The Z/Web Archive

Silly movie that pokes fun at the Star Trek phenomena. The story's basically that the cast of Star Trek-like TV show are taken by aliens to help fight against their enemy, not realizing the people are just actors. Well-done, with a few choice gags, but not especially memorable. Better than most one-joke premises.

I watched Galaxy Quest again, this time on DVD. This movie just gets better with each viewing. The DVD's cool, with some nice deleted scenes and stuff. Recommended.

Excellent "war" movie without much war. Instead of focusing on the horrors of war, this film focuses on the characters, allowing us to get to know them for over an hour before they go into battle. The effect is excellent. Instead of numbing our minds to continual images of violence and horror, we relax as young boys play soldier and have fun, only to have the reality of war arrive as vivid and horrid shock. Dramatic, well photographed, interesting, and best of all, minimal war stuff. Really good.

I wanted to like this as the "chess master loses to computer" topic fascinates, but it's one of the worst documentary's I've ever seen. Things go bad from the opening, when the narrator speaks in a horrible harsh whisper that's so faint I had to pump up the volume to hear him and even then a lot of what he said was inaudible (and oh, the film has no subtitles or closed caption support). It just gets worse from there. Throughout the film time is confused: we aren't sure if the scenes are history or current. Some of the recent footage is dreary: scenes of Kasparov standing in a hotel room where the big match took place years earlier and remembering mundane details like "There was a table over there." are just pointless and boring. There is some good chess info, and interviews of the IBM programming team edge on perceptive, but unfortunately Kasparov himself, despite being heavily featured throughout, remains an enigma. Apparently he beat himself in the big loss (the machine didn't win, Kasparov lost), but the why is never revealed though that's the core question of the film. Very strange. I came away not knowing much more than I started with, which is not a good sign for a documentary. And there are lots of irrelevant stylistic techniques the film employs to gratuitous effect, such as the overly dramatic shots of the "Turk" (a famous manniquin chess-playing machine from centuries ago), which are confusing and never enlightening. The bottom line: the film's a muddle. You'd do better to read a good article on the topic.

Finally, a Scorsese film I can really like! (I've never been a big Scorsese fan. Shocking, I know.) This is an incredible film. And I say that as someone who doesn't like ganster, gang, or Civil War films. Yes, it is violent and difficult to watch at times, but the violence is all to make a point and paint a picture of how society was at that time. The story is "simple:" in the mid-1800s, a young man in New York seeks revenge against the gang boss who murdered his father. But the backdrop is a complex mess of racism, immigration policies, politics, religion, slavery, and a Civil War that divides not just the country, but New York as well. When you reflect that all this is happening in a brand new country less than a century old, you really feel the future of the U.S. hanging in the balance. Scorsese (and the script) do an amazing job of making all that complicated history understandable (much better than other "historical" films which assume you know the history) without lecturing or oversimplifying. Scorsese cleverly hints at the complexity, giving us glimpses, without trying to actually explain everything in detail (which would no doubt require several documentaries). This gives us entertainment mixed with a little education instead of the other way around. An excellent example is the intercut prayer scene: we watch as the main character, main bad guy, and a rich family each pray. All are sincere, all believe God is on their side, and yet we sense that disaster is about to befall them. This series of images is powerful, complicated, and thought-provoking. Very cool. Scorsese does a lot of simple imagery, camera movement, and very effectively tells a powerful story. (I liked the way he filmed the horrific battle scenes, not really showing that much gore, but implying it with quick flashes of alarmed faces. I will nitpick one detail, however: at least one battling couple in the opening fight appeared to be dancing than fighting. They were just tapping each other the shoulder with their clubs!)

In terms of performances, I must again put forth my vote for Daniel Day-Lewis as the greatest actor ever in the history of cinema. The guy is just amazing (he was my primary motivation to see this film). He never misses. Just flawless. The way he becomes a character is frightening. While I like Leonardo and Cameron Diaz, they're lightweights compared to Daniel. In the trailers I was cringing at some of their scenes, but that was just because they were out of context: in the film they're both fine. Their charisma does come through and their fight-slash-love scene is some terrific cinema (surely they had to hurt each other filming that). In general everything felt so authentic that I really fell for all the characters, sympathizing and hating, which is exactly what a good film is supposed to do.

This was just a great film. It was frightening, humorous, passionate, educational, historical, dramatic, and profound without being artsy or pretentious. It is long, but it doesn't feel like there's much that could be cut out. The final scenes showing old New York become modern-day New York were amazing: I'd love to study those images. I especially liked that Scorsese included the Twin Towers in the modern shot, rather than removing it the way so many recent films have done. To me that added a powerful message that history is real, and just like the Twin Towers not being part of the NY skyline any more, we can't see the blood on the streets left by the millions of people that built the city. Wow.

Really enjoyable little twister. Unlike most WWII novels, this one was set before the war, during the Olympics in Germany in 1936 (where Jesse Owens won). The main character's a mob hit man in New York who's blackmailed by shady government types into going to Germany to kill a particular Nazi leader (not Hitler -- everyone felt he was so radical his reign wouldn't last long) who was the brains behind the throne. It's a wild and intriguing story, with an unusual setting, and a cool, twisting plot. Worth the read.

Terrific, lovely film about a troubled slacker trying to figure out life. He seems like a typical loser at first, strangely distant when learning of his mother's death early in the film, but we gradually learn that his psychiatrist father has had him medicated since he was a child. Returning home to New Jersey for his mother's funeral, he rebells against his father and stops taking his medications, beginning to feel life the first time. He then meets an oddly charming girl, a compulsive liar fantastically portrayed by Natalie Portman in one of her best roles, with her own quirky family. The two form a bond that grows throughout the film, deepening to love. Astonishingly well-written, sensitive, funny, charming, and sweet, this is a great story -- two hurt people find love in a painful world -- beautifully and honestly told. The characters are well-defined and realistic, and the story retains enough grit and dirt to remain hip and modern and therefore be sincere without smaltzy saccharine romantic silliness. Fun, fascinating, and moving. A must-see.

Not as bad as I expected, but strangely flat. The cat's commentary and jokes aren't funny, and the plot -- the cat trying to save the dog -- isn't engaging or dramatic. The humans are just cartoons, not fleshed out enough for us to care. The whole thing adds up to sheer boredom.

