The Z/Web Archive

Unusual film about an odd British family in the 1930s. The father's a famous writer who hasn't written anything in twelve years and the family's going broke. They live in a castle, but haven't paid the rent in two years. One day two American brothers show up: they've inherited in the castle. The two daughters immediately see dollar signs and try to woo the brothers to save the family. What follows is a mad-cap dramedy about love (everyone falls in love with the wrong person). It's well done, though it takes itself a little too seriously sometimes, especially regarding the father's writer's block (the father was such a pathetic selfish bastard I really didn't care if he healed or not). The girls are wonderful, especially the narator, Cassandra, who's 17 and the wisest of the bunch. She lives in her sister's Rose's shadow (Rose is the pretty one, of course), but has inherited her father's give for words and sees everything. Overall the film has a positive spin, but in places it's rather wrenching and depressing (it's tough watching person after person express their love only to be rejected). It's also quirky and funny, and there's some excellent social commentary about class and wealth. Definitely unusual and definitely worth your time.

This is a surprisingly good film. Will Smith is solo most of the screen time and manages to evoke depth of character without dialog and an actor to react with. The story -- about the last man on earth -- is compelling beyond the gimmicky premise. I wasn't crazy about the "monster" humans lurking about: they were unrealistic and inconsistent, but they were frightening (all the more so since they used to be human). The bottom line is that this is a film with a gimmick that proves deeper than its subject matter, and Will's acting is a tour-de-force.

This is the book the movie was based on; I listened to the audiobook edition while traveling. It's very different: the people are vampires, not mutants, and the story is hardly even similar, though there are occasional overlaps. For instance, a dog does die in the book, but it's not the man's only friend like in the movie, and the woman he meets has a different role and no kid. In some ways I prefer the movie version as the vampire thing seems sort of cheesy and unrealistic. (A plague that causes vampirism? Please.) But the book's interesting and less gimmicky in plot than the movie.

This is a documentary about the life of actor Jack Nance, star of the cult hit Eraserhead. Nance had tremendous talent, but was an alcoholic for much of his life, which tragically limited his potential. Then just when he was sober and getting well his wife committed suicide. His life ended as mysteriously as he lived it, when he died after being beaten up in a donut shop. Police have never solved the case. The film features interviews with Jack's brothers, his friends and colleagues, and his first wife, and the stories about Nance are terrific. Unfortunately there still seems to be something missing: perhaps there are not enough clips of his acting, or enough of Jack himself in the film, because we don't really get much insight into who Jack was. The documentary's a terrific idea, and we do learn a lot, but Jack was such a unique personality I'd have loved to learn more about him.

This is a strange, uneven film that pretends to be deep but doesn't have much to say. The premise sounded awesome: it involves two "existential" detectives. They basically study your life and tell you what's wrong with it, what's missing, show you the meaning behind things. For instance, one of the clients is a guy who wants an odd coincidence explained as it troubles him. Unfortunately, there are many, many problems with this story. First, the film is one of those episodic collection of interrelated stories, which for a movie like this, is a terrible decision. Those kinds of films only work when the like or are at least interested in the characters but in this movie the characters are all quirky and odd and we don't give a hoot. Second, the eratic story meanders much too much and has no focus, no throughline. It's just a mass of strange situations, images, and people. Third, the author takes an interesting concept and goes so far with it that it becomes uninteresting and tepic. For instance, a film about existential detectives is intriguing. But the author goes beyond that by creating a competitor for the detectives, someone with an alternate approach that tries to steal clients away, and the result is confusing, it weakens the original detectives (we care less for them), and it just adds more meaningless intellinasia-talk (big words that mean nothing). In the end we don't have much. There are some nice individual scenes, some brilliant concepts that go nowhere, and a few clever directing techniques, but whole package is useless and, dare I say it, meaningless.

Surprisingly effective film. I loved the beautifully simple story: a strong-minded young woman who knows what she wants sets off from England to a remote Scottish island to marry her wealthy fiance. Unfortunately a gale blows in and boats can't get to the island, so she's stranded until the gale stops. She meets a nice man while waiting, and after days of trying desperately to get to the island to marry her rich fiance, when the sun finally emerges and the boat arrives, she realizes she doesn't want to go: she's in love with the other man. The simplicity of the story belies the complexity of emotions and character, and the frustration of a woman who's so sure of herself discovering she's not so sure of herself is delightful. The cinematography is excellent, and the dramatic storm/whirlpool scene is filmed better than today's films (the horrible The Perfect Storm comes to mind). Impressive technically, with a good story to make it worthwhile.

I've heard criticism of this film which I can't figure out. I liked it a lot. It's nothing serious, just a good fun romp. It has action and humor and the "team" of Owen Wilson and Eddie Murphy is great. It never takes itself too seriously, but just seriously enough to not descend into camp. It's fun, and much better than the lame trailers make it seem. My favorite scene was the ending, where spies are betraying each other right and left, and spy Owen gets completely confused and can't tell who's good or who's bad. Hilarious.

The plot: Every five minutes Jennifer Love Hewitt puts on a sexy new outfit and becomes terrified, seeing dead bodies or having a nightmare about a guy in a rain slicker with a hook for a hand. Most of the time these are lame fake scares (incredibly lame because it's easy to tell the fake from the real because the real ones happen without warning while the fake ones include about three or four minutes of "tension" buildup). I don't remember the original being this bad -- it's amazing what Hollywood can do to ruin a sequel.

Unusual film from Italy. I hadn't heard of this but the reviews were astoundingly high and the plot sounded fantastic: a young boy in a tiny rural village finds a boy imprisoned in a hole in the ground and befriends him, only to later discover the boy's a kidnap victim and the whole town -- the first boy's parents included -- is in on the plot. The film is viewed from the main kid's point of view, which was an awesome decision because we see the world with the wonder and innocence and fear of a ten-year-old. When he learns of the kidnapping, the boy doesn't understand -- he can't figure out what the adults want with the boy. The performances of the children are incredible. My favorite scene was when the main boy, upset with his parents, decides to run away. He's hiding in a tree and his little sister comes to him. When he tells her their parents are not his parents any more, she says, in perfect lower-lip-trembling innocence, "Does that mean I'm not your little sister any more?" With stubborn cruelty he says, "Yes!" And then she asks if that means she can have his comic book collection! Great twisted moment, turning heart-break into humor. The ending of the film is both unexpected and satisfying, something most films of this type fail to do. Highly recommened and quite remarkable.

