The Z/Web Archive

Remarkable French film about a guy who seems to have everything: he owns a nice resort hotel, has married a beautiful woman, and has a young son. But the man can't sleep, and his anxieties slowly get the better of him until he becomes obsessed with his wife's fidelity. Convinced she's being unfaithful, he's driven to madness. As we watch him sink into insanity, we aren't sure what's real or imagined ourselves. Excellent.

I'm still getting used to this being a sports fan thing: it's harder than it seems. I think the fans suffer more than the players when the team suffers a loss. At least the players contributed something in the effort: the fans only contribute their emotions, and that's tough. This game could have been the highlight of the season. A win for San Jose meant much in the statistical department: a new MLS home unbeaten record, the Western Conference leader crown and home field advantage for the playoffs, a new San Jose season points record, winning the Supporter's Shield (which goes to the best team on the West Coast), and keeper Joe Cannon probably finishing the season with the best goals-against average. A monster crowd showed up for the game: 26,229 people! Officially a sellout! I arrived more than thirty minutes early and parking took so long I barely made the game. Incredible. It was the most people for a regular season game since the inaugural MLS game in 1996. Wow, the atmosphere was fantastic. Even the Galaxy fans and players were impressed (as they revealed after the game). Everything was set for a great Earthquakes victory. Unfortunately, that was not to be. It started off well, and the Quakes played marvelously, but couldn't finish to get a goal. Early on a great run by Donovan into the box was ended by a takedown and the ref immediately pointed to the penalty box. Ronnie Ekeland stepped to take the PK. He struck it hard, but too much up the center, and the Galaxy's Kevin Hartman blocked it. No goal. That should have been the start of an Earthquake rout. Instead it was the start of a stalemate. For 90 minutes the teams played to zero-zero tie, just like last week in L.A. But this time, instead of the game being given to L.A. on a blown offside call, it was the ref who stepped up and awarded a penalty when San Jose's Eddie Robinson knocked down Cobi Jones in the penalty box in the 93rd minute. The Galaxy's Ruiz easily converted the PK and that was it: L.A. wins 1-0.

This was a frustrating game, not only because San Jose played better soccer and certainly had the bulk of the chances, but the strategies of the teams were affected by last week's controversial loss. If that game had finished a tie, L.A. would have come into this game needing a win: instead a draw was enough for them and they didn't need to risk anything. Hartman had a great game and was definitely man-of-the-match, making 9 saves (several of them spectacular). But it's still a bitter pill to lose your last home game, especially against your most hated rival. San Jose is still in the playoffs in third place, and we face Columbus on Wednesday night, just like the playoffs last year. Some fans are saying the loss will motivate the Quakes: I sure hope so. However, after losing two games in a row, confidence and morale can't be too high. Still the playoffs are anyone's game. It doesn't matter how you get there: all that matters is that once you are there you win. Go Quakes! Final: 1-0 Galaxy.

Today my step-brother Dave and I drove down to Los Angeles (I stayed at Dave's in Northern California last night). We're going to the big soccer game tomorrow. Today we watched the All-Star game at a bar in Santa Monica and tonight we went to a movie. Great fun.

Coming off their loss to Liverpool in the UEFA Cup, Alaves looked tired and spiritless. Barcellona, however, looked much more like the champs they're supposed to be. They scored early on a terrific Marc Overmars goal and held on for the 1-0 victory. Final: 1-0 Barca.

Fun game, but poor Alaves can't do anything after their UEFA Cup final failure. Madrid came out and stomped on them. Raul started things with a goal in the 22nd minute, followed just a minute later by Guti. Then in the second half, Hiero and Helguerra added goals, and Raul got a second in the final minutes. Wow! Final: 5-0.

Wow, what a game. Zillions of goals. Don't know that I've ever seen a soccer game quite like this one. Villareal came out storming, fulling intending to put a lock on the came early. They scored three goals in twenty minutes! Former Barca player Victor got the first one eleven minutes in, followed by Calleja seven minutes later. Victor added another in the twentieth minute. It looked like it was all Villareal, but then Kluivert got one in the 38th minute and Barca was awarded a penalty kick in the dying minutes of the first half. Rivaldo stepped up to take the kick and I was positive the score was going to be 3-2. But Rivaldo missed! His rebounded off the base of the post! After that brush with danger, Villareal looked like they would survive as Barca squandered chance after chance. But early in the second half Kluivert managed another, and then Rivaldo scored himself on about the hour mark, tying the score and making up for his missed penalty. But the game was by no means over. Villareal went up again just five minutes later, when Lopez scored after Palermo whiffed on his shot. As time ran out it looked like Villareal would get the three points for sure. The game went into injury time, one, two, then three minutes passed. There were just seconds left. Barca was still pushing hard, when, amazingly, Kluivert managed to score his third to complete his hat trick and give Barca a valuable road point. Wow, eight goals in one game! Final: 4-4.