I picked this up at a used bookstore; it seemed familiar. A while back I'd heard the author talk on KGO radio and his premise sounded intriguing -- creating a clone of Jesus by using DNA from hair and other "genuine" artifacts of the Church. Okay, I've just ruined the book for you. This is a one-joke book, and it's really annoying. You literally do not find out the key detail -- what I just told you -- until the last few pages of the book! It's lame, because from page one there are hints and mysteries and shadows but the author "cleverly" refuses to divulge what is happening. He does this poorly, by giving us a selective narrator. Instead of having a character talk to another with dialog, revealing the secret to us, he basically writes, "The man told him the secret and he was horrified." So you spend the whole book trying to figure out this great secret as characters do mysterious things and others kill and run and search -- but you don't have the faintest idea why any of this is happening! (Or why you should care.) Of course, in my case, I knew (or had a vague idea), so all the cloak-and-dagger was doubly annoying. I was hoping for a book that explored the religious and ethic impact of such a cloning -- what a fantastic idea -- but instead all I got was a routine mystery/spy/action novel with nothing new until the last page, and then, after dropping the bombshell, it ended. As a routine thriller; its not bad, though not as good as say, Ken Follett. Just don't set your expectations high, like I did.

Finally Kerr's done it! I'm going to have to check out his earlier novels, because they're obviously better. This one is fascinating. It's set in Germany a few years after WWII, when the country was being occupied by the Allies (U.S., Soviet Union, France, etc.). This was especially interesting reading now, as the world contemplates a new Iraq. Germany after the war was a mess, with people starving and the black market practically the only way to get anything. In the middle of this hotbed Kerr sets a murder investigation. The hero's a former German police officer who's now a private investigator. The plot's incredibly intricate, so I won't explain much of it here, but let's just say he uncovers a conspiracy that involves the U.S. and Russian governments and Nazis who survived the war taking on new identities. While complicated (perhaps overly so), it's fascinating. Kerr is in top mode here, with excellent writing. His use of intricate detail is used here to paint a world for us, not impress us with his five-syllable vocabulary. Wonderfully written, suspenseful, and really makes the world of 1947 come alive. Highly recommended.

This film is like a fuse being lit and slowing burning toward a grand explosion. It's a revenge flick of a ganster (Michael Caine) who's brother has died. He goes to the town to poke around and find out what happened and slowly uncovers a complex series of backstabbing gangsters, whores, and murderers, and then he instigates his revenge. Unlike a lot of modern action films which supply massive quantities of constant violence, this one doses it out only as needed, and thus it provides the appropriate shock value. Similar to Payback and Mad Max. The ending's a bit unexpected.

This is one of those films that could be great or mediocre, but fortunately this one is more the former. It's very funny and fun and well-done, with the character of Maxwell Smart perfectly running the borderline between idiotic stupidity and idiotic genius. It's also different enough from the TV series to be new and interesting, yet similar enough to be enjoyable by old fans. Two thumbs up.

Excellent actioner, with lots of tension and violence. Steve McQueen is awesome as a paroled convict released to do a bank robbery (the parole board was bribed). Of course everything goes wrong, with his friends attempting to do him in, and it's up to him and his wife (Ali MacGraw) to escape both the bad guys and the cops. I saw the remake a few years ago and though it wasn't bad, this was way, way better. Why remake such a great film? I'm definitely going to have to check out the original Thomas Crown Affair (also staring McQueen and remade recently).

For a while now I've been hearing about this book. A lot of computer programmers are into it and aspects of it -- like the whole "Inbox Zero" concept -- are catching on worldwide. I finally had to check it out. It is extremely impressive. The writing itself is fairly routine, and the book rambles and repeats more than I'd like, but the overall concept is brilliant. Basically Allen starts with the premise that keeping track of projects in your head is a terrible idea because while your conscious mind forgets things, your subconscious does not. Consciously you might forget that you promised to trim the roses or sort those tax receipts or schedule your annual eye doctor appointment, but your subconscious knows and worries and frets in the background. Ever have one of those days (or weeks or months) where you feel like you worked hard and were busy and got nothing done? Or have you ever found it difficult or impossible to relax and watch a movie or something because you felt guilty and depressed about all this vague "stuff" you needed to be doing? Well, that's your subconscious at work, reminding you of all the things you have left unfinished. I'm extremely guilty of this and I've felt like crap about work for a few years now. There are just so many projects I start and want to do, but it's hard to keep up with everything. It's so easy to let things slip and get behind and then projects feel like mountains. Allen has some great tips on coping with these problems. There's nothing earth-shattering about these ideas: most are simple things like filing papers away, having a systematic structure to your workflow and life, etc., but what's different about Allen's approach is he reveals the benefits of being organized. Instead of feeling overwhelmed and crappy because you're so far behind on things, imagine feeling refreshed, revived, energized, creative, and inspired. That's what happens when you're organized.

Now most of us have tried to be organized, but we fail, and Allen covers the reasons for these failures. For instance, have you ever made the same "To Do" lists over and over, rewriting the list for a new day after you didn't finish most of those things the previous day? Well that happens because we don't know how to make proper To Do lists. First, To Do items (which Allen calls "Action" items) don't go on a calendar (are not tied to day) unless they really are date/time dependent. Calendars are sacred for date/time related events. Regular To Do items (action items) need to go on your Action Lists, and here Allen has another simple but brilliant idea: you separate your Actions into categories based on the type of task. For instance, have a "Calls" list, an "Emails" list, a "At Home" list, an "At Work" list, an "At Computer" list, etc. This makes much more sense than grouping unrelated tasks together at random on a traditional "To Do" list. This way when you find you're at the auto shop with 20 minutes to kill while your oil is changed or your colleague called and will be a few minutes late for a meeting, you can pull out your "Calls" list and make a few quick phone calls. You basically can match your environment and your energy level with your tasks. Haven't you ever been exhausted and though you just wanted to crash, but felt guilty because you knew there was work to be done but the thought of the huge project was too much to tackle right then? With David's system, if you looked at your list and saw you just needed to send a quick email or check a website for some information or make a phone call, you might decide you've got enough energy to do that, and thus the project moves forward a little.

