardly giving any to Dallas, despite their frequent extremely rough tackles. I mean, San Jose got like four cards for protesting while at least a half dozen yellow card fouls by Dallas didn't even get a warning. Crazy! At any rate, despite the ref's best effort to wear a Burn jersey, the blue won anyway. Even the ref couldn't stop the Quakes. Ariel Graziani got things going with a fanastic goal just seven minutes in: he took the ball down the left side, but inside of crossing it as expected, he shot the ball into the goal from an impossible angle. It happened right in front of me -- I was maybe twenty yards from him -- and it was totally unbelievable. One of the best goals I've seen all season. Later, Ariel and Landon Donovan paired up for Landon's easiest goal ever: a tap-in after a feed from Ariel. Late in the first half Dallas was given their invisible penalty kick, but the Quakes came back with more in the second half, playing aggressively and very organized. I saw a few poor passes but there was much more one-touch like they used to do, and in one terrific sequence of attack play Ramiro Corales shot the ball through a crowd of players to score the third for the Earthquakes. Great stuff, and the Quakes qualify for the playoffs with this win. Final: 3-1 San Jose.

I wasn't super sold on this movie and I didn't know anything about it other than it stars that guy from The Office who's usually in funny comedies so I assumed that's what this was and since that fit my mood, I went. It turns out it's really a sweet love story. Yes, there's humor, but it's gentle family humor. Basically Dan is a widower struggling to raise three daughters who writes a newspaper advice column for a living. He thinks he's got things under control but of course doesn't. During a family reunion, he meets a beautiful, fascinating woman, only to later learn she's his brother's girlfriend. He has to spend the entire holiday seeing her constantly while knowing he can't have her, and he learns he has trouble controlling himself. All sorts of sweet and funny little things happen and naturally, the two fall in love, but how can they tell the brother? It's a really well-done film, perfectly written, with just the right touches of humor, romanticism, and realism. I really liked it. Highly recommended.

Fascinating movie, though a touch manipulative. It's a "musical" about an immigrant worker in 1964 who's going blind and is later set up for a murder rap. The woman is working to save money for an eye operation for her small son (so he won't inherit the same eye disease she has). Her pitiful life is made palatable via her love for musicals, and throughout the film she has "musical dream sequences" where she imagines her life is a happy musical. Singer Bjork plays the title role and she's excellent. The film's disturbing and sad; unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for it: I felt manipulated by the writer/director. I wanted some kind of resolution, an explanation, but instead all I got was purposelessness (which can be okay, if done right -- but in this case he's set the audience up to love this character and then he kills her). Definitely worth seeing, but be prepared to be disturbed.

Spoiler alert: in order to comment on this I'm going to reveal key plot points, so if you don't want to know, don't read this. First, this is a well-done film. The look is excellent (the "radarvision" is something we haven't seen before and well done), the action amazing, the acting above average. The barely-there plot's not even too dumb by comic book film standards. However, there are a couple key flaws that really ruined the film for me.

The story begins with a hero's backstory, how he was blinded as a kid and developed super senses as a result, including a kind of radar. He builds himself up physically and mentally, and when his father is murdered, vows to seek justice for those who can't afford it. He grows up to become a lawyer by day and the vigilante Daredevil at night. So far, everything's great. Then, as the lawyer, he meets the beautiful Elektra. They have an oddly confrontational initial meeting, which blossoms into true love. She's a strong character that matches his strength, and we know it's destiny that they be together. Then the bad guys kill her father and then her, and the movie goes downhill from there. When Daredevil finally confronts the killer of his girl and his father (of course they're the same bad guy), he doesn't kill him. How lame is that? Even worse, a hospital room scene that shows up during the credits reveals that the bad guys' associate didn't die when Daredevil threw him from the church tower. Now I know the filmmakers would tell me they didn't want to go with the cliche happy ending with the girl surviving the attempt on her left, but they turned right around and a did an even stupider cliche by having the hero not take his vengeance and kill the murderer. What's up with that? The result is bizarre: no bad guys die in the film. They murder dozens of good people, and though Daredevil defeats them in the end, they all live and he goes on with life alone. That's better than having the girl survive? Lame! First, Elektra's character was one of the strongest in the film: you're stupid to kill her off. Second, by letting all the bad guys survive while all the good die you've sent a horrible message to audiences. Finally, the whole film becomes a downer. Nothing about the ending makes it any less depressing. Spider-man ended on a poignant note (the girl loves him but he realizes he can't have her), but there was still hope left because at least she wasn't dead. This film ends with bleakness and despair. My advice? Watch the first hour or so, and leave before Elektra dies.

Back when the whole Rodney King thing happened I didn't have a strong opinion: like most everyone else, all I had seen were the TV news clips of the cops beating King with batons. It seemed incredible that the jury would acquit the four cops. However, I later saw the full video on Court TV: in the full video you actually see the officers surrounding King, ordering him to comply, King lunging at them, the way initial attempts to subdue him failed, and the eventual beating footage shown on the TV news over and over again. I found it fascinating that the TV news never showed King acting violent, something the jury got to see. That still didn't change my mind about the verdict, but it did make me think that it's unfair for us to judge the jury since we didn't see the actual evidence presented in the trial. All we got to see is the biased footage the TV news showed us.

Well, minutes into this film I knew where this was going, for the film opens with the Rodney King beating, and once again, only the cops' actions are shown. Cut from that to a white cop making racist remarks and a black assistant police chief who's the good guy and you've got an excellent idea of which side this movie's going to take. Not that that's wrong, just interesting, and a point to keep in mind. I don't like being manipulated.

The story's about corruption and cover ups in the LAPD at the time of the King trial. The main characters are an older bad-ass police sergeant and his young new partner whom he begins to train in the ways of "the end justifies the means" police work. As the young cop's conscience waivers, the King verdict comes down and L.A. explodes into violence. The climactic riot scenes are really well done and frightening: people looting, flipping cars over, burning and breaking, and dragging white people from vehicles and beating them. The ending is a bit different and I won't give it away here, but I liked it. That surprised me, for if you'd told me what happened in advance I would have said I wouldn't like it, but it ultimately did make sense. Overall, a good cop film. I doubt you'll learn anything new about race relations, and the film doesn't unveil anything new about the King situation, but it is interesting and the dynamic between Kurt Russell and Scott Speedman is excellent.