I'm a huge fan of Isaac Asimov's robot stories, but the previews of this film had me gagging. It looked like a ridiculous robots-take-over-the-world premise, and it retained none of the fascinating pyschological elements of Asimov's stories. But I knew I'd see it anyway. To my surprise, it wasn't that bad. Yes, the robots are dorky-looking, and yes, the plots is robots taking over, but the plot doesn't completely negate the three laws. (Asimov's robots are governed by the three laws of robotics, which says that robots can't harm a human, must obey a human unless it violates the first law, and can protect itself as long as it doesn't violate the first two laws.) I won't spoil the plot but the robot rebellion actually makes some Asimovian sense, though this movie's particular method of detailing the plot is predictable, attrociously stereotypical, and lame. The producers have turned a great psychological thriller into a mindless action flick. As such it's not terrible, and I wouldn't rate it at the very bottom of the scale, but it's unfortunate that such a great concept was wasted on this silly mess. I give it a C. The trailer I give an F.

I'll confess up front that I have grudge against this film. The trailers when I saw them last summer just annoyed me and I had zero interest in seeing the movie. It just looked dumb. But recently I've heard it mentioned by critics as good, so I rented the DVD. Guess what? It is dumb, but it's not as bad as the trailer makes since the trailer just pulls out a few lame jokes. For instance, the first joke in the film is a penile length crack, quickly followed by an animal stepping in excrement. Disney this is not. The concept's okay: a motley group of animals (a sabertooth tiger, a sloth, and a wooly mammoth), while migrating to south to escape the cold ice age weather, seek to return a lost human baby to its tribe. Setting aside the fact that the humans are remarkably advances for ice age primates, the plot thickens when we realize the sabertooth is leading the others into a trap so his pack can kill the mammoth. Of course they all end up becoming best friends and living happily ever after. It's predictable and the silly stupid animals are rather annoying, but it's generally harmless. The animation is surprisingly low quality -- extremely computer-generated and cartoony. I guess this appeals to kids, but frankly, if you missed seeing this, don't worry, you didn't miss much.

I was disappointed by this sequel. It had a handful of good moments, but seems desperately stretched for material, and the 90 minute length felt like more than two hours. This time the ice age is melting and the characters from the first film have to figure out how to adapt and get along. The voice work is very good, there are some great new characters (such as the hilarious vulture), and the old ones are fairly reliable, but in the end, you sort of go, "Why bother?"

I've never heard of Rollins, but this is an excellent old-fashioned adventure story a la Edgar Rice Burroughs and is surprisingly well-written. The detail is amazing, making everything feel very real, and though the story's long and complicated with cliffhangers at the end of every chapter, they don't feel forced like with many poor writers (such as Patterson). The story's wild: a group of regular Alaskans find themselves immeshed in a covert superpower war for control over a secret polar ice station recently discovered. The ice station was lost before WWII, yet contains key technology. The Russians want to blow up the station so the U.S. don't find the technology, while the U.S. wants to study the find. But both countries would potentially be embarrassed by the contents of the ice station, so everything is being done "off the map," in secret. The public will never hear of what happens. That means anything goes: murder is okay. So the Alaskans find themselves in the middle of this covert war, with submarines and Delta Force troops. If that wasn't bad enough, there's an ancient secret hidden in the ice station: it's a nest for some prehistoric monsters that still live. These vicious monsters are nicknamed Grendel, after the Beowulf story. Rollins actually uses a lot of science to justify the existence of these creatures, so they come across as quite believable (he's a vetrinarian in real life and knows how to describe animals). Grendels are extremely dangerous, which puts our civilian heroes in even more jeopardy: now they are hiding from the Russians and the monsters! The result of all this is a nail-biter, can't-put-down book. It gets a little annoying because every time you think the heroes are saved, the situation gets even worse. It's "out of the frying pan into the fire" about twenty different times and after a while the tension becomes unbearable. It seems impossible that our heroes will emerge unscathed. But that also makes the ending a sweet relief and the book feverishly exciting. Terrific read. My only real criticism is that the title is extremely lame. Ice Station Grendel would have been a much more descriptive, interesting, and accurate moniker. Looking at the other books Rollins has written, I see similar titular problems (several are much worse than this one), so most likely either he's not good at creating titles or he lets the publisher pick them. Anyway, you're not supposed to judge a book by its title, so I'll reserve judgement until I've actually read the books. But if they're anything like this one, I'll be happy.

Very cool film. Witty Oscar Wilde lines fly fast and furious -- you'll want to keep the rewind button handy and/or watch this one several times. The plot's a little crazy and confusing, but everyone's having so much fun being mildly evil that the whole thing's a delight irregardless. They just don't write comedies like this any more.

After seeing the previews, I knew this was a gimmick film. It didn't look like much of a gimmick, however: the plot appears to be a "Ten Little Indians" knockoff where stranded visitors to a motel die one by one. The promos make it sound like it's something special, however, which can backfire if it doesn't. Well, it does, and while it's not as revolutionary as the gimmick in The Sixth Sense, it is moderately clever and original. It works, bringing new life into an familiar tale. The direction is tight and fast-paced, giving you no time to ponder anything, which is good: just sit back and enjoy the ride. While I wish the ending gimmick was explored in a little more psychological depth, the creators are certainly aware this is a gimmick film and intelligently deliver and get out quick (some gimmick films wallow in their own cleverness). Overall there's nothing hugely profound here, but it is interesting, intriguing, and certainly good fun. Above average.

Two modern-day idiots are frozen as part of an experiment and wake up 500 years in the future to find that humanity has disintegrated into reality TV-watching morons and the two are the smartest people on the planet. It's actually amusing and surprisingly funny -- but it's not exactly high-brow humor. I liked the way the future is portrayed as being run by fast food companies -- sounds about right. Mildly amusing.

I'm starting to get a feel for these Nero Wolfe novels now. Though I've only read a few, they do seem to have certain things in common: 1. The crime is always murder; 2. Nero never leaves his house and hates working. 3. The group of suspects is small and we know one of them is guilty; 4. There are no real clues; 5. Extra murders are always done to cover up the first murder, and it is these murders that help break the case (and Stout is oddly dispassionate about murder -- death is extremely casual in his stories); 6. Nero solves the murders using logic about human behavior (pyschology, if you will), instead of traditional crime detecting techniques (for instance, he can deduce that so-and-so wouldn't have done a particular murder because it wasn't done in their "style"); 7. Archie Goodwin, Nero's assistant and narrator of the stories, is really the main character as Wolfe just makes grand cameo appearances as necessary; 8. Wolfe is highly motivated by money but always seems to turn down fees or fire clients, which is rather odd.