Another great example of the practical nature of David's system is by grouping tasks by type you are able to only look at the tasks that are physically possible right now. If you are at a restaurant waiting for a date to show, it's not like you can be doing filing at the office. But you might be able to make some calls or send an email (if you have an email-capable phone). David suggests you create an "Errands" list, which I find incredibly helpful. Here you put every kind of errand you need to do at some point: stop at the bank, go to the post office, pick up light bulbs, groceries, refill the BBQ's propane tank, get a prescription at the pharmacy, etc. By grouping the errands and checking the list before you go out, you'll see efficiencies and make several stops in one trip instead of multiple trips. Haven't you ever gone out and gotten home only to realize you didn't pick up the dry cleaning right next door to where you just were?

All of David's ideas are simple, but the benefits are dramatic. The key is that he's very honest about how completely you must devote yourself to your system. If you rely on your brain to remember things, it will know it can't be trusted and will do things to remind you, like leaving things out instead of putting them away. Don't you do that? I have a paper on my coffee table right now that's been sitting there for over a month. It's there to remind me to make a phone call, but I have not done it. I only notice the paper at weird times, like at night, when I can't make the call. And the paper adds clutter and chaos to my home. Wouldn't it make more sense to file the paper away and add the call item to my action lists?

This is a terrific book and it has inspired me. I'm tackling my own home/life reorg of massive proportions. More on that in a future update!

I've never seen any Japanese anime, but this caught my eye at the video store and I rented the DVD. Supposedly a classic, I discovered the critics were correct: I watched it again on Sunday! Stop thinking of Saturday morning cartoons -- this is what I would call "live action animation." It's realistic in every category: wonderful artwork, dramatic camerawork, thoughtful characters, and an amazing story. It's got action and violence (it's definitely not a kid's film) combined with a fascinating science fiction story. The term "ghost" is analogous to the soul -- in this future world people are part computer (cyborgs), and your ghost refers to the part of yourself that is human. So the debate begins: what makes a human human? With enough electronic parts is a human a machine? With enough data could a computer be considered human? Fascinating.

Surprisingly complex and interesting sequel. I wasn't expecting much and I'd heard that this wasn't as good, but I liked it. It's different -- lots of philosophical talk about humanity versus machine, machines having souls, etc. In the end the story's not quite as compelling as the first (there's a little too much exposition and obscurity seems to be a substitute for actual complexity), but overall it's much better than most American films and has a lot of incredible animation.

Strange film about a biker who sells his soul to the Devil and becomes the Devil's Bounty Hunter, whatever that means. It's visually different -- a night the rider has a flaming skull -- but the whole thing's rather meaningless, with an incomprehensible and feeble "legend" supposedly explaining everything. There are some fun moments with the casting and the performances are decent enough, but the story is so flimsy as to be see-through, and we aren't sure if the rider's a good guy or not, since he gets his powers from the Devil and apparently must do his bidding. Though the ending kind of explains that and sets up sequels, it's a bit too late. Overall it's mildly entertaining but it only wants to be innovative (or thinks it is).

Nothing like what I was expecting. The key flaw: promoting this as a film made from a comic book. That sets up a certain kind of expectation. If I'd known the comic, of course, that wouldn't have mattered, but I didn't, and I wasn't sure what to expect throughout the movie. Basically, this is an existential angst teen flick. It reminds me a lot of black comedies like Heathers, though this isn't dark. It's more like a serious comedy. The story is about two unique high school girls who graduate and prepare to take on the world. They have a weird sense of humor and opinions about everything. Slowly the girls drift apart, as one becomes more normal and tries to fit in with society (gets a job, an apartment, etc.), while the other continues to rebel against normalacy. She falls for a strange guy, a record collector who claims he can't relate to 99% of humanity. It's basically about her trying to figure out who she is and what she's doing on this planet. Ultimately, the film asks more questions than it answers, and the humor tends to dilute the message instead of expanding upon it. Still, it's a good view. It's the kind of film that gets better with each viewing. The first time you may not completely like or understand it, but with each subsequent viewing you'll like it more and more.

This was a surprisingly cool film. It's set in the south where a woman, Cate Blanchett, is a psychic. Her husband is dead and she's rasing three boys on her own. Much of town thinks she's a witch and ostracizes her. But in truth the "fortunes" she tells are closer to a form of counseling and therapy than ESP. She helps one young man haunted by nightmares of his father which he can't explain. She tells a young woman whose redneck husband beats her to leave, but then the woman's husband, Donnie, threatens her and her family. Then a girl goes missing and it's the psychic who helps locate the body, which just happens to be on Donnie's property, and she's required to testify against him in the trial. But did Donnie really kill the girl? This is a terrific film about people: the "gift" is just a gimmick, a mystery that pervades the story, but the central thing is always the characters. Extremely well-written and directed. Totally worth your time.

I had hoped for better with a story by John Grisham, but this was strangely uncompelling. For one, it begins much too slowly, and what it develops into is different from how it starts. The story is actually intriguing: a hotshot lawyer finds himself embroiled in conspiracy and intrigue after he meets a girl who's being stalked by her mentally ill father. The lawyer has the man committed, but he escapes and kidnaps the lawyer's kids for revenge... or so the lawyer thinks. Things aren't quite what they seem, and soon he's set up for murder. Great idea, but done too dispassionately -- we're not sure who to root for or what's going on for far too long and in the end we really don't care about anything.

Excellent small independent film about a high school senior finding herself. Dominque Swain (Lolita) plays an intellectual girl who has no identity -- she doesn't know what she wants in life. Everyone around her seems to her to be totally in control of who they are: pretty, talented, focused, etc. Then she becomes obsessed with a local rock star; the irony of such a smart mooning over a silly boy is entertaining, but as her character grows she slowly realizes that not only are others just as lost as she is, but that she isn't as much of a nobody as she thought. Very well done. My favorite thing was Swain's narration: she constantly says one thing in her narration and something completely different in real life, making for profundity and hilarity. (For instance, in one scene, coming home late, she waves to her parents and jovially narrates, "Hi! I'm not a virgin any more!" but then actually says, "Hi!")

Fantastic book. The story is a fiction about the life of a 17th Century maid in Delft, Holland, who posed for Vermeer's famous painting, "Girl with a Pearl Earring." What I liked about the book -- besides the amazing detail of a maid's life in Delft, the clash of classes and religions, the wonderful character of Griet, the young maid, the glimpse into the mind of a genius painter -- is the simplicity of the story. Chevalier wisely allows the character to be story and doesn't overcomplicate it with irrelevant subplots or flashy distractions. She's a simple maid and has a simple life. That gives her story strength and makes it all the more remarkable. We relate to her: she's not some ephemeral angel or distant, unknowable beauty. She's human, an ordinary person, with an extraordinary spirit. She's intelligent, kind, and a hard worker who struggles through life just the way we do. It's a remarkable story and told in such an authentic way you have trouble believing it's not factual. Amazing writing. The movie's coming out next month and I can't wait to see it. It sounds like it's awesome and does the book justice.

