The Z/Web Archive

An impressively good movie. I like Eminem. I don't think I'd really buy any of his albums, but he's an interesting guy. I get the feeling he really is a musical genius, though it's not the kind of music most of us would appreciate. I wanted to see this film to learn more about him and his world, and I did. As I expected, he did a good job in the lead role. I don't know why people are so suprised: it's not like he's acting. He's just playing a version of himself. Besides, almost all famous people are putting on a persona -- that's how they survive the media -- and that's acting. He comes across as likable, intelligent, and troubled -- pretty much who he is in real life, I suspect. The plot of the film is simple: a young rapper struggles to survive, being pulled different directions by friends and family and responsibility. He's got a lot of talent and everyone wants a piece of him, but he doesn't know who he is. By the end of the film he's figured that out. I liked the way the film explored deeper aspects of existence without hammering us on the head with it, I liked the portrayal of the various characters and the conflicts. It was realistic and interesting. The "rap battles" -- where two rap artists compete against each other and the audience votes on who advances to the next round -- was unusual and fascinating. I'm not a rap music fan -- it all sounds the same to me -- but I definitely could appreciate the skill and amazing wit of these guys to think of rhymes on the fly as they sing. Very cool. Well-done film, with humor, drama, tender moments, coolness, and a touch of depth. Forget that Eminem's a big star: watch this because it's a good film.

Delightfully bizarre mix of old fashioned English murder mystery and musical farce. Yes, musical! This is the story of several generations of a family (grandmother, mother, aunts, and daughters) and a couple female servants trapped by snow in a large house who discover one morning that the only man in the house has been murdered -- stabbed in the back. The phone line has been cut, the automobiles sabotaged, and the snow is blocking the gate so the eight women are trapped. Then the fun begins as the women begin to bicker and accuse, and slowly all sorts of unexpected truths emerge and we learn that every woman has secrets. It's completely soap opera absurd, and thus hilarious, and the director brilliantly plays this up with overly dramatic music and camera zooms. And each of the eight women has their own song they get to sing, breaking out with a tune in an (often) absurd moment, the room going dark with them in a spotlight, creating a hilariously campy feel. Fortunately, most of the tunes are pretty good (the first, in particular, is wonderful), and the camp feel is appropriate and gives the film an unexpected dose of fun. The murder mystery is a bit of joke (literally) but has a somber touch to it by the twist ending. Pretty good film. A bit long -- it'd be better trimmed by 10 or 15 minutes -- as it doesn't quite live up to its promises and gets slow in places. But overall a lot of fun and silliness, witty and entertaining.

Yawn. The "88 minute" deadline is supposed to create dramatic tension, but instead it just complicates an already complicated muddle into gibberish. There are some good cast members and a handful of good scenes, but the whole isn't there. Weak. Don't waste your time.

This is a simpler film than the trailers imply: basically a midwife in London finds a diary on a nameless Russian girl who dies while giving birth. The diary, when translated, tells about the girl's horrific imprisonment and rape at the hands of Russian mobsters, and thus the midwife gets embroiled into the criminal world. The film is authentic all the way with brutal violence, plenty of Russian language with English subtitles, and superior acting. It's extremely well done, but in the final analysis I wanted a touch more depth. It's all plot and the story just ends without any profound life lessons or impact. But other than that, it's a superior film.

I can't say I'm crazy about this style of writing: the pace is glacial, almost Dragnet style, with almost every donut eaten and cup of coffee drunk described in depressing detail. Of course it turns out this level of detail is somewhat important, since this is a crime drama, and those details come into play later, but the book takes forever to get going and then keeps on going long after things are resolved. Worse, though the plot is a conspiracy that is significant enough to justify a lot of this time, it doesn't quite make up for it. Next time I'll stick to the condensed version.

Not as fun as fun or intelligent as The Truman Show, this was okay, but nothing remarkable.

What a cool little gem of a book! Difficult to find even years ago, I picked this up at a used bookstore. It's not a huge tale by any means, but it's a clever little adventure about a young college graduate growing up in gangster-ridden Chicago. Like so much of Burroughs, it's witty with more subtlety than you might expect, and the plot twists and turns back on itself nicely. The main character, a clueless college grad, is hilarious in his naivety. (For instance, he doesn't turn in a pickpocket who nicked his watch and later the pickpocket returns the favor by giving the watch back. Johnny finds out the pickpocket would have gotten $20 for the watch, so he gives him twenty dollars! Of course he's assuming as a college grad he'll find the job-getting easy -- but no one answers his "I will run your company for you" job wanted ad.) Johnny falls in with the Chicago underworld, but won't compromise his integrity, even when framed for a murder. The trial at the end is a little predictable and (almost) all the loose ends are tied together a bit too neatly. It's a light, feel-good tale with some amusing pokes at society people.

Here's a classic example of the Burroughs writing style I like so much. This is his tactful description of a couple making out on a sofa:

She was not alone, yet although there were many comfortable chairs in the large room, and the sofa was an exceptionally long one, she and her companion occupied but little more space than would have comfortably accommodated a single individual.

A B-movie tribute to B-movies. Cool special effects, typical silly story about radiation creating giant spiders. Harmless fun, little else.