This particular novel is more about Archie as he leaves Wolfe to live with a family as a spy for their client, and when murder happens, he's right in the middle of it. While this one is well-written and has some good characters, the mystery part of it -- including the conclusion -- is weak and boring. Wolfe does nothing extraordinary except fire his client. It's my least favorite of those I read so far.

I went to Ikea today. Amazing store. They sell furniture and other things for the home. It's like a massive Costco except selling nothing but reasonably-priced home furnishings. Definitely an experience. I got a desk -- really it's their "IVAR" storage system -- but as it's configurable in to about a million variations, I was able to design a wall unit that will hold two complete computer systems, two printers, computer accessories, and much else. My current desk setup has never been optimal, being made up of a half-dozen pieces kludged together, and the maze of cords, contraptions, and awkwardness in the very small amount of space I have has made organization impossible. I've looked at many furniture stores for a decent desk, but either they're big and wide and with no vertical dimension, or if they do have a tall hutch (maximizing space) it's not big enough for my large screen monitors. The IVAR system looks to be the dream. We'll see how it works out!

Predictable ending, despite the "ta da" presentation, but the story and characters and intense scenes of magic performances more than carry the movie, and the ending is the satisfying one we wanted. Good performances from Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, the whole cast really. There's not huge depth here, despite the film's hints at such, but it's still an interesting and well-done film.

Not a bad adaptation of the famous Oscar Wilde play about false identities. Fairly true to the original, and well acted. It's a little light compared to today's spectacle-driven blockbusters, but there's some excellent comedy here. Great stuff.

Fascinating sci-fi based on the Philip K. Dick short story. The premise is cool: a top govt. scientist is suddenly arrested as a traitor and told that he's suspected of being a robot planted by aliens and he contains a bomb. Apparently the robot simulation is so perfect it's impossible to tell if he's human or not, except by disection. Of course the scientist believes he's not a robot -- but is he? That should be the core of the film -- he's own doubts as to his identity -- but instead the film's basically a big chase as he escapes and as a fugitive, tries to gain evidence to proof he's not an android. Somewhat predictable, especially the twist ending, but still enjoyable, and there a good performances. It could have been a better film, but it's still above average. It was originally supposed to be 30 minute short (as part of a sci-fi trilogy) but it was expanded to a full-length film. The original short's on the DVD and it was better (though the expanded material isn't that bad plotwise, it adds nothing characterwise).

I took a taxi from JFK to my cousin's place. He's in the upper east side, near East Harlem. It's just a block from the top of Central Park, and twenty blocks of the Guggenheim Museum. On my first night we visited a Senegalese restaurant not far from where he lives, in an area known as "little Dakar" (Dakar is the capital city of Senegal, West Africa where I lived for much of my childhood). The food at the restaurant was fantastic: Phil (my cousin) had lamb on couscous with a spicy peanut sauce and I had lamb chops smothered with onions and a creamy mayonaise dip. Though the chops were small (three inches by two inches), there was at least a dozen of them: I ate and ate and ate. Delicious, and very reasonable: each of our meals was around $8!

New York City reminds me a lot of Dakar: there's the same electic mixture of poor and rich, garbage dumps and luxury hotels. On Tuesday I had my first adventures using the subways: they have a cool system where you can buy a 7-day pass for a mere $17 that lets you ride the subway as much as you want for seven days. Unfortunately, I discovered the subways don't always go where you want. In New York, you'll learn how to walk. I'm not much of a walker, and I quickly developed blisters and my first purchase in NY was a pair of sneakers (my normal shoes aren't walking shoes). Fortunately, the blisters didn't burst, and after a few days of taking it easier and using the new shoes, my feet were okay.

Macworld Expo itself was interesting. I hung out at the REAL Software booth and helped them demo REALbasic and gave away flyers and copies of my magazine to whoever was interested. Everyone liked the magazine and I think many people will subscribe. My hope is that the magazine will encourage people to purchase RB as well. So far I haven't seen a huge subscription spike, but subs are steadily being sold, so that's good. I expect some will subscribe later, since we gave them a copy of the first issue at the show.

Cousin Phil and I toured the City. He took me to the New York Public Library, which was impressive. They don't lend books there (you read them on site), but they had a nice area for you to hook up your laptop to the Internet and sit and research. Apparently there's an excellent interlibrary lending system: you can order books, videos, and even DVDs via the Internet and they're delivered to your local branch for you to pick up within a few days. Very cool. I got my first NYC hot dog (very good) and we went to Battery Park and saw the Statue of Liberty in the bay. We could also see from there the Twin Towers that aren't there (we compared the current view with pictures from before being sold in the park). That night we ordered pizza and then I went downtown my myself to meet the TidBITS gang for ice cream. That lasted until midnight and I got back very late (I took a taxi home rather than risk the subway, and the driver drove fast and with little traffic, it was less than $8).

As a media person, I got in to see Steve Jobs' keynote speech at Macworld, which was very cool (my first time). While there wasn't any exciting new hardware to announce, I felt good about the software he revealed (though a little miffed that it will cost me $129 to upgrade to the next version of Mac OS X). On Thursday night I attended the REALbasic NUG meeting and passed out copies of the magazine: everyone was excited and impressed. (One guy chided me the next day: he was reading the magazine on the way home and missed his subway exit!) Friday night we went to an Italian restaurant called Vespa's that was small and intimate and very cool. The food was excellent (I had breaded chicken with lemon sauce). Saturday was the Metrostars soccer game.

On Monday I walked to the Guggenheim. On the way I passed a film crew recording a scene for Molly Gunn outside a building that was supposed to be a private school. I didn't see any stars, though I did pass a lot of trailers (including one that said "Molly" on the door) parked along 5th Avenue. At the Guggenheim the current exhibit is called "Moving Pictures" and is all about photography and video. It was fascinating, though I question some of the exhibits as being art. A lot of it was very adult material (nudity, close-ups of genitals, etc.), which often had no point that I could tell. There were some traditional paintings (Picasso, etc.) in portions of the building, but most was devoted to the photography exhibit. Some of the video stuff was interesting, but the way they were presented was poor, since they were often just TVs set along the walkway, or within a small room, and people would just enter and leave as the mood hit them, meaning you usually came in in the middle of a show (something I abhor). Many exhibits were obviously full of themselves. One was several huge screens all showing the same images of a bare-chested guy smearing mud on his body. Yup, twenty minutes of that and then he started over. Ooh, that's deep. One video I liked consisted of a mother and her daughter laughing. Gradually the film was sped up and the soundtrack distorted, so you began to think maybe they weren't laughing and hugging, but that the mother was strangling the daughter. It was creepy and that was the whole point. Very cool. There were some other cool exhibits and photos I liked, but they're obviously difficult to describe (a photo's a thousand words, right?). You're best off visiting the museum yourself if you're so inclined.