Book two of the "Dark is Rising" sequence. A very different book from the first. Didn't seem at all geared towards children, though the main character is a boy who discovers on his eleventh birthday he has special magic powers. Unfortunately, those powers come with tremendous responsibility, and he's not at all happy with the situation: it's more of a curse than a blessing. Excellently written, but dark, abstract, and full of mystery and odd philosophical and theological explanations. The boy saves the world, but I never quite understood the how or why (the only time he does something creative, he's "inspired" by a voice inside him; otherwise everything seems to happen to him). For most of the book you aren't really sure what is happening. There's time travel, strange magic, mysterious things, evil everywhere, etc. Towards the end of the book we're treated with long-winded explanations of everything, but it's more like reading a textbook on magical history instead of an adventure story. The ending isn't as satisfying as it should be. In short, this is a well-written and thought-provoking book for adults, but the child in me wanted a lot more fun.

This is a strange film: it's predictable, the big "mystery" is a letdown, and it's uneven throughout, yet somehow, despite all those flaws, it sorta works. That's mostly due to the casting -- Jennifer Connolly and the girl who plays her daughter are awesome -- and that the director shoots for more of a creepy, uncomfortable, frightening tone rather than outright shocks and scares. The film is creepy: the supporting characters are all weird, and we aren't sure what to make of the bizarre visions and strange dripping black water that frequents the film. The first two thirds are awkward, not quite working, but the ending, even though the mystery is a letdown, strangely satisfies. It's a sad film, grim and tormented.

I accidentally got this thinking it was the 2002 movie, and was surprised to find a small, rather elegant little thriller. It's about a guy who takes a wealthy couple hostage and for a while we can't figure out why. Slowly it comes out that his wife was recently killed in a car accident, and later we learn he suspects the man was having an affair with her and was driving the car in the accident. It's a lot like Phone Booth in many regards, but with more depth. I liked it.

Absolutely hideously bad horror flick. The best part about it is the 30 second narration at the beginning that details the ancient "legend" about the Tooth Fairy, a wealthy old woman who gives children gold coins in exchange for their baby teeth, but after a fire destroys her face, she's ostracized by the town and when some kids disappear, a lynch mob hangs her. In her dying breath she curses the town of Darkness Falls, and thereafter she periodically appears to murder young children and adults who get in her way. That's where the story starts to get stupid, because there's no rhyme or reason to what's happening. We go to modern day and watch as the Tooth Fairy -- is she a ghost? -- haunts and tries to murder various people. She hates light, so if you stay in the light she can't get you: so our hero travels with a bag full of flashlights. Everyone thinks he's nuts, as most people don't people in the Tooth Fairy legend, who knows why. After all, it makes perfect sense, right? The light business is mildly interesting, but the script overdoes it, and the climax at a lighthouse -- get it? -- really gets ridiculous. There's no explanation for what powers the Tooth Fairy has, or how she got them, why light hurts her (presumably it reveals her disfigured face), how she travels, why she targets some people and not others, etc. Shockingly bad.

All I knew about this book going in was that a) I found the previous Dan Brown book I'd read, Digital Fortress, horribly inaccurate, and b) it was a best-seller. Well, Dan continues the tradition. He makes his first mistake on the opening page where it states in bold letters "Fact:" and then lists several "facts" from the book. I put that in quotes because if you do any research at all on the topic you will find that at least half of what Dan claims are facts are not. Unfortunately, this "fact" page implies that much of you are about to read is true, and then the book begins to dispense a wild tale that takes direct aim at the Catholic Church, outlining a 2,000-year-old coverup by them hiding the "true" nature of Christ from the rest of the world. Now the book begins well with the intriguing murder of a Louvre curator in Paris. The man dies leaving clues to a deep secret, and it's up to his estranged grand-daughter and a visiting Harvard professor to solve the mystery. Generally Dan does well keeping the story moving and generating suspense; unfortunately, all too often he creates suspense by cheating, simply not revealing information to us. When we're not supposed to know the identity of someone the person is just mentioned as "the figure" or "the man" -- until Dan decides it's time to unveil the person. Lame. And it gets old very fast. Worse, in this book the story is interrupted by lectures and "science" lessons, where we are presented with more of the "facts" the book reveals. While interesting, up to a point, they are so outrageous -- that Jesus was really married to Mary Magdalene but the Church buried that fact and DaVinci left clues in his paintings to hint at that "truth" -- that it's just not even remotely believable. Combine that with Dan's amaturish writing, feeble plotting, and weak ending and we have a dreadful book. It's certainly not the worst book ever written, but it is a cheat. The "research" is awful and all one-sided; the characters limp and one-dimensional; and reality is twisted to force the plot Dan wants to use instead of the plot steming naturally from the characters. For example, the curator who is shot in the museum is shot in the belly and realizes it's a mortal wound: he will be dead in 15 minutes. But that's enough time for him to leave a coded message. But how did the murderer know that he would die? One bullet wound looks like another from a distance: if he's such a pro, shouldn't he make sure the man's dead before leaving? But no: the plot depends on the curator leaving his clues, so the killer takes off, leaving the curator to slowly bleed to dead. Lame. The whole thing is just weak and cheap. It's interesting, but hardly original (everything in the book has been written about elsewhere). Unfortunately, the way it's presented in the book it's designed to make it seem like this is new evidence and it's all factual. It's nonsense. One of the things that bugged me, for instance, is that a big part of the plot revolves around a secret society (I hate that gimmick). What's really dumb, though, is that the researchers and historians who are the heroes of the story seem to somehow know all about the secret society: they know the past member names, the rituals, the secret handshake, everything. Except who the current members are. That, of course, is a deep secret. Stoo-pid!

Okay, the book does have some interesting "codes" and little riddles, but it's nothing particularly challenging. They are interesting and occasionally clever. Dan even screws them up, though, by laughing at his own jokes, pointing out how clever and brilliant they are which is insufferably irritating. My favorite part of the book was the word etemology stuff, where word origins are used to supposedly "prove" assertions made in the book. I have no idea if any of that is accurate (I wouldn't trust anything Dan says -- in fact, if he says it, I'd bet it wasn't true -- the guy's a complete idiot), but it was interesting and fun. Sadly, the book fails in all regards. It's a quick and mildly interesting read, but certainly below average and a disappointment considering its best-selling status.

I'd never seen any of the Dead series, and while I figured they were good, I assumed they were typical horror flicks. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Tomorrow night IFC airs the original The Night of the Living Dead, and I can't wait. This is the sequel and it's amazing. I can truly say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. It's a genre film, no question, but it breaks out of its genre in ways that you wouldn't believe possible without seeing it.