The DVD of this movie is totally cool -- it's a dual-edition, with Rodriguez's Desperado on the second side. El Mariachi is essentially Rodriguez's first film. It's in Spanish, and amazingly, he filmed it for a paltry $7,000! This is for an action movie, folks! (The sequel, Desperado, cost $7 million!) The DVD has Rodriguez's audio commentary and it's terrific if you're into learning about movie-making. Tons of explanation and hints and tips on making a movie cheaply. (There's even a separate "10-Minute Film School" video on the DVD.) The commentary begins right at the Columbia Pictures logo, with Rodriguez, with biting wit saying, "This logo probably cost more than my whole movie!" As to the movie itself, it's not perfect. There are dozens of little flaws, gaffs, and glitches (I think they're cool). Rodriguez was fully aware of this, a side-effect of the non-existent budget (of the seven grand, he says only six hundred dollars actually shows up on the screen -- the rest was used to buy and develop the film). He originally intended to sell the movie to the Spanish language direct-to-video market and basically just hoped to recoup his costs. He was just practicing. Unfortunately, his movie went on to win an award at the Sundance Film Festival and the movie was picked up for wide release by Columbia, so now the whole world gets to see this marvelous film. It's worth it, too. To compensate for any flaws, Rodriguez edited the movie a frantic pace. There's cut-cut-cut, zooms, slow- and fast-motion, and the whole movie has an incredible feeling of action though there's not a single stuntman, crew, or explosion! A lot of this had to do with budget: for instance, Rodriguez couldn't afford Hollywood prop guns, so he borrowed some real machine guns from the local cops (the movie was film in Mexico). Real guns aren't designed for blanks, so they jam after one round. This meant no continuing shooting was possible. So Rodriguez would film the shot from multiple angles and zooms and then edit it all together to make it seem like continue action. Turns out the choppy effect is far more dramatic than a guy standing there firing for ten seconds. Basically this movie doesn't seem low-budget from watching it. It's a great action movie. The plot's cool: a mariachi (guitar player) is mistaken for a killer who carries his guns in a guitar case. The mariachi is chased and "accidentally" kills many of the bad guys (like the way Inspect Clousou always does things). It's funny, exciting, and if you weren't told how little it cost, you'd never know. You won't mistake it for a multi-million dollar blockbuster, but it looks better than 90% of the crap that's shown on cable TV. If you check this out, I highly recommend the DVD version. Besides the invaluable commentary, there's Rodriguez's neato movie short, "Bedhead." It apparently won awards and was aired on PBS. It's the tale of a little girl being tormented by her bratty brother and what she does for revenge. Hilarious! If you're a Rodriguez fan, you can also check out his ultra-violent From Dusk Till Dawn.

Funny film, easy to confuse with Rushmore, but ultimately too light. Fun, but not great.

The media isn't biased, eh? I don't normally watch the news or read newspapers or magazines because I don't like the bias, but for current election coverage I did tune in to see how the different networks were reporting on the Election 2004 mess. Wow, it was actually painful. Fox News made it sound like it was impossible for Kerry to win: he'd literally have to win every single remaining state and get all the provisional ballets in Ohio and even then the numbers didn't quite add up. But on CNN they showed Kerry and Bush in a dogfight with almost identical electoral votes and had analysts who were pointing out what a tough road Bush had ahead and that once Kerry won Ohio it would be almost impossible for Bush to win! Dang, I hate this politicking and the divisiveness it creates. It was ridiculously easy to see the bias in the networks. I tuned to CBS to see Dan Rather viciously attack a Republican analyst, interrupting the guy's spin with his own comments and conclusions, simply because it was obvious Dan didn't want to hear that Bush had won. Why bother to have the guy on if you aren't going to listen to what he has to say? I found it quite distasteful. On the other side, Fox News shows "Democrats" who agree with Republicans (i.e. a Dem who says that Bush won).

On another note, on several channels I saw reporters deny their own polls and surveys. The reporter would reveal a new poll that showed that the number one concern of voters were moral and ethical issues, but then the reporter would dismiss that and point that that was ridiculous and obviously the voter's main concern had to be the war and terrorism and security! What war are they talking about? That silly little skirmish in Iraq? Please.

As to the whole "who won" issue, the media was at fault for encouraging it. Obviously controversy provides ratings, so the media purposely encouraged the concept that we didn't know who won the election. In reality the numbers were clear that Kerry couldn't win Ohio but still a number of networks wouldn't call the election. If they had, perhaps Kerry would have conceded earlier like in a normal election. But with the precedent of 2000 before us, the media jumped on the slightest whiff that that could happen again. Instead of being responsible, the media hurt the country but promoting indecision and confusion.

Let me just say this: the United States Presidential Election should not be decided on a technicality (this ballot is flawed, the voter was confused, or this absentee ballot doesn't have a postmark) or by a court (supreme or any other).

Courts should make rules about how an election can be run, or determine if there was fraud or a violation of those rules, but they should not be deciding who wins the election.

I write this on Saturday, long before any decision has been made in this matter, and I am growing irritated by this process. The longer this continues the more it polarizes the country. The hand counting of ballots is an example of something that will tear this country apart: frankly I don't believe the Democrats who say there is no fraud or flaw in the process, and I don't believe the Republicans who imply that Democratic counters with long fingernails are surreptitiously punching Gore holes in ballots. Both are extreme views. But the hand counts open us up to that and turn this election into a partisan battle. What the Gore camp has never proven is that there is any reason for hand counting millions of ballots. For hand counts to be needed, the Gore camp must prove that there is bias in the machine count. Just because the machines rejected some ballots does not invalidate the election: there's no evidence to show that the machine didn't reject just as many Bush ballots as Gore ballots. That's the whole point of machines. They may be wrong, they may even be wrong on a lot of ballots, but those errors average out in favor of all the parties. Unless Gore wants to argue that Gore voters are dumber than Bush voters and thus more likely to fill out ballots in such a way as to confuse the machines, there is no reason to suspect that a statewide hand recount would produce any different result than the machine count (barring any mischief, of course). Sure, the exact numbers might be different, but overall, the results would be the same.