Overall, my visit to New York was great. I got to see many parts of the city, though I avoided the tourist traps like the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. I learned the subway system and how to hail a cab. I walked through portions of Central Park and bought hot dogs and croissants at the little stands everywhere. (I really like that.) What surprised me the most was how nice everyone was. People were helpful at guiding you on the subway, generally patient, the cabbies friendly (and spoke English, though always as a second language). The horror stories I'd heard of NYC were of a different town or time, I guess. It helped having a place to stay while I was there (I was less of a tourist), but it still was a surprisingly accessible city.

Fantastic film! I'd wanted to see this when I first heard about it last summer, but when it finally came out I was more hesitant because the things I'd heard recently made it sound like health food: good for you but not enjoyable. The film sounded like a story about immigrants, but it's not. It's simply about a family. The story's really about the two children (in fact, it's narrated by the oldest). The Irish immigrant family struggles to survive in Manhattan, but we see their struggles through the eyes of the ever-positive kids, so the story's never depressing. The two girls are awesome, cute and innocent, completely lost in their roles. They both deserve Oscars. Because of their innocence, the film reminded a lot of Life is Beautiful, where bad things are happening but the adults are trying to protect the children from that knowledge and preserve their innocence. Except here it isn't a Nazi concentration camp but a bad New York City apartment filled with druggies and transvestites. The adults see the situation as grim, but the girls accept everything as normal. Meanwhile, beneath the surface of the day-to-day struggles, we learn that the girls had a little brother who died. Then we begin to see the parents are still coping with his tragic death. Then the girls meet "the screaming man" -- a strange guy in a nearby room who screams all the time. When the girls meet him, he's a huge black man. It turns out he's gentle and kind, and he's a painter. He's overly emotional (a fantastic performance) and there's a reason for his rage and emotions. It's awesome.

When the film was an hour in I was thinking that I would have been completely happy if it ended there. Even though the story was unfinished, I was satisfied. I just didn't want the rest of the movie to ruin what I'd already experienced. To my suprise, the second half of the film was even better! All sorts of things link together to complete the story and the ending is fantastic. You will cry tears of joy or you're not human. Terrific, terrific film. I love seeing adult things from the perspective of kids and I loved the way this film made unhappy things seem okay. This story could have been told in much more obvious heart-wrenching way and been really depressing -- and not much more impactful than a typical TV disease-of-the-week movie. Instead, this film captures a slice of a real-life family; not a perfect family by any means, but a family struggling to keep together, to survive financially, and to heal deep emotional wounds. Fantastic. In my top ten of all time, I think. For sure the top twenty-five.

This movie was better than I expected as the critics had panned it badly when it came out. It actually is an interesting psychological thriller about a woman (Annette Bening) who's haunted by an insane killer. Unfortunately, the killer, played by Robert Downey Jr., is weak and ineffectual in the role. Bening, on the other hand, is awesome. The direction is a bit heavy-handed, the editing so sharp it occasionally confuses things. Certain aspects of the plot didn't make any sense, and, of course, the reason for the dream-link between the two main characters is never explained. This is one of those scripts with a lot of potential, but several flaws weaken it so badly it ends up being a so-so movie. Don't pay more than a couple dollars to rent it, or better yet, watch it on a premium channel for free.

Well-done film, but not quite what I expected. The trailers were deceiving, promoting this as a romance between a young man who's the boss and his older employee's daughter, but it really turned out to be more about the guy learning that life is not all about the rising up the corporate ladder. The romance is just a sideline, one of the things that helps him grow up. Even though I liked what I saw, I could help but be disappointed that what I got wasn't what was advertised.

Definitely a chick flick, but not as sappy as I expected, though too predictable (the trailer gives away pretty much all the plot). The story's about two un-alike sisters who love each other but drive each other crazy and how the one grows up and the others learns to be less serious. There's some deep stuff underneath everything involving family secrets about their mother's death, but the tone of the film's too light for much profundity.

I'd never seen any of the Flint films, but I understood they were Austin Powers-like spy spoofs from the sixties. This one was cool. It's a comedy, very but light: there are only a few one liners and occasionally silliness. The plot is semi-serious and handled more realistically than some legitimate spy films. (The biggest flaws were when the sonic gun was used in outer space and the space capsule exploded into flames. With no air in space, neither is feasible.) Overall, I liked it. A little long and slow in places, but Derek Flint is an cool superspy: he knows about everything (he's a chemist, detective, ballet dancer, fighter, etc. etc.). Worth seeing.

Terrific low-key film about the after-effects of a murder in a small New England seaside town. The pace is slow and meandering, but somehow not at all boring. Even when the characters are discussing ordinary fishing, you sense deeper meaning behind the words. Excellent performances, especially from the two parents (Tom Williamson and Sissy Spacek). The film is modest and never assumes it's anything it's not (it's not the least bit pretencious). The ending is predictable but extremely satisfying.

Incredible, powerful, disturbing film. This is an unadulterated look at evil, up close, and it's designed to make you squirm. The plot is simple: a couple MBA-types, on a six-week business trip, pledge to take revenge on women as payment for all their own messed up relationships. They decide they'll find a shy, lonely, unnoticeable woman, and each romance her for the next six weeks, and then, when she thinks she's falling in love one or both of them, they'll dump her like yesterday's fish and laugh in her face. Bizarre concept, yes, but brilliantly executed. Author LaButte goes the extra mile to make us really realize what slimeballs these two guys are: the woman they toy with is deaf. Because she can't speak clearly, one guy calls her "retard mouth" behind her back. That's the kind of stuff you face in this movie. Tough, yes, but powerful and profound.

What's deeply ironic to me is that if Neil hadn't made the woman deaf, if she'd been a regular woman, perhaps not very attractive but not handicapped, would we have felt such a degree of disgust for these men? Is our outrage so intense because the woman is disabled, and thus a more sympathetic victim, or are we outraged out of principle? In other words, do we care about the person inside, regardless of the shell (flawed or intact)? If we saw this happening, like we do all the time around us (i.e. we know our co-worker's cheating on his wife but we shrug it off), would we be as upset? Food for thought, lots of food for thought. Definitely one of the best films I've ever seen. Even more amazing, LaButte made this for $25,000, I have no idea how: it looks like a million dollar movie. Acting, sound, photography -- everything is top notch. Impressive.