The plot is simple: the world is overrun by zombies (the living dead), who must eat human flesh to survive. Zombies are incredibly stupid, but tenacious -- they won't take no for an answer and just keep coming and coming (unless you shoot them in the head). Attempting to escape this nightmare is a small group of looters who have a helicopter but minimal gasoline. They land on the roof of a deserted mall: deserted of people that is, but filled with zombies. With a whole mall for the looting, the escapees decide benefits of staying outweigh the risks of the zombies. Here is where the film shines. The killing of zombies is relentless and gory throughout the film, but it is the mall scenes, where zombie life is a dull mimicry of real life, that director Romero plays with our minds. At times the zombies are ghoulish and evil, then pitiful, then heroic, then tragic, then mindless automatons. Within this satiric parody of life we see ourselves. It is a dangerous, uncomfortable vision.

This film asks all sorts of profound questions about the meaning of life. For instance, the zombies have life. Or do they? And our struggling heroes, secure in their mall fortress with everything they could ever need, face boredom: are they alive? Wow, profound, thought-provoking film. I never dreamed horror could be so intelligent (especially about mindless zombies).

Warning: this film is incredibly gory and violent, but the violence is almost comical. Romero is a master: he treats us with a series of violent images to desensitize us, then shocks us with a shot of humanity. Most unusual for a horror film. The movement of the zombies is a dance, elegantly choreographed, and like the tragedy inherent in string puppets who have no soul, is hopelessly sad.

Unfortunately this film doesn't live up to the original's genius. Gone is the wonderful sociological humor of Romero's version (where zombies "shop" in a mall -- a hiliarous jab at consumer mentality). Instead this film takes the genre seriously and tries to generate true fear through vivid gore and tension. It suceeds to an extent, though it's not particularly scary. All the Hollywood horror standards apply (the main character survives, bad guys die, etc.). Still, it's a different script, which means it's fresh, and it's got some nice creepy visuals and style. It's certainly not a bad entry in the genre but I still prefer the intelligence of the original.

One unintentionally hilarious bit: the legal disclaimer at the end of the film, which appeared to be completely standard, cracked me up when I read, "Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental." Living or dead! Ha ha! I'm still laughing. (Yes, I am easily amused.)

Okay, let's get it understood right off the bat that this obviously isn't Shakespeare. The story's so thin it's like it's not even there. It probably would be better if it wasn't, since it's so ridiculous. The idea is that global warming causes the next ice age, not over a period of a thousand years, but a week. The writers hammer home their environmental message a few too many times, which actually hurts their cause, because the movie's so preposterous it makes their dramatic "we must learn to care for our planet" speeches sound silly. Story itself is about a lone wolf scientist who's ringing the alarm bell on global warming, but of course no one will listen to him, until weird weather -- hail in Tokyo, tornados in L.A., etc. -- suddenly brings the matter to importance. Of course the scientist has a son who's trapped in Manhatten as it goes underwater when the polar ice caps melt and cause the ocean to rise. It's all very dramatic and unnecessary, with stereotypical characters like the homeless guy with his dog and the beautiful girl who's just a friend.

No, the reason you go to watch a film like this is for the spectacular special effects, and here the film succeeds remarkably. I wouldn't have thought weather would be that dramatic or interesting, but the producers include lots of amazing shots from space, showing the planet as it undergoes a fantastic climate shift. The scenes of towering storm clouds the size of mountains were amazing, and all the New York City stuff -- the ocean taking over and freezing solid, all the skyscrapers snowed under -- was impressive. I was less impressed by the wimpy tornadoes in L.A. That was all shown in slow motion, which didn't reveal the power of the wind properly: it looked artificial and much too clean. It should have been done at full speed and been totally chaotic: that would have been frightening. Overall, though, the effects are not like anything you've seen and make the film worth seeing. I don't put two cents toward the silly science, and the story's too ordinary and predictable with no emotional resonance at all, but it's still a fun amusement park ride.

Today my grandfather went to be with the Lord. About 18 months ago I took over his care. He had been living with my mother, but when he lost mobility, she was unable to continue (she could not lift him or properly assist him). At the time we weren't sure how much longer he would live -- my uncle warned me it could be months or years. Unfortunately, he continued to decline. He got a hip replacement, which helped ease the pain in his leg, but developed gastro problems at affected his eating until we found treatment, and last fall the hip replacement became infected, requiring constant antibiotics and caused severe leg pain. Most recently we did home infusion antibiotics, which eventually seemed to cure the infection, but during the process his kidneys began to weaken. Twice he ended up in the hospital due to kidney complications. Fortunately, they did recover, but were severely weakened. He was slowing down, not eating as well, but still mentally healthy. On Sunday evening, June 11, he seemed fine. I got him to eat half a grilled cheese sandwhich for dinner. About 3 a.m. the next morning he called me and was acting strange. He was having trouble breathing. He has asthma so I gave him his puffer, which helped. But every thirty minutes he kept calling for me, and each time it was strange requests, almost delirium. Once he wanted his pants so he could "go outside." I told him it was the middle of the night and he said, "Oh, I didn't know," and promptly laid back down and went to sleep! Another time I found him on the floor with no idea how he got there. I lifted him back into bed and he didn't seem to be in any pain. Later in the morning, he had trouble getting dressed: his right leg was in a lot of pain, making me think the infection had returned. His temperature was a low 94.6, but after breakfast (which he didn't eat), it was 99.4 -- we called 911 immediately. By the time he got to the hospital it was nearly 103! It turned out he was suffering from a myriad of inter-related problems: a bladder infection meant he wasn't urinating properly which resulted in kidney strain and fluid build-up in his body, which collected in his chest, causing congestive heart failure and pnemonia. It also turned out that he'd broken his leg with the hip replacement -- apparently the infection had weakened the bone so it was incredibly fragile and it had broken in several places (possibly that time I found him on the floor). But worst of all was something called sepsis -- an infection of the blood -- which is serious even among young healthy people (who can take months to recover). In the end, it was too much for the poor man. We'd just celebrated his 91st birthday in May, which is not a bad achievement, though he always talked about hitting a hundred. Always positive, even the day before he died he was telling the doctor he felt great.

Granda was a very special man. His sense of humor was dry and subtle, even to the end. While in the hospital, during his last week, I tried to get him to eat his lunch, and he wanted me to eat it. "No, it's yours," I told him. "You're the patient." He looked up at the nurse who was nearby. "Am I the patient?" he asked in convincing confusion. She was startled until I explain this was his form of a joke! I could see the twinkle in his eye.

I shall miss Grandpa dearly. He and I were very close. When I was a baby my father was killed in a car accident and he and my Grandma cared for me until my severely-injured mother was better (which tooks months). I lived with them for many years, off and on, over the course of my life. They even took me on as a teenager, during my high school years, something I wouldn't wish on young, healthy people. I feel blessed and honored I got to be with Grandpa during his last years. Caring for him was stressful, educational, and filled with magically tender moments of humor and love that made everything worthwhile. I shall miss Grandpa, but I know he's at peace and out of pain now.