So, you say, if Bush will win anyway, why not go ahead and do a statewide manual recount? Four reasons:

1) A manual recount will take a very long time. Currently it looks like it will take until after Thanksgiving to finish the counts already in progress, and that's for just 1.7 million votes. Most likely those counts aren't valid anyway, since every precinct is applying its own rules to the counting process, and without consistent standards, a court will throw out the results. That could mean it would take into next year just to count the ballots, not even getting into the dozens of lawsuits that are guaranteed to follow.

2) A manual recount is incredibly messy. We're just seeing the tip of iceberg so far. Both parties have lots of lawyers and are going to go to extraordinary lengths to press their cases, and with the hand count process so complicated, irregular, and full of human error, it could literally take months or even years to figure out the mess. For instance, though the counting process is monitored by a Democrat and a Republican, on questionable ballots -- the only ones that matter -- the arbiter is the local canvassing board, which in Democrat counties, is made up of a majority of Democrats (and presumably the reverse in Republican counties). Both sides have a lot to lose in the hand count process, but Gore, of course, has no other option (he has already lost on the machine count).

3) It's against the law. Now I know to most lawyers laws are just technicalities, but they do matter. There are rules to this game. Florida law says a party must request a hand count within 72 hours of the election. That time has long past and while Gore requested hand counts in certain Democratic counties, Bush did not. Accepting the results of hand counts in just the Gore counties would be patently unfair and America would not stand for that. The hue and cry would drown out the voice of any court in the nation that tried to support that crazy idea. If Gore wants "every vote to count" it must literally be every vote: Republican as well as Democratic. Sure, the Florida Supreme Court could determine that a statewide hand recount is necessary, but that's more time, more complexity, and more expense for Florida. A statewide recount would be almost as complicated as a new election! Frankly, my feeling is that if hand recounts are ordered, that means that they must be more accurate than machine counts, and therefore, every state in the country must recount all their votes by hand. After all, we must count every vote. I am serious: why is Florida the only state that gets special attention? Doesn't my vote in California count? New Mexico was won by less than 500 votes. A number of other states were also narrow victories. If Florida gets a hand recount, every state should do the same. It's only fair. In fact, all future elections should be decided by hand counting: I mean, if we can't trust machines with this election, why should we trust them in future elections? (Note: A nationwide hand recount, of course, would require a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Florida Supreme Court, which only has jurisdiction in Florida.) I say this only so the Florida Supreme court understands the seriousness of their decision: they could be writing election law for the new century.

4) There is no need for a manual recount (we have the results already). In short, Bush won. He won on election night. He won on the recount. He won after the absentee ballots came in. Enough. Let's be done with it. Half of American didn't vote at all, and of the half that did, they were evenly split between the two parties. That means America will accept either of these men as President. All we need is a good reason. If Gore cannot prove that there was any fraud or bias in the machine count, then he has lost. That has to be the standard on which the Florida Supreme Court decides whether or not to accept the hand recounted ballots. Gore needs to just pack up and bow out gracefully, and begin planning his 2004 campaign.

Let me conclude by saying that America will not tolerate this indecision much longer. It's divisive, irritating, and insulting to our Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and every American who loves this country. I had hoped this mess would be over this weekend and I was distressed to find out it was not. The Florida Supreme Court has no business in this case, unless it is to simply uphold the law and rule that the hand counts were without cause and will not be included in the final tally. I pray that is what will happen, and quickly, because if it does not, we are going to see a long, technical, and extremely partisan legal battle, regardless of whatever the votes say. Remember, the longer this goes on, the more reluctant each candidate is going to be to bow out, especially if it goes on long enough to damage the person's political career: he might see this as his only chance to be President and risk everything. If you thought Iran-Contra or the Clarence Thomas hearings or Bill Clinton's impeachment were bad, you haven't seen nothing yet. This is getting ugly, really ugly, and we've only seen the eyebrow of the monster.

Okay, I've just got to say something about this silly election. First, understand that I'm a disenfranchised voter. I'm one of the twenty million who voted for Perot, after all. Some might say I was crazy to vote for Perot, but before that, I'd never bothered to vote (though I was eligible). So Perot got me motivated. This election shows exactly why so few Americans bother to vote: it's all partisan politics.

Now, a day or so ago, I was ready to say, "Flip a coin and get it over with!" After all, with the vote being 50-50 (and forget that nonsense about Gore winning the popular vote; the votes aren't all in, and his lead is so slim as to be statistically nil), the country really doesn't care which one gets put in. But then Gore began this dangerous, arrogant business of legally challenging the result, which has the potential of tearing the country in part. It could literally lead to riots and violence (look at the sit-ins and demonstrations in Florida, which right now are peaceful). People on both sides think they are morally right and that's dangerous. So now, with Gore pulling this kind of legal maneuvering, I say, pull the plug on Gore and give the White House to Bush. (It's not going to make any difference anyway, as there's no mandate.)

Then last night MSNBC played a clip from Rush Limbaugh's radio program. To demonstrate what a creep Gore is, Rush pointed out class by talking about how Missouri Senator and former Govenor John Ashcroft had reacted to "losing to a dead guy."

First Ashcroft congratulated the people of Missouri for their compassion, then said he lost "because I simply didn't get enough votes," and he called Mel's wife and told her sincerely, "I hope this win will ease the pain of your loss at least a tiny bit." Then he refused any legal challenges to his loss (there are many who said he had grounds to overturn the result) and said he wouldn't support anyone else making any legal challenge.

Contrast that to Gore, who's going to keep the country in limbo for a few weeks while he desperately digs into graveyards for votes, stirring up the country and antagonizing the whole repub/demo thing. The hand-counting of ballets sounds extremely subjective: the counters are allowed to guess at the person's intention

Enough! The votes are in, call the election, and move the country forward.

Wow, what a hilarious turn of circumstance! Last night when I went to bed Bush was President-Elect. Today he's not, and we won't officially know until tomorrow. Plus, Gore could win the popular vote while Bush wins the White House. Only in America.