This film is getting notority for the wrong reasons. I really liked Meg Ryan playing somewhat against type: those sweet romantic comedy roles must be getting rather boring for her. Nice to see her branch out, and nice to see real acting in a thriller for a change. Unfortunately, the film doesn't quite work. It's main problem is that it sets itself up as something really special and in the end, it's a routine serial killer mystery. The plot deals with a female English profession (Ryan) who meets a cop investigating a murder in her neighborhood. As the two hook up, she begins to suspect he's the killer. But she keeps seeing him anyway, of course (otherwise we wouldn't have much of a movie). It's all fairly routine, but it's muddled by dark portents and superfluous secondary characters. In the end everything's too convoluted for such a simple resolution, and the twist ending is clearly visible about 30 minutes in. But I did like some of the nice direction touches, particularly the ice skating dream sequences: the horrific ending one is hilarious like something out of a Coen brother's movie. It's worth the price of admission alone. This one's a good rental.

This was very different from what I expected. I liked it a lot, though I wasn't sure until about half-way through. From the promos I was expecting a sort of parody of superheroes. It appeared to be about hapless former superheroes who were now overweight and out of shape or something. But to my surprise these superheroes were really super. What's happened is that lawsuits have made superheroes illegal, so Mr. Incredible and his superfamily have retired to normal mundane jobs and pine for the days when they used to save the world on a regular basis. They are forced to hide their superpowers and pretend to be regular folk, and that's where the humor comes in. Eventually, of course, the entire family must combine their powers to stop a supervillain. The plot's a little more routine than most Pixar films, but there is still heart in the story. The humor's dry and understated, rarely the laugh-out-loud variety, but there's plenty to smile about. Some of the lines are really funny but delivered so quickly and effortlessly that you don't realize it until moments later. Overall, I was very impressed. Pixar's done it again. While it's a very different movie from previous outings, it's another classic. Definitely one of the best of the year.

I liked this even better the second time. The first time it seemed extremely long and overly complicated, but this time it was a fun adventure. There's tons of depth in this film, with new things becoming apparent each time you view it. Great.

What a bewildering mess! Take three ordinary thrillers, one legal, one financial, and one political and throw them in a blender. What comes out is this book. Be sure you don't rearrange the pages as you take them out of the blender, just use them in the order you find them. It will make as much sense as this concoction. Okay, it may not be quite that bad, but it's certainly not good. First, we are introduced to about 50 different characters over the course of 50 pages. Then, when you've completely lost track of who the first twenty or so were, we go back to them. Of course each scene is like two to four pages long, so it's not like there's much to work with. You literally don't have much of a clue what's happening until two-thirds of the way through the book. By that time the conspiracy is starting to take shape, but by then you don't really care. You're sick of all these people. The plot's about a giant conspiracy involving Senators, corporations, financial institution, and the little people who uncover the secret and are marked for death. Basically the book needs to be cut in half, simplify the plot considerably, and make the scenes longer and more interesting. Frey's usually better than this; this feels like he was trying to be ambitious and create an epic or something and instead we've got a fairly ordinary conspiracy that takes way, way too long to unravel. Skip it.

Immaculately researched business book exploring answers to the question of why successful well-managed business fail to adapt to innovative technology. The author primarily uses data from the disk drive industry, where, in just over three decades, hundreds of companies rose to power and were defeated by new companies employing the next wave of technology. Why did this happen, over and over again? For instance, all the makers of the 14" drives were killed by the 8" drive makers, and those were killed by the 5.25" manufacturers, and only a few of them survived to make 3.5" drives. Why?

Christensen discovers that lack of managerial or technical skill was not the problem: rather it was the ironic fact that the companies were well-managed that killed them! Let me explain. In successful companies, the entire company, from CEO to managers to the lowest manual laborer, instinctively know to operate in a manner that maximizes profit for the company. Everyone wants to work on projects that will bring in significant growth, so managers approve resources for projects that customers want. The problem is that innovative technologies, while simpler, cheaper, smaller, and more convenient, are initially of limited utility. Their initial markets are small. Being cheaper, they have smaller margins of profit. For example, the first 3.5" disk drives could only hold 10 megabytes while the top 5.25" drives held 100 MB. When successful drive makers went to their customers and said, "Do you want a 10MB drive?" the customers said, "No, we want a 250MB drive!" The smaller drives, while cheaper in total cost, were much more expensive on a cost-per-megabyte basis. The businesses buying storage wanted the cheapest cost-per-megabyte possible. So was there no market for the 3.5" drive? Of course there was! The problem was that the established companies could only look for a market within their existing market. New companies looked for any market, and quickly discovered an emerging market for laptop computers in which the smaller size of the 3.5" drives was an incredible asset and the higher cost per megabyte didn't matter. The bigger, established companies couldn't see the laptop market because it was too small for them to consider: for them a successful product sold hundreds of millions of dollars, not a few million. In a sense, this makes sense: emerging markets are not a huge source of profit, especially considering the lower margins on the cheaper products. But eventually, as the innovative technology improves, it pushes the older technology out of the market and takes over: no 5.25" drives are made today, for instance.

The way Christensen explains this process is to divide technology into two types: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technology is an improvement that makes an existing product better. Disruptive technology is a simpler version of existing technology that isn't initially comparable in features, but has the advantage of being simpler and more efficient: in the long run it will take over. Initially it has its own market, but once features and specs improve to be competitive with its larger cousin, it takes over. For example, look at photocopiers: Xerox, long the leader in huge business-oriented monsters, completely missed out on the personal copier market. Obviously, this was good business: why would Xerox, who's business was tailored to huge customers buying extremely expensive machines want to bother with small sales to individuals? But of course we all know in retrospect that the personal copier market is much, much larger than the big copier market! (Xerox's mistake meant they came into the personal copier market very late, and thus they are not the leader.) Christensen shows statistical evidence to show that being first in sustaining technology isn't much of an advantage, but that being first in disruptive technology has tremendous advantages. In hundreds of cases, the makers of the older technology eventually shifted to the disruptive technology, but they were late and slow, and never regained the leadership position they originally had.

Fascinating, excellent, book, with lots of interesting stories and examples. My only criticism is that Christensen tends to repeat himself. For instance, in several places he points out that "successful" businesses are judged by their growth rate, not actual profit. The larger the company, the more new business must be generated. i.e. a $10 million company must earn only $2 million of new business to maintain a 20% growth rate, but the $100 million company needs $20 million and the $10 billion company needs $2 billion! Since there are no emerging markets of $2 billion, a huge company tends to avoid and thus miss emerging markets. This is an excellent point, but I can't figure out why Christensen needs to repeat it over and over, almost word for word, in different chapters. He does this with other key points as well, and while that might be helpful for busy business execs just browsing through a few key chapters, it makes the book awkward for the ordinary reader. I'd like to see Christensen write a much shorter version of the book suitable for a mass audience: the book's issues are important for anyone involved in society as they demonstrate how technology infiltrates our everyday lives. Fascinating and highly recommended.