This is the third in Romero's Dead series. My favorite is still Dawn of the Dead, which is awesome. This one continues where that left off with a handful of survivors trying to figure out what to do next. They are holed up in an underground facility where scientists are trying to figure out what makes the living dead tick (so to speak) and a few psycho military guys. It's a claustrophobic film with plenty of zombie gore, and while it's interesting, much of the acting is obviously sub-par, and unfortunately the film doesn't have the social relevance of the first two. In the end it's just a zombie movie and not much more.

Quick-reading thriller about a guy who quits his job to start day trading full time using the million dollars from his wife's life insurance policy. But his wife was murdered and suddenly he's a suspect. He finds himself surrounded by strange people who aren't who they say they are: what's going on? Interesting while you're reading it, but in retrospect a lot of stuff doesn't make much sense. Also, the story is told first person, and often we find out things just as the narator does (fine), but just as often he doesn't tell us stuff he knows until he deems it the appropriate time, making us wonder if he's reliable. The day trading stuff is interesting, though occasionally he lectures us like we're morons, or mentions something is "complicated" and proceeds to detail something that's pretty obvious. The writing is average (the first chapter is poor, but it gets better), but the story is pretty good. Unfortunately a lot of it strains credibility. The author also lives in a different world: the narrator claims he makes $39,000 a year at his job, and his wife also works full-time, they have no kids, drive old cars, and live in a modest home, and yet considers himself poor and in desperate financial shape. Come on -- $60K a year (assuming his wife doesn't make much) with no kids isn't poor. But then the author is a financial expert, so I guess he thinks anyone who doesn't make $100K a year is starving. This wouldn't be too bad if this was only mentioned once in the book, but it's practically a theme. At least by the end the narrator's come to his senses and isn't going to blow the entire million dollars day trading. A pleasant read; just don't expect too much.

Decent Johansen thriller, well-written as usual, but unfortunately her characters are becoming stereotypes of themselves. As always, she has the gruff, grim, superhero man, who's an expert killer, in conflict with the independent, strong-minded, stubborn woman. The two are throw into an adventure together and fall in love while saving the world. This one isn't bad, but has a paint-by-numbers feel to it, with nothing fleshed out. It's still better than the average spy novel, but this one is weaker than Johansen's usual. I also was annoyed by one personality trait of the female lead that forced much of the plot: the woman, Alex, is being hunted, but rather than accept help from friends or hide out at a safe house, she wants to continue her work (she's a photo journalist). While that was supposed to demonstrate her independent mind and drive the plot, it felt forced and unnatural. Either Johansen didn't develop that aspect of Alex's character well enough, or it just wasn't there, because I just didn't believe it. If someone had just shot my friend and nearly killed me, and an expert offered me safety, I think I'd take it, at least for a little while, until things cooled down. Alex is such an idiot she's prepared to walk right into gunfire! Oh, and the plot's a little overdone on this one, involving a Congressman trying to take over the White House by creating a series of natural disasters to... oh never mind. It's too ridiculous to even bother explaining. But it's still a fun read, with some good scenes and situations, and Johansen's prose is well-written.

This is Jackson's terrific follow-up to his first effort, Bad Taste. It's awesome. Definitely one of the bloodiest films ever. The story is about a mother-dominated guy who's horrible mom turns into a zombie and can't be killed. Everyone she kills gets infected and also becomes a zombie, and soon half the town is zombies. In the film's hilarious climax, the guy ends up mowing them down with a lawn mower. This film is gory and outrageously funny. We've got scenes where the entrails of a zombie try to strangle the hero! My favorite scene is one is which a zombie is given a spoon to eat with and he's so dumb and impervious to pain (he's already dead, remember) that he shoves the spoon so deep in his throat it comes out the back of his head! Just awesome.

Cool Cronnenberg flick, perfect storyline for his unusual perspective. The story is about a guy who has a car accident and wakes up after a coma with the "gift" of second sight: he can see into people's futures. The gift comes with undue notoriety and pain (use of the psychic powers is killing him). Fascinating film mostly due to Cronnenberg's clever direction and Christopher Walken's dynamic performance.

I've been wanting to see this for a long time and finally rented the DVD. It's set in a nameless South American country where an American woman and her husband, who live in a rural area, meet a man on a stormy night when the electricity is out, and she thinks he's the doctor who tortured her years earlier. She holds him at gunpoint, determined to get the truth out of him. But is he really the guy? She was blindfolded and it was many years ago. She swears she recognizes his voice, but she's not exactly stable. The debate is what makes the story interesting. This apparently is based on a play and it has that feel to it: it's claustrophic with the remote house the main set and the three characters as the main actors. It's talky, but the dialog is above average. With such a gimmicky premise I got a little tired of the "did he or didn't he" games by the end, and the vagueness of the politics of the unnamed country made for a vague conflict, but it's still an interesting experiment and worth seeing.

This is a forty-minute concept fleshed out into a two hour movie. It's kinda interesting: a staid accountant accidentally swaps cell phones with a hip guy. When he answers the other guy's phone, he finds himself in a mysterious sexual network where people on the list call each other for anonymous sex. This is a new world for this quiet man, who opens up and starts having sexual encounters all over the city. Then he meets his dream girl via the list but she vanishes and it appears she's been kidnapped. Then the owner of the cell phone calls and it's revealed he's not out of the country, but has grabbed the girl -- and he demands that the accountant steal $20 million for him or he'll kill the girl. It's all a setup. Of course there's more to it than that, as the accountant has to turn the tables of the bad guy, but it's all too predictable and the ending is just weird and makes no sense. (He walks off and leaves the briefcases in the park? Huh?) Ultimately, this has potential, but there are huge flaws in the direction and script that bring it down. Ewan McGregor is miscast, too: I don't buy him as a wallflower accountant. The rest of the cast is decent, but there are just too many problems with this for it to matter. Nice idea, though.

Dan Brown's best so far, though that's not saying much. This is one of his earlier books and is better written, though he still comes across with the same arrogant, know-it-all attitude despite many obvious inaccurances and errors. Brown also continues his same technique of building suspense by withholding information. For instance, the plot is about a mysterious discovery by NASA -- after pages and pages of build-up, we finally learn the fuss is about the discovery of proof of extra-terrestial life. It's kind of a let-down since that was so predictable. But what makes that discovery important is the fact that it's an election year and the budget of NASA is a big political talking point. Brown's characters are transparent cardboard (especially his ridiculously primitive and stereotyped political figures), but the story's mildly compelling. The ending's predictable and obvious and there wasn't the twist I expected, but overall a better novel than his others and much more readable and enjoyable.