Really good film. Seemed like it should be talky and boring, but kept my interest. Ironic in that most of the film was good in that it showed there were no pat answers, then it tried to rush in some pat answers for a stilted conclusion. Still, decent overall. I liked it.

Not nearly as raunchy or provocative as the advertising implied, this turned out to be a decent coming-of-age story about a conservative high school senior who falls for the "girl next door" who is a former porn star wanting to go straight. While the film glamorizes the porn industry too much, it does have a good heart and the twist ending is great. Elisha Cuthbert, from TV's 24, is definitely the draw here as the lead, and she's amazing, but everyone else is remarkably well-cast too. Certainly not a deep film, it's far better than most in the teen genre. I don't think it did too well at the box office, but that seems to be mostly due to poor marketing, since the ads implied sex and there really isn't much in the film.

Talk about grim: this is an amazing horror book about genuine evil. Worse, it's based on a true story. In a nutshell, a psycho aunt locks up her orphaned 15-year-old niece in the basement to punish her, and allows her cousins and the neighborhood kids to visit and torture, rape, and eventually kill her. This would be a worthless story if told that way, however: what redeems it is the narrarator, a twelve-year-old boy from next door who is in love with the girl, and his conflicted feelings over the situation. On the one hand he's a pre-pubescent kid overwhelmed and confused by the pleasure he finds in seeing his object of lust naked and tormented. On the other, he knows hurting her is wrong, but he's just a powerless kid, unable to help. The story is helped by being set in the idylic world of the early 1960s in an ordinary suburban neighborhood; you just don't expect such things to happen in your backyard. The author has also brilliantly shielded us from most of the actual violence -- much is implied and not shown, and this allows us to participate from a safe distance. It's a quite remarkable book. Certainly not for all tastes, but genuinely frightening in a way that makes most horror books seem silly, because this is something that could happen anywhere to anyone because we are the evil.

I had no idea who Tom Gordon was when I got this (he's apparently a baseball pitcher) but it turned out to be a cool book. It's not about baseball at all, but about a little girl who gets lost in the woods and survives on her own. She survives in part because she gains strength by acting like her hero, Tom Gordon. Like him, she has "veins of ice." Well written, quick reading, exciting, and fascinating. A surprising change of pace from King.

Excellent film. Unfortunately, I must compare it to the book, since I read it first, and I have a difficult time divorcing the two. Visually, this film is a feast: masterfully done. But storywise there were a few mistakes and one improvement. First, the film makes light of why Griet is forced to become a maid -- we briefly see her blind father, but we never see her giving her wages to her parents. That's a critical aspect of the novel because she's trapped, not for herself, but by the duty she feels to help her parents (she's their only income and they are starving). The film left out the stories of her sibblings (sister who dies and brother who's a tile apprentice), but that was for the best (they distract from the main story). The film also tones down the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's mentioned, but never focused. In general I agree with that decision (though it was a fascinating part of the book), but one aspect of that -- the way Griet reacts to the Catholic paintings in her cellar bedroom -- was poorly implemented and could have been done better so that we got a reaction from her (have her cover the picture with a cloth, show her not sleeping because of the bloody paintings, etc.). The second big mistake was not showing us why Griet was such a good maid: the way she could clean Vermeer's studio without moving stuff (a skill she learned from having a blind father who needed everything in the same place). In the book that was important (it's how she got the job) and it showed her intelligence. There's a brief reference -- a "Don't move anything" line -- but that's about it. We only see her cleaning one thing and not moving it, but the point needed to be better emphasized. The very ending was also a little muddled, making it unclear that she had chosen to marry Pieter. However, the film did a terrific job of realizing the character of Vermeer's wife. In the book she was a shadow, but in the film she dominates: it's a terrific performance full of glare and subtlty. She really is the most fleshed out of all characters. Griet is simple and very young; Vermeer is morose and quiet, lost in his own world; the grandmother only cares about money; complexity comes in the role of Vermeer's wife, who seems the spoiled brat on the surface, but underneath knows her station and rebells against it the only way she knows how, through her connection to her husband. She's jealous of Griet because Griet actually understands Vermeer's work and seeing the girl reminds her that she is incapable of understanding it (which drives her mad). Great stuff. Overall, this is an excellent adapation of the book. Scarlet Johansson is amazing: she will go far despite being overlooked by Oscar. The pace of the film is a little slow (it's only an hour thirty-five but feels like two), but that's because there are many "still" scenes of artist staring at model, model staring at painter, etc. Despite my nitpicks, this is three thumbs way up.

Though the title sounds garish, this is a surprisingly serious film about a young hispanic woman who wants to take boxing lessons. It's very well done and interesting, though I wasn't that into the fighting. Overall the plot's simple, culminating the in the girl having to fight her boyfriend in a championship amateur match. Good performances, especially by the lead, Michelle Rodriguez, who was amazing.

I'd heard really good things about this film, but frankly, I wasn't impressed. In the first 30 seconds I'd figured out 80% of the plot, and though there were a couple surprises, my predictions were quite accurate. The ending I found anti-climatic and improbable (not to give away the ending, but I didn't feel Commodus' character would really do that). That said, this isn't a bad movie: the dialogue was impressive, and the performances and sets were excellent. But this is not a great film; it's certainly no Spartacus. The special effects were the kind you don't notice (like the digitally created Roman Coliseum), which I usually like, but in this case, the film seemed to expect us to be awed by the spectacle, of which I wasn't. Perhaps I just expected too much, or maybe the big screen theatre presentation is much more dramatic than seeing the widescreen DVD, but I was left with a feeling disappointment and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Interesting, if tame, thriller about a young girl and her brother who end up moving in with their godparents after their parents are killed in a car accident. The children have a $4 million trust fund, so they're financially secure. At first things seem okay, but gradually the girl begins to suspect the godparents of killing her parents in order to control the trust fund. A little obvious and heavy-handed at times, it's none-the-less and interesting story. The girl character is very cool, intelligent and yet still realistic. The initial ending is pure poetic justice and satistifying, but then there's a tacked on secondary ending that's just lame. It still liked it, however; Stellan Skarsgard gives his usual excellent performance, and Diane Lane was good as the wife.