This was last week's Spanish soccer game, and I figured I'd better watch it before this week's. ;-) A well-fought match, as you might expect, but the smaller team took the lead first, just eight minutes in, on a goal from Catanha. A poor clearance gave the ball back to Edu, coming up on the left wing, who put in a cross to Catanha who simply deflected it into the open net (the keeper had moved to block a possible Edu shot). Then, amazingly, Catanha got another minutes later, when he got some space at the top of the key and slipped the ball past the keeper. But Barca's not a team you can keep down for long. Eighteen minutes in, Frank DeBoer scores on a header off a Rivaldo corner kick, meaning we've got a 2-1 game going. But just minutes later, Catanha got his hat trick (in less than 30 minutes!!!): a huge climbing header. Then we had a breather of 15 minutes with no goals. Late in the first half Barca's keeper had to go off injured, replaced by an 18-year-old. For most teams, a 3-1 score at the half pretty much means you're dead, but keep in mind this is Barcelona we're talking about. In the second half, Barca started their path back on a goal from Kluivert, a header off a free kick, training field stuff that Celta Vigo should have defended. Then good play on the wing by Overmars put in the ball to Rivaldo who passed it to an open Kluivert for an easy tap-in. The 3-3 score was maintained, though Barca had the edge for most of the rest of the game, Celta had their chances towards the very end. And that was it: a dramatic 3-3 draw!

Last season's first-time Spanish league winners Deportivo doesn't have the respect and reputation of Barcelona, but here they outplayed their opponent in the season's first head-to-head clash. After a lackluster first half, a lucky deflection on a free kick went into the goal, and later Deportivo took advantage of a breakdown at the back to penetrate and score again. Barcelona looked dazed. Final: 2-0.

Excellent game! Rayo's the up-and-comer, in 4th place, while traditional powerhouse Barca's in fifth. The battle began with Rayo's potent offense scoring in the fifth minute when Frank de Boer's mistake at the back allowed Rayo a chance. The cross went in and Bolic finished. But just three minutes later, Barcelona came back on a goal from Gerard. Gerard was brilliant, but it was mostly poor defense by Rayo that allowed him the chance. After that Rayo fell apart and lost confidence. Barca dominated into the second half, finally scoring in 75th minute. And who scored? None other than Frank de Boer, making up for his previous mistake!

Awesome game! This is the match up that all of Spain waits for every season, and watching a 100,000 screaming fans certainly fills you with anticipation. The game started off with a bang just seven minutes in with Roberto Carlos putting in a shot that he scuffed, but the slower ball turned out to be the perfect through-ball for Raul, who finished it. Barcelona took over the game after that, but it took them until the 36th minute to score, when Rivaldo took on the keeper one-on-one and beat him. But less than a minute later, Raul scored his second when he poached a rebound of McManneman's shot. Rivaldo picked up his game, scoring his own second in the 70th minute, shooting from long range perfectly between defenders, the keeper, and the goalpost. There was a lot of rough, hassling play after that, and Rivaldo's hat trick was denied due to an offside call. Neither team was going to get the better of the other, and the game appropriately finished 2-2.

Celta Vigo never had a chance. Madrid got their first goal eleven minutes in when Roberto Carlos put in a blistering grounder and Helguera just caught it with the back of his heel to deflect it into the goal. The keeper didn't even move. Brilliant! The second goal came at the half-hour mark, when Luis Figo (currently the world's most expensive player) took the ball at mid-field, did a little juggling move to get past his marker, then kept going all the way into the box, where he finished it into the corner of the net. Absolutely breathtaking. But you can't have a Madrid victory without a Roberto Carlos free kick, can you? Of course not! Fifteen minutes into the second half Carlos' free kick just blasts past the keeper with so much swerve and power he didn't even move. And that was from thirty yards out! Amazing. Final: 3-0 Real Madrid wipeout.

The game started off all Deportivo, culminating with a controversial penalty call against Celta Vigo as it looked like the takedown was outside the box. Turu Flores, however, slipped while kicking and sent the ball wide. Celta took over in the second half, at least at first, but failed to convert. Deportivo regained their momentum when Djalminha's play in the box set up Flores, but he took five minutes to fiddle around with the ball instead of shooting, passing up a terrific chance. Then, with thirteen minutes to go, Djalminha put in a terrific angled kick over the keeper's head. He cut the ball back to his left foot with his first move, then curled the ball home. Terrific! Final: 1-0 Deportivo.