A rather remarkable book from a scientific perspective. Somehow Pavlou comes up with plausible science to back up a rather wild premise: that the people of ancient Atlantis were actually more advanced than us and they planted the seeds of language and myth and religion in all our cultures in order to send us a message to use the global machinery of Atlantis to save Earth from a pulsar wave that happens every 12,000 years. Storywise, it's a pretty good adventure tail, but the science is a little heavy-handed, slowing the action, and I found the anti-God aspects to be over-emphasized (similar to the awful The Davinci Code). But overall, not a bad, and impressive for a debut novel.

Cool little Jaws-like action romp. Scientists genetically enhance some sharks, making them smarter, and then all hell breaks loose. Fun, actually scary in a few places, with some amazingly realistic special effects. (Don't watch this if you're squeamish about seeing people being eaten.) Obviously not ground-breaking like Jaws, this is still well-done and a lot of fun. There are enough surprises and twists that even jaded action fans might find it cool.

This was a strange little film that I wanted to like, but could not. The plot has a mean-spirited girl and her tired mother move to an island fishing village in the UK somewhere. The girl meets an old woman who tells her an elaborate story about a legend. The inner story is a romance about a sixteen-year-old girl and an ancient curse that makes all the fish go away every 50 years. The girl discovers that the fish only return when given a human sacrifice. Now the mean-spirited girl hearing this story is moved, seeing the girl in the story as much like herself, and eventually we learn her secret (she's apparently upset because her boyfriend was killed in a motorcycle accident). The girl then is healed by the story, hooray hooray. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen until the end, and the girl is so nasty throughout the film, that I didn't like her and didn't care what happened to her, didn't care about her past, or anything else. Also, the inner story is broken up too much, told in little bits and pieces during the outer story, and it took much too long to tell. Overall, the story was a bit boring (though it had potential), and it was poorly constructed and directed to over-dramatize events as though they were of profound significance. This movie also revealed some surprisingly poor acting from Kirsten Dunst, who's out of her element as the girl in the inner story. Basically, a lot of potential wasted. Not worth your time.

Very different film from what I expected. I almost turned if off during the 45-minute wedding sequence, but stuck with it. Then suddenly we're in Vietnam, and things were surprisingly interesting (I'm not a war movie fan). The ending and the character stuff and performances were tops. I don't know that I need to this again, however. Maybe just fast forward through the slow parts.

Really excellent book. This one picks up after The Lasko Incident, twenty years later. We find out the lawyer, Christopher Paget, had a son with Mary Carelli, the woman who betrayed him in the first book (in the first book I could never understand why they slept together, considering they hated each other). Now she's become a famous ABC television journalist and Paget has raised his son. Now she wants his help: she's killed a famous writer and needs a lawyer. She claims it was self-defense -- he tried to rape her -- but her story is full of holes. As the prosecution and Paget investigate, they discover more and more holes in her story, including not one, but two secret motives for killing the man. This is riveting drama: you can't put the book down. Patterson definitely understands lawyering and puts together a terrific and complicated case, interwoven with the personal issues of the two main characters. It's not a perfect book: Patterson still has his problem with referring to characters we don't remember (but it's not as bad as before); he sometimes quotes long passages verbatim from the first book as flashbacks (why not condense it for us?); and the very end conclusion, with Paget accepting the truth Carelli was trying to hide, is so obvious a conclusion it never occurred to me to think otherwise (if Paget had, I'd have thought him a monster). (Unfortunately, I can't get more specific than that without giving away a major plot point.) Excellent read: you may not need to bother with the first book, though it's good to read both to see how far Patterson has come as a writer. Very impressive, even brilliant in places, though I really dislike the way his politics and biases continue to shine through (he inserts snide little comments every now and then, very subtly, such as when he refers to the disgusting and out-and-out evil behavior of Mary Carelli as "amoral" -- that's in the same sentence where he suggests she might be a murderer -- that's a lawyer trick and so typical of what's taught in schools these days, degrading morality into something gray and less than pure, that it made me want to puke). My original interest in Patterson came from a radio interview where he talked about his new book which deals with the abortion issue, something his publishers begged him not to write about, and even though it was obvious I disagree with his perspective, he sounded like he'd be fair and the concept was intriguing. After reading just a couple of his novels, I seriously doubt that he could be fair, though we'll see. (What bothers me about bias in a novel like this is not that an author has an opinion: I have no problem with that, even if it's an opinion I violently disagree with. My problem is when the author claims to be fair and "unbiased" when it is obvious they are not. If I write a book, for instance, I won't claim to be the slightest bit objective: it will reflect my values and beliefs and that's the way it should be. When authors claim to be "fair" and are not, they essentially are redefining the word fair, i.e. fair is when their point-of-view is subtly projected and yours is mitigated or mocked. All that said, I must say that Patterson is not the worst author in this regard, just one of the most subtle, and therefore devious. Keep that in mind when you read him.)

I thought this was a murder-mystery of some kind and it is, but it's really about time travel, not that the trailers give you any hint of that. Once you figure that out the story's really fairly standard. The time travel aspect is given short shrift and is a bit clunky in how it's presented -- all the technical mumbo jumbo is glossed over in about thirty seconds -- and it feels completely improbable. But somehow it still manages to work, mostly because of decent acting from Denzel Washington and others, and the film's pace -- non-stop action -- also helps. Unfortunately the premise of the film is such a gimmick this isn't a classic or even a film you'd want to watch a second time. I'd give it a B for first-time viewing and maybe a C for subsequent views in which all the drama and excitement is gone.

I didn't know anything about this movie other it has a reputation as a classic. I thought it was a war movie, actually. For some reason I thought Marlon Brando was in it. It kept bugging me throughout the movie how much Brando looked like Burt Reynolds! (It is Burt in the movie, for the clueless like me.) This is not a war film, it's a survival story. Four guys go canoeing down a river and struggle for their lives. While I've seen more recent films that were similar (and less well done) and that took away some of the originality of this movie, it is excellent. The cinematography is awesome, the performances flawless. My favorite scene? The "dueling banjos" at the beginning. A classic. I also liked that the movie didn't just end when the guys made it home -- it kept going, showing us a bit of the aftermath. That's unusual for Hollywood movies.

This is an incredible film. It's long but doesn't feel like it. In fact, it's paced just right. There's lots of character development, but unlike most stories, it doesn't feel boring but essential to the puzzles of the characters. The acting is superb, and the action is extremely sudden and violent and bloody, gritty with realism. The ending is quite terrible, and I mean that in the grimest sense. Just an amazing film that deserves a ton of Academy Awards.