Okay, I've got to vent a bit. If I hear another idiot talking head say that this election proves that "every vote counts" I am going to scream! This election proves the exact opposite. My vote didn't count squat. If I lived in Florida, yes, my vote might have made a difference, but not in California. Enough of the Electoral College, folks! It's out dated, insane, and incredibly lame. It's time for one vote = one vote. No wonder so few people vote in the country. Not only is registration an incredible hassle (I'm still voting in a city I haven't live in for seven years, because that's where they have me registered, and whenever it's election time it's always too late for me to change it), but our vote doesn't count anyway! I want to be able to vote on the Internet! I want my vote to count! I want to start my own country!

I had little interest in seeing this. The promos made it seem predictable and stupid. But the critics gave it suprisingly high marks, so I decided to check it out. I can't believe it: it really is good! The crass gutter humor I associate with Will Ferrell isn't present, and he's actually quite likable (a bit like a lot of Adam Sandler's characters). Will plays a human raised by Santa's Elves who goes to New York City to see his real father, hilariously portrayed by a gruff James Caan, who anchors the film in reality. Caan's on the Naughty List, a Scrouge who doesn't believe in Christmas, but of course Will's Elf-like personality eventually wins not only him but all of New York over, saving Christmas for everyone. It's light-hearted and silly, but done with genuine heart, and it's grounded enough in logic and reality to keep it from being plain old dumb. I liked the way little "insignificant" things from the beginning turn out to be important later, as everyone who meets Ferrell is eventually changed by his infectous personality. Funny, entertaining, and leaves you feeling Christmasy. I predict a hit.

This is a modern version of a fairy tale, with modern music, slang, and attitudes set in a Cinderella world. It's a bit like Shrek in that respect. Initially the overacting and dialog-written-for-children had me frustrated, but gradually the movie got on its feet and settled into a zone comfortable for adults and kids. The story's cute: at birth a princess is given the gift of obedience by a loony aunt, and thereafter she must do whatever anyone tells her. Obviously, this causes amusing and eventually serious problems. The main story is about the princess trying to rid herself of this "gift," fall in love with the prince, and save the kingdom from evil in the process. Nothing too brain-straining here, but entertaining, fun, and cute. The cast is charming, the humor friendly and only occasionally perile, and conclusion satisfactory. An excellent rental.

Other than being a Costco addict, I had next to zero interest in seeing this, but got the DVD from Netflix and it wasn't as bad as I thought. That's not saying much, of course, but the promos made it sound like the plot was about two Costco cashiers competing for employee of the month because the winner would get to sleep with the girl and fortunately that sex part was deemphasized and not a signficant part of the plot. It's really just about two idiots competing and we're rooting for the underdog, of course. Surprisingly harmless.

One of my favorite Lincoln Rhyme stories: it's a bit long and a key twist at the end is rather obvious (I saw it coming right at the beginning), but it's still a fun read. I do get tired of Lincoln's self-centeredness and self-pity for his paralysis, but then I'm not paralized, so I don't know how I'd react. But that aspect is just not fun to read. What is cool in this story is the main "bad guy" is a kid: the Insect Boy, so dubbed because of his interest in bugs. He kidnaps a girl and uses his bug knowledge to set up traps and false paths for his persuers and is shocked when Lincoln Rhyme keeps right on his tail and eventually catches up with him. Pretty cool.

This had gotten good reviews and though the premise seemed interesting, it also seemed like an easy movie to screw up, but it turns out it's really well handled. The concept is that an animated princess in a fairytale world gets transported to modern day live action New York City by the Wicked Witch. The princess is completely clueless, as everything in her world happens in a perfect fairytale fashion without all the complexities of real life. She ends up being rescued by a hardened divorce attorney who's about to get married without any romance in it at all -- and the princess, of course, shows him that there's magic in living and the world isn't all evil. It's fun the way the movie blends the animated and live action worlds, but that's just a gimmick -- far better is the way the film plays with all the fairytale stereotypes and mixes tales into a delightfully bizarre conconction. Great fun. Not too serious, and the finale's way over the top (literally), but still enjoyable. My favorite scene was the scene in the park where the princess starts to sing an improv and strangers in the park start joining in while the down-to-earth lawyer follows scratching his head in bewilderment and going, "Hey, how do they all know this song?" Hilarious, and one of my pet peeves about musicals.

Schwartzenegger shoot-em-up is all special effects (very impressive ones) but a silly plot that's part "The Devil's Advocate" and part two dozen other movies. Pretty ridiculous, and Arnold's character does nothing heroic but constantly get beat up until the very end. Watch it for the special effects.

This is a film updating the "Through Gates of Splendor" story about missionaries in South America in the 1950s who are killed trying to make contact with a remote and savage native tribe. The story is amazing: the Indians have a culture of killing and are literally wiping themselves out (at one point there were only 60 or so natives remaining) through vengeance killings. When the white missionary men come, the distrustful and supersticious Indians spear them. Then it is the wives of the missionaries who come and live with the Indians. The Indians are not fearful of the women, dismissing them, and thus a communication is formed. Eventually the missionaries' word of peace and of a loving God is communicated, in part because the Indians are shocked and bewildered that the wives and children (especially the son) of the murdered men are not after revenge but offering love. Today there are more grandparents in the tribe than any time in hundreds of years. In the past, the grandparents were all killed before their grandchildren were born.

I was familiar with most of this story, but the film brings the story to modern day, where the son of one of the murdered missionaries has gone back with his own family to live among the Indians. That is quite a legacy. But do you see God's incredible plan? The Indians would never have accepted the missionary men. Men, to them, were warriors, always to be distrusted as the enemy. But the women had an "in" with the natives that only God could see. By allowing the missionary men to die, God opened a door for communication with the Indians that never would have been possible in any other way.