Excellent game! The first half finished nil-nil and I thought this was going to be a low-scoring affair, but both teams came alive in the second half. Valeron scored early for Deportivo, but minutes later Djorovic equalized on a great goal. Then Mostovoi put in a blast from outside the box that beat the keeper and that was all Celta needed. Final: 2-1 Celta Vigo.

Not a bad game, though a week old. Deportivo's the reigning champs, but tiny Las Palmas rained on their parade. They got their first goal just five minutes in from Josico, and another in first half injury time from Alvaro. That was all they need, for though Deportivo made a rash of changes for the second half, it was all for naught. Final: 2-0 Las Palmas.

The first goal came early in the game, and while Raul got the credit, it should have gone to Figo. He made a long run up the right wing, dribbled through some defenders to get in deep near the corner of the goal, and sent back a sharp cross between two defenders. The cross hit a surprised Raul's knee and bounced off into the goal before Raul could even react! Real Madrid got another in the waning seconds of the first half on a penalty kick. Deportivo attacked in the second half, but it seemed like they never even got a shot on goal the whole game. Rather lackluster on their part. Madrid got a late header to finish the game 3-0.

The thing that really annoyed me was that ESPN2 aired this game at midnight Monday night instead of their usual daytime slot, meaning I didn't watch this until Tuesday night. And of course they promoted Tuesday's daytime Champions League match during the game, meaning I didn't know about the game until after it aired, and couldn't record it. These sports stations make it so difficult to figure out when soccer's on you'd think they didn't want viewers!

Last year's champs Deportivo got things going with a quirky goal from Djalminha. A fantastic through-ball was sent ahead of him toward the keeper and he just managed a touch to detour it around the keeper. Unfortunately, he'd hit it too hard to catch it and it seemed like it was going wide. But at the last moment it banged the post and spun in! EPSN2 lost the signal toward the end of the half and after a break they came back to reveal Villarreal had tied the score on a shot from Victor. The replay revealed it was an amazing strike from just outside the box. In the second half it was all Villarreal, who outplayed Deportivo, but like often happens in soccer, it was Deportivo who scored. Substitute Pandiani beat the offside trap and pushed the ball through the legs of the keeper! Villarreal were deflated for a while, but kept fighting, and with less than ten minutes left, Victor scored his second with a shot from outside the top corner of the box, low and past the keeper. It looked for certain we were heading for a 2-2 draw. But in injury time, Moises ran onto a desperate cross that was going just in front of the goal, and he scarcely had to touch it to put it in. The giant was toppled and the crowd went mad! Final: 3-2 Villarreal.

Boring game. Lots of battling but no goals. Final: 0-0.

Both these teams are based in Madrid, but Real Madrid's a living legend (nearly every player is world famous). They started proving it just nine minutes in on a goal from freshly named European Footballer of the Year Luis Figo when he took a fantastic through-ball from teammate Ivan Helguera and found himself one-on-one with American top goalkeeper Casey Keller. Figo faked out Keller and easily scored. Minutes later, Figo provided the cross and Helguera headed the ball past Keller for goal number two. Keller redeemed himself a bit later with a couple great point-blank saves, but a free kick by Roberto Carlos took help from the post to keep it out. Rayo just really had trouble generating the offense, though late in the half they had a few chances, including a nice free kick attempt. In the second half, things started off rather evenly, with the edge to Madrid, but with 25 to play, Rayo's Michel put in a great sidefooted volley into the roof of the net, changing the game. But Rayo couldn't build on their momentum. With 15 minutes left, Raul kicked the ball straight up in the air to evade a diving Keller, then did an unbelievable volley while falling to put the ball into the empty net. Keller managed a good save late in the game, but it wasn't up to him to score, and failing late, Rayo lost. Final: 3-1 Real Madrid.

Poor Casey Keller gave up a boatload of goals, but there was no question he was one of the best players on the pitch. Barcelona was just too strong for poor Rayo. Luis Enrique scored just seven minutes in, but Michel equalized about ten minutes later. After that, though, it was all Barca. In the second half, Rivaldo's brilliant chip beat Keller, and that was followed by Enrigue's second. Then Marc Overmars got one-on-one with Keller and finished, and to really pour salt on Rayo's wounds, Petite scored on a wonderful volley in injury time. Why didn't Barca play like this all year? Final: 5-1 Barcelona.