Much better than I expected. I thought it was merely a gory horror film but it took its time developing the characters and had a lot of intelligence behind the scenes. The story's simple on the surface (pun intended): a group of adrenaline junkies, female athletes who decide to go caving in a remote cave, get trapped underground, and suddenly find themselves beset by strange, humanoid cave creatures (who are really creepy). That sounds silly and it should be -- but the relationships of the women (and even the fact that these are all women) reduces the importance of the "monsters" to inconsequence. The real story here is the relationship. Granted the film doesn't get into real depth, but it does enough that you actually care about the characters and the events of the story are raised above mere horror shlock. Not bad at all. Visually interesting with some really shocking moments.

I wanted to see this again after seeing Rodriquez's El Mariachi. This is almost a remake, or pseudo sequel. It's more of the same, just with a bigger budget. It's done with class, but there's an emptiness about it I didn't like. I'm an Antonio Banderos fan, but he's lifeless in this movie. I think the plot is designed for the small screen. Take one of Sergio Leone's classic "spaghetti" westerns like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It works because it fits its genre. If you took that same movie and made it bigger, with a huge budget and lots of explosions, it would be lifeless. It works because dumb people killing each other in tiny, insignificant towns in the middle of nowhere is meaningful within the context of their lives. It has no meaning to the big world. If you make an epic out of it, you are implying it has meaning to all of us, which it does not. Desperado is a shoot-em-up and nothing more, but it's filmed like a grand drama. Enjoy it as a fun, silly action flick. Don't expect depth and you'll be fine. And afterward, watch the smaller, better El Mariachi.

I'll begin by saying that I was mistaken when I purchased this book. I saw it in the paperback section at Costco. I glanced at the back and saw it was about the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago and told the twin stories of the architect behind the fair and a serial killer who used the fair as a source of victims. Only when I sat down to read the book did I discover that this wasn't a fascinating fictional story but genuine history. I rarely non-fiction. It just doesn't interest me. But this, I must say, is one of the best books I've ever read. I couldn't put it down. It reads like a detective novel or thriller. On the one hand we have the story of the remarkable architect behind the fair, trying to do the impossible in an age when death was common and technology primitive. At the same time, we follow the life of one of the coldest, most evil killers in history. It's a simultaneous celebration and exploration of the best and worst of humanity. As the one man puts together an artistic team never rivaled in the history of the world, the other ingeniusly murders and steals with no one the wiser. It's truly an amazing story. This is a book all high school kids should have to read for history class: if this can't get kids interested in history, nothing will. Larson does an incredible job of drawing us into 19th Century life, describing the conditions and daily experiences, and in doing so reminds us how much has changed and how priviledged we are to live in these times when we have such luxuries as good medical care.

I had minimal knowledge of the fair when I began the book, but it's important to understand just how significant an event it was in the history of the United States. It's not an understatement to say that except for the Revolution and the Civil War it was the single most important event in U.S. history. So much came out of the fair that it's difficult for the modern mind to understand the significance. First, understand the scope of this fair. It was physically huge: over a square mile in area with over two hundred buildings. One single exhibit hall boasted the most interior space of any building in history. Inside it you could fit the U.S. Capital, Winchester Cathedral, the Great Pyramid, St. Paul's Cathedral, and Madison Square Garden -- all at the same time! Second, note that this was an event in which over 27 million people attended -- at a time when there were only 65 million in the whole country. Finally, this fair launched an era of imagination: it made many believe in the impossible. A carpenter who worked at the fair was named Elias Disney. He told grand stories of the incredible fair to his son Walt. The creator of Oz, Frank K. Baum, was inspired by the fair. So was a young architect named Frank Lloyd Wright. The decision by the fair to use the new alternating current (AC) system of electrical delivery pretty much killed off Thomas Edison's push for direct current (DC). For most of the fair goers, the fair was their first opportunity to see electricity in use (one demonstration was an "electric kitchen" with all-electric appliances including a dishwasher) -- most had never even seen incandescent lights before! New products debuted at the fair: Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, a snack called Cracker Jack, a new beer that won an award and has been known ever since as Pabst Blue Ribbon. The Columbus Day holiday was created in honor of the fair (ostensibly the fair was the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in America). And of course the fair was most famous for an engineering marvel that out did Paris' new tower by Alexandre Eiffel: a giant 250' wheel that held over two thousand passengers and rotated them through the air. The wheel was so massive (it used twice as much steel as the Brooklyn Bridge) few thought it would even support its own weight. Back then there was no technology to test it in advance: it simply had to be created and tried. But its creator, George Ferris, proved right in the end.

Is it any wonder that such a fair created huge impressions on the entire country? It influenced art, architecture, engineering, and much, much more. This book tells the story of the amazing fair and the amazing people who created it. At the same time, we have the darker story of the criminal who took advantage of the chaotic atmosphere the fair produced to murder. Both stories are compelling and revealing; alone each is incomplete. Together they give an astonishing view of a world gone by. Recommended more than I can say.

Typical bio-terrorism thriller, this time with a variation of Mad Cow disease. Not bad, with some interesting characters (including a woman as the heroine), but overly long and overly complicated for a simple techno-thriller. I didn't like that the main bad guys were a crazy military Admiral and a group of religious nuts: aren't we all tired of such stereotypes?

This spoof on the Watergate scandal has two dizzy teenage girls as "Deep Throat," the source of the leaks that brought down a President. Nice, light movie. Fun, but more like an extended Saturday Nigh Live sketch than a comedy. Most of the "humor" is so mild and subtle you'll never catch it. For one, you have to know a lot about Watergate to understand most of the in jokes. To give you an example of the type of humor: on the director's commentary on the DVD, he points out how in one scene Woodward has a pad but no pen and Bernstein has a pen and no pad. The director seems to think this is hilarious, and yes, it does bring a smile to the face, but it's not laugh out loud (which a comedy of this kind needs to be). On the other hand, a film like this could be profound by making powerful statements about society and politics... but this movie doesn't. So you get mild smiles and no Deep Thought (sorry about that ;-) -- basically you won't miss much either way on this one. The most profound and interesting thing for me was something on the director's commentary: he pointed out that a number of viewers expressed far more horror and outrage that the movie would dare make fun of Woodward and Bernstein than that it makes fun of Richard Nixon. "In a sense," said Fleming, "that's because the journalists are more revered figures than the President." A bit scary, that.

Predictable, trite, silly comedy that falls flat far too often, but still has a few funny moments. The story is basically a washed up former child actor never had a childhood and thus can't relate to people or act, so he hires a surrogate family for a month to teach him what it's like to be a normal child. Yeah, a one-joke premise that quickly wears itself out. What makes it work, barely, is the presence of the "Mom," Mary McCormack, who plays everything straight and manages to keep things from going too over the top. Still, it's a weak film and not as funny as you'd expect based on the premise. The cameos of tons of former child stars adds to the movie, but generally the only humor derived from them is having them use foul language. Intelligent. Uh huh.