I didn't know what to expect from this movie. Turns out it's a series of vingettes about the violent, crime-filled lives of a group of people one Christmas weekend. We get to see the same events from several perspectives, which is interesting, though repetetive. These people are not ones you'd want to hang around with, however. They are crude, desperate, and disgusting. Basically bad things happen to everyone, but since you don't really care for anyone, it's mildly entertaining. There are some interesting twists. In many ways this reminded me of 2 Days in the Valley except with teenagers. That was a better film, however. Go is a third-generation copy, though it has a good soundtrack. Like all vingette films, this one suffers from unevenness. I guess I don't quite see the point of such a technique. It's always an interesting concept, but it never quite works. Still, this wasn't boring. Rentable. Two thumbs sideways.

This came out on the same day as Poseidon, but since it's a soccer movie, I had to see it. I was not expecting too much. Sports films are notoriously difficult to do well. After all, the plot's a given: either the underdogs win or lose, and if it's the former it's predictable and if it's the latter we're depressed and pissed. You basically can't please the audience. The secret to do this right is balance: don't rest the entire movie on the game's outcome, but include plenty of other interesting events. In that respect, Goal scores. It's the hard-luck tale of a young Hispanic immigrant in L.A. who loves soccer but has a stern father who wants him to stay home and run the family's landscaping business. But Santiago, the boy, gets a chance to try out for Newcastle United, the famed English club, and jumps at it. Of course it doesn't go well and he faces all sorts of obstacles. I though the story was well-done and somewhat realistic, showing he doesn't just snap his fingers and realize his dream. Sure, many aspects of the story and characters are typical, but there's only so many ways you can tell this story. I would have perhaps liked to see more of his early upbringing and his youth soccer experiences (I read Pele's bio and the most fascinating part for me was his childhood, playing backyard ball with a sock stuffed with paper since he couldn't afford an actual soccer ball, and how that awkward, unbalanced sock-ball taught him unparalleled ball control), but overall the story's decent, the soccer's good, and it's a standard feel-good sports victory story. I don't watch many sports films so I can't say how this compares to others, but I thought it was excellent. I really enjoyed it. There are fun cameos with famous soccer stars, and some nice characterization twists I didn't expect. For instance, one of the characters, a total showboat jerk who's the club's big new signing, seems like he's going to bring Santiago down by teaching him his bad habits. Instead, it's the other way around, with Santiago's honest heart reforming the bad boy. Rather cool!

This film is the first of trilogy. In this one, Santiago gets signed by a big club and his "dream begins" as the tagline says. In the next he struggles with overnight stardom, and in the third he leads his country in the World Cup. That one is being filmed at this summer's World Cup tournament in Germany, with unprecendent access to teams and venues, so it should be a fantastic movie, one of the most realistic ever. I can't wait for the rest of the movies!

Fantastic little book! This is a book that has nothing to do with humor: it's all about philosophy. It purports to answer all the Big Questions of the universe: what is God, is evolution true, is science dependable, etc. All these ideas are put into a loose fictional frame, but it's really the ideas that move the pages, not any kind of story. This is the kind of I'd recommend to anyone who enjoys thinking about the unthinkable. It's for people with an open mind who aren't offended by new ideas and new ways of looking at things. It's well worth your time. I started it at 11:30 at night, just intending to read a chapter or two, and I read the entire book in one sitting. I couldn't put it down. It's that good! Read, then give copies to your friends and sit down and argue over it.

Accidentally started watching this and couldn't stop. Definitely in my Top Ten of greatest movies of all time. I was surprised at how much I'd forgotten; I've seen the sequel several times in recent years, but apparently it's been a long time since the original. Favorite moment? The part about how modern man has refused to adapt himself to his environment and instead adapted his environment to himself, and as a result we've got to spend half a lifetime going to school just to learn how to cope with that complex, self-created environment. The African Bushmen, on the other hand, have no concept of possessions, and no needs for anything: whatever they need is right around them. A classic; hilarious and thought-provoking.

Unquestionably one of the worst films I've seen in many years. The dialog is stilted, the plot ridiculous. In the opening scene, in which the boy is killed, everything is done with such exaggeration and foreshadowing it's absurd: we see the mom worrying about where her son is (he's playing near the street) which is stupid because there's nothing to say this isn't another ordinary day in which the little boy does not get killed. And of course this happens to be the kid's birthday, which is excessively dramatic. The boy is a terrible actor, too, though he's okay when not talking. The plot is just bizarre. It sounds simple enough -- family's kid dies and they replace him with a clone. But instead of this being a drama about the morality of cloning, the film sinks into some sort of weird horror mode where the clone seemingly has memories of his previous life. Just silly. How Robert DeNiro got hook-winked into this mess I'll never know.

Wow, not just a Landon Donovan hat trick, but four goals! The USA just cruised through this one. Cuba looked surprisingly good against Canada, but obviously poor in this one. Keller might as well sat and read a book -- he saw hardly any action in goal. Great game for the USA. Admitedly it's against a weak opponent, but it's still a confidence builder. I'm very pleased to see the U.S. be cut-throat and really trounce someone. Too many times we win 1-0 or 2-0 against weaker competition. It's like we get a goal or two ahead and we quit.

This was a horrible game against Brazil: the U.S. let the Brazillians have dozens of uncontested chances, and only the continued heroics of U.S. goalkeeper Casey Keller kept us in the tournament. It was a stupid habit to get into, and sure enough, after the U.S. scored to lead, the Americans allowed the South American team more chances at goal and inevitably one snuck in with a minute to play. That sent the game into Golden Goal overtime, and there the U.S. promptly did the same thing again. Keller made a great initial save, but the lose ball was sent toward the empty goal. Defender Corey Gibbs blocked the sure goal with his hand and was promptly red-carded, but the U.S. still had a slight chance if Keller could stop the penalty kick. But he couldn't and just like that Brazil won and the U.S. is out.

This was a frustrating tournament for me, with the USA giving a Jeckyl and Hyde performance. After their terrible game against Brazil, I was actually rooting for Costa Rica, figuring the U.S. didn't deserve a win. After all, this was the senior U.S. team who'd lost to an under-23 Brazil team. Granted, Brazil's youth teams are better than most country's full national teams, but still: this was the U.S.' tournament to win. Besides, if we aren't there to win it, I resent the Earthquakes losing Landon Donovan and Richard Mulrooney to a useless exercise like this. At least get to the final so we can justify MLS losing top players!