While surprisingly well-done in many ways, this film is not without flaws, however. The producers purposely left out much religiosity, a decision I'm generally in favor of as we don't want the movie to be preachy or detract from the story. Unfortunately, too much was removed, for we never see the missionaries praying or doing anything remotely religious -- if we weren't told they were missionaries we might have thought they were anthropologists or something! The first third of the movie's confusing, and there are some technical issues, but this gets better as the film progresses -- it made me think they started with one budget and got more money and were able to up the quality mid-stream. The acting and directing was decent, but much of the film takes place among the natives, speaking their tongue with subtitles, so it's difficult to judge performances. Overall I was pleased. I was impressed at how much care was given to the native's dilemma of giving up their killing lifestyle. This was a huge decision for them. It was not easy to put down their spears. The film respects this and does not give us a sitcom resolution. The women were in constant danger for the Indians threatened to kill them many times and in anger and suspicion almost did on several occasions. But eventually, gradually, the Indians put down their spears and began to live in peace. Quite an amazing transformation, when you think of it. My thought was that gangs in L.A., NY, etc. ought to see the film since they subscribe to the same circle of violence (vegeance killings).

After losing to Germany at home last weekend, England's head coach resigned and the team desperately needed a win against Finland. Finland, however, played with considerable brilliance, but not quite enough break down England's defense. A decent game, though no goals. 0-0 final.

Impressive WWII film about code-breaking (Enigma was the famous cipher machine the Germans used and the Allies broke). The plot splits into two stories: the Germans have suddenly changed their code and the Allies have less than four days to break the new code before a huge convoy of critical supplies is destroyed (it took 10 months the first time) and it's up to a genius mathematician to do it; the second plot deals with the mathematician's ex-girlfriend who's disappeared and might have been a traitor (he discovers secret codes hidden in her room). Unfortunately, while all this is interesting, the split plots complicates things too much, and in the end, the second plot (which is really the main plot) gets totally convoluted and confusing (I didn't understand what the stuff about Russia had to do with anything else). In the end, it seems a lot of the mystery had to do with silly politics. Rather a whimper of a ending. My advice: watch the first half which is great, and once they break the new German code, fast forward through the rest.

What I kept thinking as I watched this was of those paint-by-number kits I had as a child. This is a paint-by-numbers movie. It's got all the elements: tough lower-class chick falls in love with rich dude, they get married and start a family, he cheats and beats her, she runs away with daughter, and he uses influence to track her. In the end, he's got all the power, so the only thing she can do is learn to defend herself and kill him. Not a bad film at all: mildly fun, somewhat interesting, and quite predictable. But that's exactly what makes it mediocre. It's got some nice touches and interesting scenes, and it's well-done, but ultimately nothing much happens that we don't know before it starts.

This was supposed to be a disappointing movie, but I got exactly what I expected: basically Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones looking gorgeous and committing cool high-tech robberies. Sure, it's not deep, and plot was swiss cheese, but it was fun and completely harmless.

Good game, though not many goals. By the look of things Coventry is on their way out of the Premiere League, while Arsenal wants to show they are the second best team in England. Coventry dominated possession, though Arsenal never seemed flustered by that. While Coventry had some good chances, Arsenal's were a lot better quality. They finally converted on a 78th minute header by Bergkamp. Magnus Hedman, Coventry's Swedish goal-keeper (a favorite of mine), was amazing, doing a number of tip-overs and one-handed stops from close range. He kept the score respectable from Coventry's viewpoint, though that doesn't help their league standings. I don't recall any significant saves from Arsenal's Seaman. Final: 1-0 Arsenal.

Coming off last week's win over the Kings of British football, Manchester United, Liverpool was on a tear. The clash of these two traditional powerhouses was everything you'd expect: hard physical play, exemplary skill, and great goals. Gerrard started things off for Liverpool just ten minutes in on a great grass-grazing volley that went through a crowd of players and easily beat the keeper into the corner of the net. In the second half, Arsenal's Bergkamp managed to force a great save from Liverpool's keeper, but not long after that a mistake by Arsenal's keeper allowed superstar Michael Owen to double the lead. Liverpool kept the other team at bay, and then worked a great counter where Smicer put in a ball to Barmby who finished it admirably. If that wasn't bad enough, Robbie Fowler added more insult with a cheeky goal in the dying seconds. Final: 4-0 Liverpool.

With Middlesbrough in such lowly form, how would they fare against powerhouse Arsenal? They did not start off well: in the 23rd minute keeper Crossley violently took down Lundberg in the box and not only gave Arsenal a penalty kick but was ejected! Substitute keeper Beresford was quickly put in to face the penalty, but Frenchman Henry easily scored. Beresford did well, making several excellent saves late in the half, but with Middlesbrough down to ten men, it didn't look good for the home side. But Middlesbrough came back determined and played well. Arsenal sat back except for a few counters, including some impressive play by Henry (he played provider several times, and hit the post once). Other than a few shining moments, however, the game was weak, as Arsenal played defense (in a game they should have won by a large margin) and ten-man Middlesbrough struggled for any kind of quality offense. Final: 1-0 Arsenal.

Terrific London derby. Spurs got going with a goal from Rebrov 30 minutes in, but Arsenal didn't start playing until the second half. Then it was nothing but goal action. Spurs had a few good chances to extend their lead, but mostly it was Arsenal trying to equalize. Spurs keeper Sullivan was amazing, stopping at least a half dozen point blank shots. He kept Tottenham in the game. With five minutes to go it was a sure win... not. A momentary lapse in marking allowed bad boy Patrick Vieira -- whom I can't stand and think should be banned from the game of football -- to head the ball home. Lame. Final: 1-1 draw.