Nice little bank job thriller with an unusual twist. I'm not sure the film works without that twist -- nothing much happens but the mystery of what is going on and once that's explained, there's not much left to watch -- but if you don't know what's going to happen it is interesting. Several of the characters are quite interesting and it's fun watching them fall or succeed. At times the music and edits are jarring -- for such a simple story, a simpler style would have been better. But overall it's not bad. It's paint-by-the-numbers, but the finished product still looks decent.

Interesting, though overly complex tale of a tobacco insider who turns whistle-blower. It's based on reality, and tells the story of a 60 Minutes producer who finds the insider and encourages him to blow the whistle. The producer soon finds his own network (CBS) is afraid to back him for fear of being sued by Big Tobacco and they leave the whistle-blower out on his own. Things are confusing as we watch the producer working on unrelated stories, and it's sometimes difficult to tell if the producer's the main character or the whistle-blower. The ending is also weak as we'd earlier watched the whistle-blower's life fall apart by pressure from the tobacco company (his wife left him) and that is never resolved. It's therefore implied that whistle-blowing will cost you everything you value, but of course, you must do it to be a good citizen. Overall an excellent film (good direction and performances), but a little convoluted and overlong.

A by-the-numbers financial thriller from Frey. We've got a young guy who jumps at the job of a lifetime with a $1 million guaranteed bonus. Unfortunately, he soon uncovers a conspiracy and figures out he's fall guy in an insider trading scandal. He's to take the blame for his boss' crimes. The scary part is this is being done by the U.S. government. So he turns the tables and blows the whole scheme and everything ends happily ever after. Hooray.

Excellent somber mystery about a Swedish cop sent in to Norway (where it's always daylight) to solve a murder. However, during a shootout the cop kills his partner and the only witness is the murderer, a novelist who the blackmails the cop into protecting him. Fascinating, creepy, and mysterious, never quite letting you know the cop's true movitations. Stellan Skarsgaard is amazing as the cop.

Initially I liked this better than the original: this appeared to be a frame-by-frame remake, and there was a lot of subtly that I missed in the foreign version. However, there were some interesting differences. In the original, the cop shoots a dog dead in order to get a spent bullet he could use to frame the dead girl's boyfriend. In this version, however, he finds the dog already dead and shoots the dead body. But most disappointing, this version changes the ending dramatically. In the original, everything is left ambiguous: did the cop kill his partner on purpose? Here it's less convoluted and he dies at the end. It was good until that point.

If anyone would like this movie, it should be me, as I'm a huge fan of the cartoon. But while the movie felt like a cartoon, it didn't feel like an Inspector Gadget cartoon. What made the original great was that Gadget never realized it when his gadgets saved him or injured the bad guys -- he just kept going along in his own little world, accidentally setting off gadgets and saving the world. Like Inspector Cloussou, Gadget was always the irrepressible optimist and that made him likable, even if he was a terrible detective. The movie has some impressive special effects (though one aerial sequence has some horribly amateurish green screen work) and it's ultimately harmless. I was also impressed that the movie didn't include a lot of the vulgar, adult-oriented humor that seems to pervade most kid-oriented movies of recent days (Austin Powers and Wild Wild West come to mind).

Slow, surprisingly boring, and ultimately unsatisfying. Pop psych hokum dialog. Not worth the rental.

Strange but fascinating film about the "gift" of luck. Apparently some people have it, and others want it. If you have the gift you can "steal" luck from others by touching them. This is the story of the intertwined lives of several lucky people who gamble. There's the casino owner and concentration camp survivor who's the luckiest of them all; a policewoman who survived a deadly car crash that killed her husband and child; and a thief who is the only survivor of an airplane crash. The film is strange: for a long time you aren't sure what's going on, but stay with it: everything is explained. For example, I didn't know what the pictures of people meant until I later I realized they represented the luck of that person. The picture was a symbol of that person's luck (somewhat analogous to the concept of a photo capturing your soul). The bizarre bets the characters make to trade photos are trading the cumulative luck of groups of people. Of course those whose luck has been stolen are in for bad luck: they are jinxed. The film's climax is terrific with an excellent ending. The performances are excellent (the policewoman is amazing), and some of the images created are startling. If you like quirky films, check this one out.

This was a great game until I realized I'd only recorded the first half. I'd forgotten I'd told my satellite dish to switch to a movie that I thought I might be interested in, and so it switched away from the game and recorded only part of the movie. Brilliant. I did get to see Fiore score for Italy 26 minutes in, and then Gonzalez tied it up for Argentina ten minutes later. For all I know that's the way it ended. I'll have to check on the 'net for the final score.

Excellent game which aired on ABC Saturday afternoon. After their fantastic win on Wednesday, the U.S. team was pumped up, but come on, this is against Brazil, the best team in the world. Worse, most of our top players were heading back to their club teams in Europe and were unavailable. The U.S. barely had enough players to fill the field. The youngsters played well, though mistakes were made. The biggest was a pointless foul by Richie Williams to give up a free kick at the edge of the penalty box a half hour into the game. That gave Brazil a good chance and they took it, with Ronaldinho putting in a curling shot that cleared the wall and beat Tony Meola for the first goal of the game. I thought Meola should have done better on the free kick, but he looked very sharp the rest of the game. But the U.S. came back with a terrific goal by Clint Mathis, one of the heros of Wednesday's game. He ran down the right wing and instead of putting in a cross, saw that the keeper was guarding the near post and put in a shot to the far post. It was perfect, bypassing the keeper and grazing the post to go into the goal. Awesome! Scoring against Brazil is a career-making event and Mathis deserves notice. In the second half Brazil played much better and the U.S. players became tired. Brazil really should have had two or three more goals, but they did get one to go ahead and win the game. A great run by Silvinho up the left side allowed him to get behind the U.S. back line and put in a cross, which Euller ran onto just a step from the goalline for a simple finish. Brazil deservedly won, but the U.S. did themselves proud. Just scoring against Brazil is enough to widen the eyes of many who question the United States' soccer skill. Final: 2-1 Brazil.

This game was on live last week on pay-per-view, but Fox Sports World aired it tonight for free. Nearly 60,000 at the L.A. Coliseum showed up, most cheering for Mexico. Terrific match, full of youngsters getting their chance on the full national team. Just like at the Olympics, it was Josh Wolff and Landon Donovan who stepped up when it mattered most. Defense held solid, with Mexico hardly getting a quality shot the entire game. In the second half Donovan started the play with a pass out to Mathis who led away several defenders and then passed it back. Donovan broke toward goal, dribbled around the keeper, and slotted the ball home. Wolff's goal late in the half was similar, taking a nice pass from Donovan and sliding the ball under the keeper to bounce it off the near post. For Donovan, he couldn't have had a better International debut! Things are looking good the United States and that critical game against Barbados in World Cup qualifying. Final: 2-0 U.S.!