Very good James Bond film, but overlong at 2.5 hours. It starts out as a darker Bond, but doesn't sustain that, which is probably for the best. Unfortunately, the film feels a little divided into two parts -- sad and fun -- as a result. Otherwise this Bond has everything you want in a Bond film: action, humor, gorgeous women, and cool gadgets. What surprised me the most was the shockingly poor use of green screen in a few scenes (the hovercraft scene at the beginning and some later scenes with Berry and Brosnan flying). The out-of-focus backdrops look like TV from the 1980's! I can't imagine this was cost-cutting -- this is a big budget Bond movie. Besides, get rid of just one of those 5,000 cars they blow up and it would pay for better green screen. I assume it's just incompetence, which is almost as bad. While many special effects were very well done, a few -- especially the digital airplane at the end -- were badly done. The airplane breaking up looked really fake. That's too bad, because script-wise, this was a better film, but I was distracted by all the bad special effects.

From a story perspective, this was actually very good. The plot moves very fast, it's exciting, there are nice twists and turns, and while it's somewhat predictable in places, in general the author does a good job. The quality of the words themselves is mediocre to poor. But the biggest sin is that the book is technically flawed. The story's supposed to be about codes and code-breaking. A rebel hacker has created an "unbreakable" code and is blackmailing the NSA with it. This interested me a great deal, but it's painfully obvious the author is neither a code expert and knows nothing about technology. Horribly amateurish mistakes are rampant. For instance, he actually says that a 64-bit key has 64 letters! (Remember, every letter in a key is 8 bits, so a 64 letter key would be 512 bits.) I don't know if mistakes like that are just editing slipups, but I doubt it, since there are so many. These mistakes really make the whole novel an absurd joke and destroys any claim to realism, but I suppose only the more technically inclined would notice. Unfortunately, a number of plot points hinge on these mistakes, which makes for painful reading. For instance, the NSA has secretly created a $2 billion supercomputer with three million parallel processors that can break any encryption in minutes... yet they are worried about the computer being infected by a virus off the Internet! That's so absurd it's not even funny. Any computer person will tell you that a virus must be written specifically for the hardware: a Windows virus cannot infect a Linux machine and a Linux virus for Intel hardware won't run on Linux running on a PowerPC chip. The idea that somehow someone would write a virus for a proprietary computer that no one even knows exists is complete fantasy, and we're not even getting into the difficulties of programming parallel processing machines, which is a whole different problem. The bottom line is that a virus infecting a supercomputer is about as likely as lightning striking you the same moment you win the lottery. Our author, like so many other technoidiots out there, seems to think viruses are some sort of magical creature capable of doing whatever he needs to move his plot forward.

In the end this isn't that bad a book. The story's actually pretty good, if you can ignore all the technical flaws that make it impossible. Dan works too hard trying to establish "deep" characters (he tells instead of shows, a fatal flaw of amature writing), but the characters aren't really that important anyway, since this is a plot-driven book, not a character study. There's no depth here! But if you're wanting a fast and entertaining read (I read this mostly in one night and it's over 400 pages) and you like codes and government conspiracies, this should do the job.

Hilarious French movie about a group of rich men who have a weekly contest where they each invite an idiot to dinner. The man with the biggest idiot wins. The idiots don't know why they're there, of course -- that's the whole joke. They think they're invited because the important men want to hear their ideas. Great premise, but the movie goes a completely different direction: we never even get to the dinner. Instead, the main rich guy tweaks his back golfing and can't go to the dinner. He finds himself stuck at home with the prize idiot of all time, who won't leave, and goes on and on incessantly about his matchstick models. Next, the phone rings and it's his wife saying she's leaving him, and what follows is a bizarre comedy of errors as the man, with the "help" of his idiot, try to track her down and save his marriage. Absolutely priceless. Great performances, especially by the idiot, who somehow manages to be an ingratiating moron and evoke sympathy from the viewer. Well worth your time. A classic.

Nice little Disney computer-animated film about a dinosaur that becomes the head of his tribe. The animation is very impressive. The story isn't terribly complicated (it's predictable) and it tends to be a little heavy on the preachiness (hammering home the "never give up" message), but it's harmless.

Now this is a film! Unlike Le Divorce which went on too long and overcomplicated its plot, this movie knew exactly what it was supposed to be and succeeds brilliantly. It's a very simple plot about the illegal immigrant class in London who will do anything to survive, including selling kidneys to obtain a valid passport and new identity. The lead is an amazing actor who plays an African doctor who, for political reasons, is wanted in his own country, and has escaped to London. Now he lives in the underground, working two jobs (taxi driver by day, hotel night manager at night), and sharing a room with a girl from Turkey. She's a maid at the hotel and has opposite hours of his, so they aren't in the room at the same time. During a shift at the hotel, the man discovers a clogged toilet which contains a human heart. He suspects foul play but can't go to the police. Later, he discovers its part of an organ market, with desperate immigrants allowing themselves to be butchered in order to become legal residents. Slowly the African is roped into the scheme when it is discovered he's a doctor: now they want him to do the surgeries. Meanwhile, the Turkish girl has fallen in love with him. The authorities are hot on her tail and against his advice, she decides her only chance is to sell her kidney and escape to New York with a new identity. Now he's going to have to operate on the girl who loves him!

This film moves at a rapid pace, building drama and unraveling the mystery, and the love story between the two leads is one of the best I've seen, especially considering they barely acknowledge the love or even kiss! All this happens in a condensed 90 minutes, just perfect for a film of this nature. It doesn't try to make itself more than it is. It's a simple plot with a simple twist. But unlike films that either try to tack on multiple twist endings, throw in a few extra plotlines to complicate things, or just toot their own horn too much, this film is simple and honest and quite beautiful. Remarkable.

With obvious plot allusions to Hitchcock's classic Rear Window, in this film we've got a troubled teen under home arrest (with an ankle bracelet to keep him on the property) watching the neighbors. He begins to suspect one neighbor of being a serial killer and sets out with the help of a couple friends to prove it. Not bad. It's well-done technically, but it's a bit long, the ending's typical -- the neighbor's guilt or innocence isn't confirmed until the end, of course. Basically, the premise just feels like something we've seen too many times before. Above average and the new characters and modern setting do bring a bit of freshness to the idea, but it's not quite enough to make this anything other than a mild diversion.