Arsenal had control most of the game and towards the end it looked like an easy 2-0 victory, but then a great free kick goal from Moroccan Hadji made the game 2-1 and the last ten minutes were a frantic fight. Hall had a terrific post shot in the last seconds that could have tied the score, but it wasn't Coventry's day. Hadji's goal marked the first time in five seasons Coventry scored on Arsenal's home field.

Powerhouse Arsenal just really seemed to struggle while Ipswich played excellently. However, though Ipswich got a great goal early, they missed several great chances later, and sure enough, Arsenal managed to sneak one past the keeper late in the game for a 1-1 final.

A rather boring match; the Gunners struggled, though they managed a few decent shots, but the Villians didn't even show up. Thierry Henry finally scored a terrific through-the-legs-of-the-defender goal, but that was all the action in the action.

Despite the low score, this was a fun game to watch. Derby succeeded in getting a penalty kick late in the first half. Deon Burton took it and scored, putting them up, and though there were chances and crossbar shots the rest of the game, neither team gave up or scored a goal. Derby actually win for once! Final: 1-0 Derby.

This started of well with a lot of action, mostly in Leeds favor, but they couldn't quite crack the Villains defense. Then Aston Villa found a break late in the half when keeper Robinson failed to completely clear a ball and stubborn defender Southgate put in a nice header. In the second half Leeds put Villa under tremendous pressure, but it wasn't until the very end of the game they had a terrific chance by Kewell, unfortunately stopped. The Villains scored on the counter immediately after, on a goal by Boateng. Leeds finally broke through in injury time when Woodgate put it in, but it was too little, too late. Final: 2-1 Aston Villa.

A rather boring game until Joachim scored early in the second half, then Sunderland fought back hard. They couldn't score for a long time and it looked like they were going down, but finally McCann put it away and secured the draw. Final: 1-1.

You might think it would be hard for a team to be underdogs to Middlesbrough, considering their terrible form this season, but Bradford City has been doing even worse (only one away goal all season). Both teams are in the relegation zone, with Bradford at the very bottom of the pile. So this game looked like Boro's chance for a home win, but things went badly from the start. A minute and a half in when Boro didn't clear the ball well, Windass got it and easily scored. Then, eight minutes later, Carbone scored. Underdogs Bradford were up by two! While Bradford dominated first half play, the second half can be described as a scramble as frantic Middlesbrough struggled for any kind of scrap they could find. They started off well with a goal from Ehiogu just a few minutes in, when Bradford's keeper made a terrible clear by coming out of his box and knocking the ball right to Ehiogu's head. After that, however, it looked like Bradford would hold their lead, especially when Middlesbrough had a man sent off. But miraculously, just before the end of regulation, veteran Paul Ince got the ball in the box, dribbled to some open space on the left and put in a low grounder. It bobbled right through Bradford's keeper's legs to bring the game to a 2-2 draw. Sadly, that comeback may not be enough to keep Middlesbrough's manager's job, but we'll see.

I wasn't excited about watching this game and it turned out for good reason. Let me just put it this way: Southampton were the exciting team in the match, if that tells you anything. Charlton never even bothered to attack. The zero-zero draw was rather boring, though there were a couple nice chances, but nothing beat either keeper.

Surprisingly good game. Coventry scored early, to the shock of everyone, when Bellamy put in a ball the Charlton keeper fumbled. But Charlton were back minutes later when Rufus put in a similar silly goal at the other end. After the mistakes, there were good goals in the second half, starting with Charlton's Johansson volleying in a shot just seconds after the kickoff to put them ahead. But Coventry somehow found a way to equalize when Hartson's missed kick caught just enough of the ball to allow it to trickle over the goalline. Crazy. Final: 2-2.

The clash of two promoted clubs (both were in the second division last season) proved to be a determined battle. For the first 80 minutes nothing much happened as the teams just scraped and struggled, but finally Ipswich came to life with a goal by Matt Holland (his first in the Premiereship), and a few minutes later Stewart did a terrific juggling act in the box to maneuver the ball into shooting position, scoring off a deflection. Final: 2-0 Ipswich.

I like to root for the underdogs, so I was delighted that Charlton won, 1-0, but the game itself wasn't that great, though the goal was excellent.

I missed part of this game, but got to see the goals very late. Leeds dominated, but couldn't score, until Keane's shot in the 85th minute rebounded off the keeper and back to him, allowing him to walk it in unchallenged. Viduka's volley three minutes later put the matter beyond doubt. Final: 2-0 Leeds.

This was a replay of September's terrific Man. U./Chelsea clash, with goals galore. The 3-3 draw was great entertainment and well worth watching again.

This game was a lot of hard work with very little payoff. But when it came, it was sweet indeed. West Ham struggled against bottom-of-the-league Coventry, but couldn't break them until very late in the game. Joe Cole cleaned up a mess in the box by side footing the ball into the goal. Very nice. For Coventry, it certainly looked like they are heading for Division One next year. But miraculously, with thirty seconds to go, they came up with a goal! Eustice headed in a weak ball that came off his shoulder but it went in. Like they say about airplane landings, any goal that counts is a good one. Final: 1-1 West Ham.

Poor Coventry: they seemed like they were finally getting into form, but they were blasted by Ipswitch. Reuser scored early, in the 20th minute, and in the second half Wright's shot was deflected to put Ipswitch up by two. Coventry tried hard, but they couldn't score. Final: 2-0 Ipswitch.