Anyway, this game began with more of the same, with the U.S. defense leaving gaps for Costa Rica to pinch in, and shortly Costa Rica scored. But the U.S. came right back with a terrific goal from Donovan and Bocanegra. A long high ball over the back of the Costa Rica defense fell to Donovan on the line, but his quick turn of the ball inward went right to Bocanegra who finished it for his second goal of the tournament. But before the end of the half another defensive miscue (and potential Keller misplay as he gave up a rebound) gave Costa Rica the lead again. In the second half, however, the Americans finally started playing well. Defensively they closed down Costa Rica, and offensively they put on a lot of pressure. The game was tied early when Earnie Stewart scored with an incredible volley (possibly goal of the tournament), followed later by a fantastic run by Landon Donovan. He took the ball deep in the U.S. half and leisurely ran it to the half-way line. Here he was confronted by a Costa Rica defender, but Landon's sudden deke was so quick and effective, the defender actually tripped himself up and fell down as he tried to follow the American! With acres of space in front of him, Donovan went ahead with a burst of speed, running toward the Costa Rican goal. His teammate Bobby Convey was slightly ahead of him, and that kept the two Costa Rican defenders in two minds: mark Covey or stop Donovan? Then Landon fed a perfect through-ball into the open space in front of Convey, who sped onto it, leaving his markers behind. Convey finished beautifully, scoring at the near post with one touch. Great sequence, great goal. That seemed to break Costa Rica, and the U.S. finished with a deserving win. Though the U.S. gave up far too many goals in those last two games, they finally did start to play well. But they definitely have some work to do before World Cup qualifying begins next year. Final: 3-2 USA.

This is the first of the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, a scientific-fantasy series from English writer Pullman. I hadn't heard of it but it's apparently good and they're making movies of them, so I wanted to read the series. This first book is quite impressive. It takes place in a parallel universe to ours, so things are similar yet not. Pullman brilliantly gets us involved right from the first page, with young Lyra sneaking into a meeting room at Oxford where she's not supposed to be, where she oversees a plot to kill her uncle. That sets her off on a series of adventures, where the improbable happens quite regularly, yet there's no disbelief at all as Pullman makes it convincing. The story is quite dark -- people die regularly, sometimes brutally -- but it is a brilliant novel with fantastic fantasy elements and a high-speed non-stop storyline.

I read the trilogy over a year ago in anticipation of this film and I've been bummed that it took so long to be released. Initially I was irritated and unimpressed for the script seemed to be veering dangerously far from the book and eliminating many important scenes. For instance, the film debuts with narration explaining that this is set is an alternate universe, that in this world people wear their souls on the outside, etc. Narration like that's a warning sign for trouble, especially with such a complicated story. Fortunately, the narration was brief and hardly needed, for the story explained most everything, and once things got moving, the film was very good. The young actress who plays the lead was terrific, especially her impressive interactions with the CGI bear: excellent casting. I also liked the way they ended the film, resolving the current crisis but setting us up for the sequel (book two of the trilogy), but not including one key scene that's in the original book but would have complicated the ending by introducing too much fresh conflict at the very end. I believe they'll open the second movie with that scene, which is excellent and much better than including it in this one: otherwise people would have been frustrated ending the movie right in the middle of the story. So the bottom line is the film has as weak start but gets better and better and the second half is just terrific.

This was the first James Bond movie of the Pierce Brosnan era, and it's terrific. I've seen it a few times of course, but it'd been years. On DVD this is one cool movie (especially watching it on a high-tech laptop ;-). This has everything you expect from a Bond film: amazing action, incredible locations and cinematography, sexy women, and high-tech gadgets. What more could a guy want? What I like best about Bond films -- good Bond films -- is that they are several films in one. You've got the intro sequence, which, when long, is like a mini-movie in itself. Then there's the various stages of tracking down the Bad Guy -- each sequence is like a separate movie, each bigger and badder than the previous. It's totally cool and it's what makes the Bond movies so over-the-top. I wasn't that crazy about the last Bond, but I have high hopes for the latest (out next week, I believe). This just whetted my appetite.

I wasn't expecting much from this car chase movie; though it has big stars (Cage and Jolie), my main memory of it was that it was in theatres for less than sixty seconds. It turns out it's not such a bad film. It's about car stealing, not racing. The plot's rather lame, about an ex-car thief who's dragged back into the racket by a thug who's going to kill his brother unless he steals 50 cars in three days. Interesting idea, but lamely executed. Why not just get his brother and move away? The thug's also a moron yet is supposed to be scary (he wasn't in the least). And why was the little brother such an idiot? I was hoping he would get whacked just so I wouldn't have to listen to him whine and do stupid stuff. Angelina Jolie's part is so small in this she's hardly a presence (she's also a former car thief gone straight and apparently a former girlfiend of Cage's character). Really the only redeeming thing is Nicholas Cage and the car stuff. Cage is always good, even with weak material, and the car chase and other stuff is nice, though too much of the plot is predictable (especially the begining, middle, and end). But overall it's not unwatchable. There are some nice car chases and some of the car stealing stuff is interesting.

Rather glum film about a missing child and a private detective couple brought in to find the little girl. Things start to twist then as we learn that everything is not what it seemed, and then they twist again later, and again at the very end. All the twists are fairly believable, though the final one is one too many, and leaves you feeling manipulated and cheated. While I liked many aspects of where this was going and I loved some of the interesting characters, the ending is sad and uncomfortable. The story's confusing at times, also. All in all it's certainly not a bad film, but I can't say that I really liked it. It just made me sad and didn't provide much hope, though it asked some intriguing questions.

I wasn't at all sure what to expect about this film since I hadn't heard anything about it, but it turned out to be a low-key drama about a bored married woman in a small town who has an affair with a troubled young man and then regrets it. Good performances from all and some interesting moments, but overall the story's too light for much impact. Above your average Hollywood flick, though.

I really, really liked this. It's a fascinating look at a serious newsman, Edward R. Murrow and his public battle with McCarthy (the "everyone's a Communist but me" guy). The theme is about censorship and the media, and acusing people without evidence, themes that obviously resinate today. What I found most interesting is that though this film was created by liberals with an obvious agenda, it's really a conservative film: today the liberals control the media and jump down the throats of any conservative that dares to speak the opposite, exactly what hero Murrow was doing back in the old days of the film! I myself am a Libertarian and can't stand censorship and believe in the rights of everyone to be heard, so I liked this movie a lot: I just wish both political parties would learn from it.