Fun trip south to see the USA take on China. A bit disappointed that more U.S. star players weren't on hand, but the game itself was a nice 4-1 victory and there was a great raccuous atmosphere. I got to meet a listener of my soccer podcast, which was cool, and after the game we went to a SSV party and got the news that it sounds like the Earthquakes will be back in the Bay Area as early as next year! An official announcement should be made within the month.

In this warm up for World Cup qualifying later this month, the U.S. did well. Not great, but decent. We fielded mostly MLS kids, as our international stars are busy in leagues overseas, and there was some impressive play. The U.S. dominated for the first 15 minutes of each half, but slowed down after that, allowing Columbia time to get comfortable. In particular, we took very few long shots (or shots at all), a criticism I've often made of the U.S. We need forwards who aren't afraid to shoot. We've got a few players who don't mind shooting, like Cobi Jones and Clint Mathis, but neither play forward. Some of the younger players, like Josh Wolff, will take shots, but their experience is limited and they tend to miss. That just means they should shoot twice as often! Anyway, in this game Columbia didn't play as strongly as I expected, though there were some excellent players. They beat us on the counter, scoring mid-way through the second half, and defended heavily after that. It was a good experience for the U.S. players. They need to feel the desperation and frustration of losing against a quality opponent. Next up is USA vs. Mexico in a critical World Cup Qualifier on Feb. 28 (airing on ESPN2). Final: 1-0 Columbia.

An okay game, but neither team could score. The U.S. has a real problem playing without injured Josh Wolff and Clint Mathis. Final: 0-0.

Cool game. I just happened to catch upon this on Telemundo (a Spanish station) while channel surfing. France won on a great goal by Zidane, who took a through-pass and finished with such calm it was almost ridiculous. The guy scores and it's like, "Okay, that was fun. What's next?" Germany really struggled in the first half, but played much better in the second (including a terrific volley right on goal by Scholl that was saved by French keeper Bartez). But still, Germany's just not the soccer powerhouse they once were. Their big stars are retired and they don't have new ones to replace them. It will be interesting to see how they progress in the future. Final: 1-0 France.

Nicole Kidman plays a U.N. interpreter who accidentally overhears a plot, in an African tongue she understands, to kill a controversial African leader, and then becomes a target herself. Nicely done by her and I was really impressed by Sean Penn as the Secret Service agent assigned to investigate/protect her. Things get a bit convoluted and probably go on too long, but it wraps up nicely and is a decent conclusion. Pretty good, overall. I liked it.

I don't know what I expected with this film, but I certainly got more than I bargained for. It's an amazing movie. It reminded me a lot of The Princess Bride -- not for the setting or plot, but in tone. That's a film with a seemingly straightforward story suddenly veers out of line and goes off on wild, surreal tangents, just like this one. The "plot" is about a young man trying to find himself. He's 22 and his attorney father is pressuring him to go to law school, but he's not sure what he wants to do with his life. When his birthday wish is granted, he ends up on Interstate 60 -- a highway that doesn't exist. Along this road he meets fascinating characters and visits strange towns. There's a town where drugs are legal and another where everyone is a lawyer and lawsuits are as common as breathing (as a matter of fact, breathing will probably get you sued for using someone else's air). This is bizarre, quirky, and magically brilliant. There's humor, drama, and deep thought. It's the kind of film you could watch multiple times and see new things each time. The cast is fantastic, with short pieces involving Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Kurt Russell, Ann-Margret, and more. The main characters of James Marsden and Gary Oldman are excellent. One of my favorite scenes involves the awesome Chris Cooper, who plays a terminally ill man determined to stop all dishonesty. When he sees a homeless guy with a "will work for food" sign, he tries to trade an apple for a windshield cleaning, but the bum doesn't actually want food, of course. He just wants a handout. The resulting clash is hilarious! Another great scene is in a diner when a guy with a bottomless stomach appears. He eats enough for ten people and is still hungry. It turns out that he was also granted a wish many years earlier, a wish to be able to eat as much as he wanted, and now he has to eat unbelievable amounts of food but stays hungry. The moral, of course, being that you should be careful what you wish for. (Really that's a theme of the whole film.) Now I don't want to give the impression that this is like the greatest movie ever, but it's charming, surprisingly deep and complex, has a lot of humor, great performances, and a number of classic plot twists that are just awesome. It's a little long at two hours and it's uneven in a few places, but once you get started, it will hook you in and you can't stop watching (it gets better as it goes along). You just have to see what weirder thing is coming next. Excellent.

This wasn't as wicked as I hoped. The concept sounded amazing: a woman mistakes a tax attorney for her new psychiatrist (she goes into the wrong office and he assumes she's a tax client) and spills her guts to him. By the time he realizes the mistake, he's in over his head. Should he tell her? How will she react? She wants a regular session and he agrees, unsure what else to do.

Unfortunately, the scam is uncovered right away. I had figured the fake psychiatrist thing would go on for a long time, building suspense as the woman reveals more and more intimate information. Thus the film goes from being about complex mind games to being a long therapy session. In that regard it's still interesting -- the woman is mysterious and doesn't reveal everything all at once and we're not sure how much of what she says is factual -- but it is talky and slow. Talky would have been fine if there was the undercurrent of the fake psychiatrist thing behind everything, but without that it's really just eavesdropping on a woman and her therapist.

There is the intriguing question of why the woman continues to have therapy sessions with the man even though she knows he's not a doctor. And of course the man is obviously falling in love with the girl. Those things make the film interesting, but it never quite lives up to its potential. I did like the ending, in which we find that the therapy has helped each of them heal. Good but not great.

I assumed this was a silly bikini-fest treasuring hunting movie set in Jamaica or somewhere and I was right; but I was suprised it was as decent as it was. There actually is a slight plot, and even a couple faint efforts at characterization. Paul Walker is his usually wooden self, and Jessica Alba just has to look gorgeous but she brings a spunkiness to the role that really drives the film. Overall it is just drivel but I've definitely seen worse, much worse.

Easily one of the wittiest films of the year, with several scenes of high-speed dialog that's just hilarious. The plot and characters are great as well. George Clooney's finally in a decent film, and Catherine Zeta-Jones is just amazing. He's a divorce lawyer and she's a man-hunter out to scam millions in a settlement, but when he falls in love with her, is she going to scam him? Terrific fun with tons of wicked barbs at divorce, and a happy resolution. Excellent.