Astonishing! Where did this Coventry come from? With relegation looming, wins are vital for Coventry, but the goals just haven't been coming. Until today. Bellamy scored in the first minute, stunning everyone. But Leicester battled back and Akinbiyi managed a header eight minutes later to equalize, and it seemed like the same old Coventry situation. But it was not. Chance after chance had Coventry, who can bare score at home, putting Leicester on the defensive. Lee Carsley got a terrific header in the nineteenth minute, so Coventry went into the locker room at the half one goal ahead. It really should have been four-one, except for some terrific goal-keeping and bad luck. In the second half I expected Leicester to fight, but before they got going Hartson, who'd had several good chances in the first half, finally got his goal just a few minute in. Eventually Leicester got a little going, but it was much too late and Coventry were so full of confidence that their defense had a reasonably easy time of it. Terrific win for lowly Coventry. Final: 3-1.

The second place team against the worst place team: who will win? Yeah, right, like it's even a contest. Well, it was. Derby was the stronger team at the start, but mostly they defended while the Gunners struggled to put together plays. In the end, neither team could defeat the other: a classic nil-nil draw. Bah humbug.

Pretty good game, though unfair for Everton, since they dominated the game. But once again, Man. U.'s luck runs strong. Cole put in a shot early in the second half and when an Everton defender tried to block it, it deflect into his own goal. After that, Man. U. just held on. American Joe-Max Moore got to start this game, and he had a few good moves, including a terrific shot which was saved by the keeper. Final: 1-0 Manchester United.

I like both these teams: Sunderland for their fighting underdog spirit and scoring phenom Kevin Philips and Everton because they're intelligent enough to have an American player, Joe-Max Moore. Unfortunately, Moore sat on the bench for most of the game, and thus Everton dominated. The first half remained nil-nil until last minute, when defender Rae ran onto a rebound and blasted it into the net. In the second half, Sunderland peppered the Everton goal with shots, and finally Philips broke his own goalless streak with a simple tap-in. Moore was put in with 20 minutes left, which was great to see, but still Sunderland dominated. Moore put in a corner kick which was very nearly headed in, and he got a few other good touches, but he didn't have time to do enough. Final: 2-0 Sunderland.

Ipswich, promoted this year, has been leading a charmed life, and is high up the table. Coventry, however, is already fighting relegation. Today the trend continued. After a zero-zero first half in which Coventry dominated, both teams fought with more determination in the second, but neither could score. About the most exciting things to happen was when an Ipswich defender crashed himself into his goalpost making a diving header save and when Coventry hit the woodwork on a free kick. The score was still nothing-nothing when regulation ended, when suddenly, out of nowhere, Ipswich's Wilnis knocked in a beautiful glancing header to win the game. Soccer's a crazy, unfair game. Coventry lose at home.

Not much of a competition: Man. U., despite being without three of their top players, rolls over Ipswich easily. Both goals came from Norwegian striker Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, and both were brilliant. The first, at 20 minutes in, occurred on a give-and-go with Giggs. Solskjaer received the pass, calmly sidestepped the diving keeper, and kicked the ball into the heart of the goal. The second was even better: just twelve minutes later a gorgeous ball from Beckham (at the center line!), came floating in to Solskjaer in the box. He allowed the ball to land on the inside of his foot, deftly guided it to the ground, and then kicked it past the keeper. Amazing. And this is a player that normally sits on the bench! The second half was a mere formality: Ipswich hardly even threatened. Final: 2-0 Man. U.

Svensson got a header for Charlton just 12 minutes in, but Reuser got a bizarre equalizer eight minutes later.

Poor Southampton: they struggled at the beginning of the season, but new coach Glenn Hoddle turned their season around. They haven't lost in their last six games. Then last week he suddenly left to manage Tottenham; perhaps that rattled Southampton's confidence. Ipswitch, astonishingly in third place in the league, decided they wanted to keep that place. Marcus Stewart got open in the box and slotted in an easy goal 33 minutes in. He got his second in the second half, and capped that off with a penalty kick goal in the 76th minute. A hat trick! That was more than enough. Final: 3-0 Ipswitch.

Unfortunately, not a good game for Leeds. They went down early on a goal by Ljungberg, followed by a goal a few minutes into the second half by Wiltord. Ian Harte brought Leeds back a little shortly thereafter on a marvelous free kick, but that was all they could do. Final: 2-1 Arsenal.

Good game. Leeds' players got all the goals. Alan Smith scored twice, early and late, and Harte scored on another brilliant free kick. Ferdinand put the ball in his own net to give Leicester a goal. Final: 3-1 Leeds.

Leeds have been doing well in the Champions League, but can't find their form in the English Premiere League. In this game they lost to lowly Southampton when Jamie Beattie scored late in the first half, even though Leeds dominated play. Leeds had just had a shot terrifically tipped over the crossbar by Jones, and on the resulting corner kick, Southampton gained possession and sent the ball long on a counter attack. Beattie, on the wing, got the ball and slipped it past the keeper. Excellent goal. Final: 1-0 Southampton.

Cool game. Leeds got going early when Keane slipped one past the keeper, and just into the second half former West Ham player Rio Ferdinand got one against his old club. Leeds probably would have increased their lead, but Batty was sent off a minute later, so they just held on to the end. Final: 2-0 Leeds.

I'm not a huge Leicster fan, mostly because they don't score goals. Well, color me wrong, at least for this game. Seven minutes in Robbie Savage heads in a keeper's rebound, and ten minutes after that Akinbiyi heads in a second goal. You might have thought that was Leicster's quota for the month, but then, on a clever free kick play, the ball was crossed instead of driven in, and Taggert leaped up to head the cross past the keeper. Three-zero in less than 30 minutes! In the second half Leeds really pressed, getting numerous corners, but couldn't score. Then defender Lucas Radebe got sent off with his second yellow, putting Leeds down to ten men. Leeds finally got a goal when Smith's shot rebounded to Viduka, who had an easy tap-in. After that Leeds had some good chances, including a free kick that hit the post. But it was too much of a lead to overcome: 3-1 Leicster.