My favorite director, Terry Gilliam, just signed to make this book into a movie, so I had to read it. (I'm a Neil Gaiman fan, so I was already interested.) This book is described on the cover as a comedy about the apocalypse, which is apt. I was a bit nervous when I started reading about angels and religious issues, but then I discovered that the book makes fun of God and the Devil equally (always appropriate in my line of thinking). The "plot" runs along the lines of an angel and a demon who conspire together to sabotage the apocalypse (because they live living on earth and don't want to see it destroyed). The writing is hilarious and witty, but begins to drag about halfway through. One can only take so much wit. The pace should have accelerated toward the end, but didn't, leaving me struggling to finish the book. Still, it's funny with no sacred cows, and it's certainly innovative and interesting, if a bit of a one-joke premise. There's some classic humor, like the running gag that (because of a demon's work) cassette tapes left in an automobile for longer than two weeks automatically turn into a "Best of Queen" album. Another joke I liked was that one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Famine, is the one responsible for nouvelle cousine and the "famished" trend for fashion models.

The ultimate Western, classic all the way. The memorable music is at least 50% of the movie. I watched part of The Mask of Zoro the other day and noted at least one instance of music stolen directly from GBU. There must be thousands of imitations, but none quite match up.

Not as good as I was expecting; predictable and rather ordinary Mob movie, but with good performances. (Disclaimer: I don't like Mob movies.)

Bizarre movie that's not quite a love story, but not a true Jackie Chan action vehicle either. Action sequences are few but extended, and very well done. Female lead is amazing -- truly a star, especially for such a young girl. She showed terrific range. Slightly long and slow in places, but worth checking out if your looking for something unusual.

While I'm a huge Altman fan, this is unwatchable. The premise has promise: a group of upperclass people gather in 1930's England for a weekend shooting party and one of them is murdered. We get to see a lot of the relationship between the servants and their employers. Unfortunately, the first twenty minutes is spent introducing characters one by one as they arrive, and if you're like me, after ten minutes you already have no idea who is who. There are like 50 main characters and each has one or two servants. I was completely lost from the start. Then the film meanders as we see the people in various scenes, learn the relationships, but basically we care for none of these people, there are so many it's impossible to remember who's who (I tended to them of them by actor names instead of characters). This continues for over an hour, as the "exciting" murder doesn't take place until more than halfway through this long film! By that time I was so bored I didn't care any more. I fell asleep and woke up during the credits. Even though I had no idea who had committed the murder, I was so put off by the film's glacial pace and arrogant, empty characters that I didn't even care! I had interest in rewinding and watching the ending I'd missed. I could barely figure out who had been killed let alone stir up any compassion for him or any of the others. And this was one of the best films of 2001 (it was nominated for Best Picture)? What a lot of rot! I've lost all respect for the Academy. This is just a PBS period piece with a lot of top actors that's like some sort of literary health food concoction -- "it tastes terrible, but eat it, it's good for you." I'll bet none of the academy members who voted for it had even seen it. If it had been shortened to 30 minutes it might have been interesting, but at over two hours it's just boredom on a disc. My vote for one of the worst films of 2001.

Not what I expected, but not the horror some critics are calling it. What intrigued me was the concept of a psychiatrist being locked up in a mental institution. Unfortunately, the movie skimps on any pyschological depth and instead turns into an absurd ghost story. Has a few half-decent chills and thrills, but more that flop. Overall, it's an overacted, overdramatized, melodrama that isn't anything significantly different from what you've seen before. Halle Berry's fine in the lead role, but she's not given much to work with. I liked some of the action scenes she does during her escape (it'd be fun to see her in an action flick). The ghost story stuff is just bizarre and lame.

I'm never sure how to judge classics: they usually disappoint me because my expectations are too high. This French film fell into that category. It's a good movie, and I'm sure at the time of its release it was a great one, but I find it difficult to judge with my modern perspective. The story is similar to The Great Escape, which I recently watched, except this film is set in World War I, not II. Some things -- like the nonchalance of the captured officers and their German captors -- struck me as bizarre, but then I know little about WWI and the "rules" of warfare. To me this was familiar stuff, well done, but nothing to write home about.

Strange the way things happen. While I was visiting, Grandpa was doing fine, until the day I left (yesterday). Then suddenly he could hardly walk. He slid off the sofa and couldn't get up -- I had to help him to his feet. Later it took him an hour to get from the living room to the bathroom. After I left my mom had to call 911 because she couldn't move him, and he ended up in the hospital with a touch of pnemonia. Now it looks like he'll end up in nursing care while we take our trip to the mid-west early next year.

It looks like we're closer to making a decision about Grandpa. He's definitely not coming home: there's just no way. My mom isn't physically able to care for him there and it's just too dangerous. If he falls or struggles, all she can do is call 911. He's also isolated from the family way over on the coast. We think it's best he be put in a care facility in the Portland area where we can all visit him regularly and be available if he needs us. This means a lot of changes in the near future for everyone, but at least now we have a clear idea of where we're going. We could try to come up with ways to keep Grandpa at home (i.e. having one of my cousins move in), but such things would be difficult to engineer and only temporary fixes. Unfortunately, the time we've dreaded is at hand, and we can't care for him ourselves any longer. Even if he can regain some of his walking ability, it most likely won't be for long (he has a bad knee and hip), and he needs 24-hour care in case he falls or has a problem. I mostly worry about his own attitude: he does not want to be in a facility and he could simply give up if he's put in one, but I hope he doesn't. His general health is good and if has a positive attitude he could have many years left. It's just sad to see him fade away. His short-term memory isn't good and I dread the thought of his mind fading to the point where he can't recognize family, etc.