Not as pathetic as I expected: in fact, I kinda liked it (or at least one aspect of it). What I liked was the approach and premise: a young woman who's getting ready to be married has an antagonist relationship with her mother, who wants nothing to do with the wedding (and the daughter doesn't want her there). But the old woman's three friends (the Ya-Ya Sisterhood) drug and kidnap the daughter and take her back home in order to explain to her who her mother is and why she's not as bad as the daughter thinks. What follows is flashbacks to the Ya-Ya Sisterhood's childhood and youth (played by two generations of actresses) as dark family secrets are revealed. Eventually, of course, the daughter and mother reconcile. What I didn't like: first, the dark secrets revealed aren't very dark, secret, or particularly interesting or exciting; second, watching a bunch of old woman talk like sailors and whine and reminisce isn't my idea of quality entertainment; and third, the whole "Ya-Ya" thing, though portrayed as childhood girls club, had mystical elements that echoed occult-type ceremonies and left a bad taste in my mouth. It would have been okay if they'd left that stuff in childhood, but seeing 60+ old women do it was bizarre and uncomfortable. Still, the film wasn't as bad as I expected, and I liked some of the characters and scenes.

A surprisingly excellent film. Hilariously and continuously funny, and not as crude as I feared. The film doesn't just rely on it's one-joke dodgeball premise, but mocks sports in general (the whole ESPN 8 thing was awesome), sports commentators, fitness centers, self-help gurus, and more. My favorite running gag was the assistant commentator at the tournament who had a brilliant knack for stating the obvious as though it was profound insight. The story itself is predictable: a group of misfits must win a dodgeball tournament to win $50K to stop their gym from closing. Predictable, but there are many sidesteps and interesting twists along the way. My favorite scene in the whole movie was when the misfit's leader is depressed and quits and is hanging out at a bar feeling sorry for himself. Who stops by but Lance Armstrong, who gives him a little speech about how he (Lance) almost quit when he was diagnosed with brain, lung, and testicular cancer, all at the same time, but he fought it and went on to win the Tour de France five times in a row. Lance says, "But hey, that was me, I'm sure you've got a good reason to quit," totally making the guy feel like the dumbest ass on the planet! Hilarious "straight" scene (it's not played for humor), just great. There are a bunch of other cool cameos as well. Overall, just a great comedy. Silly, wild, and with a terrific feel-good ending. Most films of this type are uneven, but this one keeps things moving and is funny throughout. Recommended.

Intense. Great performances. Subject matter not unusual by today's standard, but must have been dramatic in the 70's. Like the sudden ending. Overall, however, a bit empty. Homo angle questionable.

This film tries too hard to be too many things and fails at all of them. It's not particularly clever, not a great satire, and not especially profound. It does bring up some unusual religious issues, but with so much material to work with, I expected much more. It's basically a much weaker version of Neil Gaiman's Good Omens (I expect that film to be terrific). Seems writer/director Kevin Smith either didn't have much to say or shied away from real controversy. The only thing even faintly controversial about this one is Smith's typical overuse of profanity, this time coming from the mouths of angels and religious people (which comes across as more silly than satirical).

This is an absolutely fantastic movie. It's really a filmed play (which I did not know or expect prior to viewing) which I really loved. The set is sparse, an empty stage with painted lines signifying the boundaries of homes and rooms, and a few props like chairs and desks. The actors mime opening non-existent doors and such. This surrealist touch has dramatic import, since it reminds us we're in a fantasy everyworld, and we focus on the characters and situations, not the props. The story is simple yet elegantly told. The town is Dogville, a tiny mountain community of a mere 15 people. These people seem normal, even idealisticly perfect, but as the play proceeds, we grow to realize that they are petty and mean, like everyone else. Innocence joins the picture in the form of a beautiful young woman who is running away from gangsters, though we don't know why. In an exercise in acceptance, the town decides to host the girl, and hide her from those who seek her, though they are never given an explanation for why she's being sought. The woman's initial offers to help with physical labor are rejected, but eventually she finds ways to help people with "things that don't need doing." As pressures from the gangsters and the police increase, the town wavers on their commitment. What is the moral thing to do? Gradually the woman's labors increase as she becomes, essentially, the town's slave. People are mean to her, bossing her. One of the men threatens to expose her and uses her vulnerability to rape her and ensure her silence. Gradually the town of Dogville becomes a dark and evil place, the girl a captive. In the end the true colors of Dogville are shown, and the girl has her brutal revenge. It's a fantastic, disturbing, and profound film. It shows the inherent blackness of the human heart, how people can turn, how what looks one way can really be another. Amazing. Highly recommended.

This is a John Travolta film I'd never heard of, but it wasn't that bad. The story's light but filled with potential (unfortunately minimally realized). It deals with a young boy who's parents have split and she's getting remarried. The boy is struggling with this when he accidentally witnesses his new step-dad murder someone. But no one will believe him: they all think this is his way of acting out against the marriage. Only his dad believes and starts an investigation, eventually leading to the step-dad revealing his true colors and being arrested. Predictably done, but I liked the whole "kid against the unbelieving world" syndrome (similar to the murder witness in Rear Window). If Hitchcock had done this he'd have had the kid be the main character instead of the dad (Travolta) and had him figure out a way to out-smart the villain. As it is, the dad really doesn't do much (which is lame): when he starts his investigation, that prompts the bad guy to attempt to kill him, which opens things up and spoils the "did he or didn't he" subtlty that was so appealing. There's also a scene near the beginning where Travolta querries one of the bad guy's friends rather aggressively, almost as if he suspected there was something fishy about the guy (who is later murdered). Like the whole movie, it could have been much better handled, but on the whole a neat idea.

This film looked unusual and interesting in the promos, and I'm a huge Keira Knightly fan, but I'm sad to say the film doesn't work. I actually liked the director's unusual style which is in-your-face and aggressive, like the title character, a model-turned-bounty hunter. Unfortunately, it's the script that's bad. The first problem is that the story is told in reverse order, via flashbacks, a forumla that works for some movies, but fails for this one. In this case it fails because the story isn't really that interesting or unusual enough for us to put up with the technique. The other problem is that the writer (and director) seem to be overly enamored with the whole "bounty hunter" thing, as though it were the greatest or most unusual profession in the world. Granted it's not that common a profession, especially for a beautiful model, but we don't need to be reminded of that every two minutes. "Ooh, look at Domino be tough! Ooh, look at sexy Domino shoot a gun!" The story, which is overly convoluted because of the flashback technique, is disappointing in its ordinariness: it's basically just a standard "oops we robbed a mobster" plot. I really wanted to like this and tried hard for almost the duration of the entire film, but in the end, I was left disappointed and cheated. It was a neat idea, but the film's dramatic camera technique and unique visual style set the viewer up for great drama and the film only delivers disappointment.