While the idea -- alien infection taking over the population -- is trite, this is fairly well done, and even occasionally chilling. But most of the time it's predictable and the ending feels too War of Worldsish (in other words, a let down). It also can't make up its mind if it's a psychological thriller or an action film, dabbling in both ineffectively.

Strange, rather pointless novel. It's got a one-shot premise about "invisible" robberies where someone is killing elderly people while robbing them of selected expensive antiques so subtly that no one notices the thefts. But our "hero" cop gets involved and figures things out and tracks the criminals down. What's weird is the lack of characterization -- I suspect these are characters the author has used in previous novels and that's why they aren't explained, but I found it jarring and odd. The novel also has a tasteless quality to it: ruthless murders happen almost at random and are described with such dispassion it feels dirty. The ending is equally strange: it's a decent resolution, but bloody and violent in a way that feels unexpected and wrong. Basically, it's just a poor novel all the way around.

Okay, I've had a chance to play with the iPhone a bit and let me tell you, this thing is astonishing. It feels like a third- or fourt-generation product. Apple has thought out so many tiny details it really does almost seem like magic. It blows away every existing product in ways to numerous to mention. People who argue it's "just" a phone have no clue. Not only is this the best phone ever made, it's the best handheld Internet device and best iPod. That is saying a lot. The thing is, Apple not only combined those three functions into a single device, they did in such a way as to make the thing easier to use, simpler instead of more complicated! That is revolutionary.

I had expected this thing to be a like diet food: it looks appetizing but is tasteless and leaves you feeling hungrier than when you started. That's the way of most promising tech gadgets. Instead, the iPhone is even better than the demos would suggest. No, it's not flawless. I can think of improvements. But the problems are minor and one of the best things about the device is that it really is a sort of miniature laptop, so it's infinitely upgradeable. A new software update could be released tomorrow that would fix the flaws I noticed or add some new features. Who knows what the future will bring? This thing is the future. The real Internet in the palm of your hand, and so easy a caveman could use it. Jaw-dropping incredible.

Today was "iDay" -- the launch of the iPhone. If you haven't heard of the iPhone, you truly must have been living under a rock. The nifty handheld device uneveiled by Steve Jobs last January caught the imagination of the world. It literally seemed like some piece of future technology sent back through time. Today it was finally released. I took photos of the lines at my local Apple Store and AT&T outlet -- quite entertaining, though I didn't understand the point of waiting in the rain all day. I went back in the evening and there was no line and plenty in stock. I picked up two, one for myself and one for my mom. I figured out a loophole to save $20 on the AT&T monthly fees by signing up onto my mom's account via a family plan. Less voice minutes, but I don't need many minutes. I just want the Internet features. Some people had activation problems, but because I'd gone to the AT&T store earlier in the day and had them pre-transfer my old phone number to my mom's account, I was already an AT&T customer and the activation process just took minutes and my iPhone was working.

Quickly: this thing is breathtaking. The user interface is so fluid you have to see it and try it to believe it. The high resolution is greatly responsible as photos and icons look stunning, but also all the animations and text are crystal clear and completely smooth.

I actually bought my iPod on Nov. 10, the day they went on sale, but I am writing about it now that I've had a chance to really play with it.

If you're not familiar with iPod, you've got to check it out. It's a tiny -- and I do mean tiny... it fits in your shirt pocket -- digital music player. The idea is nothing new, but Apple's implementation is incredible. This is the way a music player is supposed to be designed!

The key feature of iPod is that it uses a new Toshiba 1.8" 5GB hard drive. That allows it to store over 1,000 songs! (Most MP3 players can only store an hour or two of music.) Of course there are other hard drive-based players out there, but they're huge (the size of a portable CD player), only last three hours on battery power, loading your entire music library takes hours, and the interface for browsing through thousands of songs is actually painful.

iPod changes all that. The unique scroll wheel lets you zip through a thousand songs in seconds, with just one hand! The unit's 20 minute "skip protection" memory means it rarely needs to power up the hard drive (just three times an hour) and that means long battery life: try over 10 hours! The final major difference is Apple uses a FireWire connection instead of the more typical USB. FireWire is the standard for digital video and it's fast: you can copy over 5GB of music (over 72 hours worth) in about ten minutes! That same FireWire connector also provides power, so you use it to charge your iPod. You can even use iPod as a portable hard disk: move files between work and home, or give your laptop extra storage!

Apple doesn't stop there: they've incorporated iPod into their MP3 software player, iTunes. iTunes is free: you use it to convert your audio CDs to MP3 format and manage your songs. Plug in iPod and it automatically syncs your iTunes songs and settings with your iPod! Creating playlists is a snap in iTunes, and having them available on your iPod is terrific. iPod lets you browse songs by artist, album, playlist, or all your songs in one long list. It's really transparent and amazingly easy to use. iPod's going to be the hottest item on everyone's Christmas list this year.

Imagine holding a jukebox in the palm of your hand: that's iPod. Mine has nearly 1,200 songs on it, and there's room for a hundred more (I've got a few hundred megs of data on mine as well). I carry it with me everywhere, and it connects to my car stereo with a simple cassette adapter. It sounds great with headphones or plugged into my speaker system. I love having the ability to use my playlists to restrict music to my favorites or a particular genre that fits my current mood. If you love music, you'll love iPod.

This is a surprising film on several levels. The story's about famous British writer Iris Murdoch, who was a brilliant novelist and intellectual, as she succumbs to Alzheimer's disease. I expected this to be arty, pretentious, and tedious. Instead the movie's entertaining, moves quickly, and is only 90 minutes long. The film switches back and forth between the young Iris, brilliant and daring and non-conventional, and the old Iris, bewildered by life as her brain erodes. The film's not sad, for as we see one Iris die, we see the other living life to the fullest. There is some drama and emotion, of course, but it's not overdone like a "disease of the week" TV movie. However, the one flaw I found is that the film's surprisingly light on profundity. For instance, while we see glimpses of the young Iris' brilliance, I never understood much about her politics or writing: she's still a mystery to me. There are a few scenes where she lectures but they are too brief and don't really explain her philosophies. In the end, the film's too light and brief: there's not much here that isn't predictable (the woman inevitably dies), and because we don't really learn much about the author, we don't really learn much from the film. It's a good but not great film. The performances by all are excellent, but I wanted more depth, more revealing. The movie ended without me knowing much more about Iris than I did before the movie started. I now know she existed and died of Alzheimer's, but that's about it.