Today was not a good day. The family had come to the uncomfortable decision that Grandpa most likely will not be able to come home, though we might still try to figure out a way (we're still not sure how well Grandpa is or isn't). After half a day of analyzing finances and trying to predict the future, my mom visited Grandpa (I was in bed with my cold) and found that he still can't really walk (though he thinks he can), and that he's got to be out of the care facility where he's at by this Sunday. It was evening by the time my mother was to go home so I suggested she stay at my place rather than drive home in the cold and dark, and she agreed. She telephoned her friend that's been watching Monica, her little crippled Pomeranian, and learned -- what timing! -- that Monica passed away yesterday at about three o'clock. My mom was devastated. Though the news wasn't completely unexpected as the dog's always been weak and over Christmas got so bad that she could no longer walk, it was still very difficult news to hear. In a way it was crueler that it happened while we were gone but it another way it was a blessing that she didn't have to deal with it directly. Still, the timing, with Grandpa's situation foremost in our minds, could not have been worse. My mom's gone through a lot the past few years: Ben's brain injury and personality change, the divorce, moving to Oregon, her own diagnosis and struggle with rheumetoid arthrisis, the dog's medical issues, and various emergencies with Grandpa, and Monica was her sole constant and comfort during that time. Now she's gone. It's a tough time.

Today was supposed to be our long-planned trip to the coast with Grandpa. Instead he's in the hospital. Yesterday the home nurse was here to take a routine blood test and later I got a call to get him to emergency right away. Apparently his poor kidneys aren't processing potasium correctly and there's too much in his system, which can lead to heart failure. So I got him over there last night and he's staying there for a few days so they can monitor him. He feels fine and is in good spirits -- the potasium level showed no outward signs. It's a pretty silly muck-up: I've had him on water pills since last summer because he was retaining too much fluid (he swelled to 144 lbs. at one point -- he's normally around 100 lbs.). Because water pills drain your fluids, they always proscribe them with potasium pills, to replenish your supply. But Grandpa's kidney's aren't functioning as well as they used to do, so now the extra potasium's too much. Yet, of course, no one mentioned this or caught this after his last hospital stay with kidney problems, so the last few weeks I've been faithfully giving him potasium pills every day! The idiot doctors noticed the potasium levels rising last week but didn't say anything to me because the level wasn't dangerous. If they had, I could have stopped giving him the pills and he probably would have been fine! Instead they waited until the level was too high and I had to rush him to the hospital. There they gave him some stuff to bring the potasium level down and now they want to watch him for a few days. And of course, we're not giving him potasium pills any more. A big "Oops, someone should have noticed that" from the doctors. Nice.

Today I had to take Grandpa to the emergency room. He couldn't get out of bed this morning. His right leg was bothering him too much. He screamed in pain when I just looked at it, let alone touched it or tried to move it. He decided he'd just stay in bed all day. Not a good solution, considering he might need to use the bathroom eventually. I was concerned because this was not normal. His leg frequently bothers him and he has good days and bad days, but this was almost complete immobility. To be safe, I called his doctor. The doctor on call freaked when I mentioned Grandpa had a slight temperature (99.2) and said I should immediately take him to the hospital. Apparently even a slight temperature is a sign of serious things in an 89-going-on-90 old man. At the hospital they took blood, urine, and x-rays, the ER doctor reporting that Grandpa had not broken his hip as originally expected, but he definitely needed a hip replacement. Since this hip issue had put Grandpa in a care facility at Christmas, the doctor couldn't figure out why nothing had been done then. But Grandpa's previous doctors hadn't suggested anything even though we asked if something couldn't be done to help him. This doctor immediately got on the phone with the hospital's orthopedic surgeon and within an hour he was there, dressed in jeans as he was not working on Saturday, and examining Grandpa. It was quickly decided that hip replacement surgery was the only thing to do. Without it Grandpa would remain bedridden and in pain. With it, he might even walk (with a walker or cane) and he should be pain-free. So it looks like that's what's on the schedule.

Grandpa's home again and doing great. He's eating like a monster, which is awesome. Last time he was at the hospital he stopped eating. He ate breakfast but no lunch, and barely any dinner. Now he's back to three meals a day. Not huge meals (though his breakfast is substantial), but anything's an improvement. We've got a whole new set of medicines for him, which is awfully exciting (not). But he feels great -- he told me he felt like he was 30!

Today we celebrated Grandpa's 90th birthday. I had sent out invitations to many of his old friends and family and we received a ton of wonderful letters and cards. Probably close to 40 people actually came to the party, which was held "open house" style, from noon to evening. This worked well because people could come whenever it was convenient for them. Grandpa got to see many people he hadn't seen in many years and it was a wonderful day. He was amazingly alert, chipper, and healthy: people were astonished in what good shape he was in. It really is a remarkable achievement and wonderful to see him doing so well at 90 years of age.

Grandpa turned 91 today! Amazing. That's a long time. He's seen a lot in his lifetiime. He insists he's got a long ways to go yet -- he wants to reach 100! So far he's been doing very good. His leg pain is minimal and he's pretty active, getting in and out of his wheelchair on his own, dressing and undressing himself, etc. Lately he's really been enjoying the cats, Mayhem in particular. Or maybe it's the other way around. Mayhem's figured out that if he jumps in Grandpa's lap he'll get petted, so all the time now I find him curled up in Grandpa's lap (on top of the hot electric blanket Grandpa insists on using) purring a happy tune. Grandpa is delighted and now refers to Mayhem as "my cat."

Grandpa came home from the hospital. Even this wasn't as simple as it sounds. First, my van's battery was dead, as I expected, as it has a slow drain and if it's not driven at least once a week it won't start. Then, on my way to pick up Grandpa, my Neon started shuddering and not accelerating correctly. The "check engine" light came on. Unfortunately, I had a tight deadline: I had to get Grandpa home from the hospital in time for his next infusion of medicine which was to begin in a couple hours. Fortunately, the car made it, though it wasn't happy. The hospital's ten minutes away and by the time we got home, it was overheating. I just made it to my driveway. After getting Grandpa settled, I called a tow service to jump the van (it wouldn't jump connected to a car), which worked, but the tow guy knew something about cars and didn't like the sound of the engine. He checked the oil and found it was completely dry! I'd been meaning to get an oil change for a while (for both vehicles) but had kept putting it off. Unfortunately, my car knowledge doesn't extend much further than knowing where to put the key -- it had never occured to me to add oil (they usually do that when I change it). Anyway, we added oil and the van seemed okay -- at least the engine sounded better, though apparently the alternator belt was too tight and that's what was making the squealing sound on startup. We checked my Neon and found the same problem -- no oil -- and added some there also. During this period the nurse arrived to show me how to administer Grandpa's new medicine -- he's on a 24-hour a day pump that shoots in the antibiotics. Everything was happening at once!