This was a taped game from this weekend, but it proved Leeds substitute keeper Robinson was no fluke in yesterday's Champions League match against Barcelona, as he did the same in this game, make a number of terrific saves. But it wasn't enough, as Yorke put one in late in the first half, and David Beckham's specialty, the free kick, proved too much early in the second half. Late in the game even Robinson's teammates turned against him, with Jones accidentally putting the ball in his own net. Final: 3-0 Manchester United.

Good game. Tottenham started off well, though against the run of play, with a goal from Les Ferdinand a half hour in. He caught the loose ball on a mistake from the Leeds defense and moved forward to dribble around the keeper. Good job. But Leeds didn't give up. A gentle take-down of Lee Bowyer right at the 45 minute mark gave them a penalty kick, and Ian Harte put it away so they could go into the half tied. In the second half, Lee Bowyer had several chances, finally putting one away seventeen minutes in, on a short corner where he ran the ball out at an angle, turned, and put in a shot which no one bothered to block. Silly goal for Tottenham to give up, and it cost them. Final: 2-1 Leeds.

Bizarre game. I'd expected big scoring, but Man. U. were quiet. They completely dominated Leicester, who hardly had a shot on goal the whole night, but couldn't finish. Even as we approached the end of the game, with just minutes left, I still figured United would not only not let the game end in a tie, but would beat Leicester soundly. Sure enough, that's what happened. Yorke deflected a shot to score in the 88th minute, and in injury time, Silvestre got his first Premiereship goal (a great shot, btw). Crazy. Final: 2-0 Manchester United.

Great battle between the fourth and fifth placed teams. Gobs of terrific "sure" goals impossibly blocked by Leicster. It looked like it was heading for a nil-nil draw, but then former Leicster strike Emil Heskey beat Leicster keeper Tim Flowers to the ball, literally kicking it out from under the keeper to score. Leicster hardly had a shot on goal the whole game, and that's how it finished, 1-0 Liverpool.

With their new coach, Chelsea came out looking for their first win since the first game of the season. They got it, and in spectacular fashion. Their first goal was a gift from Liverpool's keeper Westerveld, who punched the ball, not clear, but into his own net! A minute later, however, Haisselbank made it clear that Chelsea deserved the lead by finishing a fantastic passing sequence in which he put the ball in the upper ninety with one superb touch. Liverpool could do very little, though Owen did come alive once and force a terrific save from Chelsea's De Hoey. In the second half, all doubt as to the result was gone when spectacular newcomer Gudjohnsen finished an opening like a pro, dribbling around Westerveld and coolly slotting the ball into the open net. Final: 3-0 Chelsea, and well deserved.

Wow, what a game! One didn't know who would win this rivalry until the final seconds. Liverpool started things off with a great run by Heskey who finished beautifully in the 5th minute. But Ferguson equalized for Everton just before the half. In the second half, Babbel scored early to put the Reds back on top, and they should have been two goals ahead but Fowler missed his penalty kick. The ref (who had a number of controversial decisions) sent off Biscan in the 79th minute putting Liverpool down a man, and shortly afterward awarded Everton with their own penalty, which Unsworth completed to tie the score. The tie kept well into injury time, when almost four minutes in, McAllister's long free kick curled just inside the near post for a brilliant goal. Seconds later the whistle blew and just like that Liverpool was victorious! Wow, what a finale! Final: 3-2.

Lame game until the second half, when Liverpool got desperate. Akinbiyi scored early in the second half for Leicester, when Fowler's poor clear went straight to Robbie Savage, putting the Liverpool defense in an awkward position. Liverpool fought back, but the Leicester defense was a brick wall, and late in the game Izzet ran onto a through-ball for an easy goal which sealed Liverpool's fate. Final: 2-0 Leicester City.

I have to be honest: I slept through most of this game. I did see the goals, however. The first half was nil-nil. Just as I was dozing off in the second, Hutchinson put one in for Sunderland, and toward the end of the game, Litmanen tied it up for Liverpool on a penalty kick. That's about all I remember. Final: 1-1 draw.

Game was lackluster until the away team went ahead in the 65th minute on a great goal from Haaland. He got an assist from Wanchope who did a clever backheel to split two defenders and give him the ball one-on-one with the keeper. That enlivened the Villains who quickly responded with a glancing header from Dublin that went into the net. Just a minute or so after that, Wanchope headed in David's James' poor rebound to put Manchester up a second time! Then Villa's Hendrie got ejected, so they were down a goal and down a man as well. Things didn't look good. But a free kick gave Ginola an opportunity and he took it. The kick was headed out of the box and he volleyed it beautifully into the net to equalize the score. That was it for the scoring, but some wonderful, classy goals. Terrific second half. Final: 2-2 draw.

This fight of two teams at the bottom of the league turned out to be surprisingly good, though none of the goals were of the world class variety. Man. City started things off with a goal from Wiekens, and it looked like things were going their way until the second half, when suddenly Bradford came on strong with two goals in five minutes! Blake scored first, then Ward, and it wasn't until Goater's tying goal in the 70th minute that Manchester City could breath again. Bradford fought hard -- a draw does them no good at all, they are so far down -- but a draw is what they got. Final: 2-2.

What in the world happened with this game? The first half was dull beyond words, without hardly a chance on either goal. The second half started off with a goal for each team within two minutes! Powell got a goal in the 49th minute, but ecstasy turned to dismay two minutes later when Howay equalized for Man. City. There was a bit of spark after that, but both teams seemed happy with the draw. Final: 1-1.

With these two lowly sides, you'd figure the game would be even, but Southampton forgot to show up. Man. City's Dickov scored in the 38th minute on a breakaway, and they easily held the lead until the final minutes when it looked like Southampton might trouble them. But some great defending kept the Saints at bay, and in injury time, Tiatto put the matter beyond doubt with a terrific finish on a counter-attack. Final: 2-0 Man. City.