What a huge game! You haven't lived until you've seen soccer played on the grand stage, one of the big English, Italian, Spanish, or South American derbies. This game is one of the biggest: the two best teams in Spain, perennial rivals Madrid and Barca. Real hasn't won in Barcelona since 1983 (though they have the edge in the series overall), so this was going to be a tough match. More drama for this season: this summer Barcelona's best player, Portuguese playmaker Luis Figo, turned traitor and transferred to the hated Real Madrid. Imagine having 80,000+ fans booing every time you touch the ball -- that's what Figo got (and cheers whenever he made a mistake). In pouring rain, the fans were mad with passion (and color-coordinated in Barca's colors). Absolutely amazing. Incredible soccer skill, unbelievable goal-keeping, and lots of hard, physical challenges. Real Madrid were off their game, while Barca, who've been slow in the league this season, got off to roaring start with a Luis Enrique header goal off a Rivaldo free kick in the 27th minute. (Enrique, ironically, transferred from Real Madrid years ago and still gets booed when in Madrid.) The game was a fair battle until late, when Madrid seemed to be getting things together and putting up some impressive attacks. Then, on a delicious counter-attack, Barcelona had three players take a crack on goal. Rivaldo took the first shot, brilliantly blocked by Madrid's young keeper. Alfonso tried to head in the rebound, but his knock hit the post, only to drop the ball at Simao's feet, and he calmly put it away. That was all Barca needed. Final: 2-0 Barcelona.

Good, competitive match. Luque slipped in a deflection goal off a shot from Eto'o (who had several great chances but didn't score) near the end of the first half. Real Madrid really fought hard, but seemed baffled by Mallorca's amazing defense. There was always a player marking the man with the ball, and no one was allowed through. Good to see the champs suffer a little. Final: 1-0 Mallorca.

What a wipeout! Morientes scored twice in the first half (the second a tap in), then Raul and McManaman add their own late in a second half in which they allowed Sociedad to dominate. They even had a great chance to go five up when the last shot of the game hit the goalpost! Final: 4-0 Real Madrid.

Things were pretty routine in the first half until Diego Tristan put in a beauty late in the half. He received the ball at the far side of the penalty box and put in an elegant angled ball that easily beat the keeper. After the goal the game became a lot more competitive. About fifteen minutes into the second half, Tristan got his second on a long distance bomber that was gorgeous to watch. Zaragoza played well, but they couldn't come back from two down. Final: 2-0 Deportivo.

A lackluster first half with no scoring led into a second half with two beauties. Alaves took the lead mid-way through the half, when a clever backheel gave the ball to an open player who put in a great cross which Ivan Alsono put away. As the game swung in Alaves' favor, they pressured and twice nearly scored again except for terrific saves by Valencia's keeper. One of these resulted in a quick counter by Valencia and John Carew took a splendid feed from Captain Mendieta and slipped the ball under the keeper to equalize. Final: 1-1.

Great game. Villarreal just signed Martin Palermo from Boca Juniors; this was his second game. It started off badly for the visitors, however: in the dying seconds of the first half Oviedo was awarded a penalty kick because of a hand ball in the box. Worse, the player received his second yellow: he was sent off. So Villarreal was going to have to play the entire second half with ten men and a goal down. How could they come back? Well, whatever the coach said sure worked! Villarreal not only came back, they walloped Oviedo. It started when Palermo got his first La Liga goal: it was a cheeky poach goal, with him sticking his foot out to catch the end of a bouncing ball off a corner kick. You've got to clear those corner kicks, Oviedo! Then Unai scored just three minutes later on a free kick. Eight minutes after that Jorge Lopez added one of his own and Oviedo was down and out. I love comebacks! Final: 3-1 Villarreal.

Dave and I headed down to Los Angeles today for tomorrow's big event: the MLS Cup at the new Home Depot Center (a.k.a. "The Toolbox") in Carson, Calif. We had a great, uneventful trip. Stopped at a Sizzler for lunch. Then stopped at a Toy R Us where Dave bought a Gameboy Advance SP like mine so we could play FIFA 2004 (and other games) head-to-head. Went right to the stadium (right off 405) and got our tickets at the Will Call window so we wouldn't have to wait in line on Sunday. Discovered the hotel we'd booked on the 'net is right up the street from the HDC which was awesomely convenient. The movie theatre which I'd also found on the 'net was up the street in the other direction, at a mall where we found a Red Robin for dinner. The trip to the stadium was easy and fun -- we'll have to come down next season when the Quakes play LA. Everything couldn't have worked out better -- especially considering Sunday's dream game result!

This weekend I headed off for Los Angeles. The main purpose of the trip was to go to the Home Depot Center and cheer on my San Jose Earthquakes as they battled the evil LA Galaxy, but my brother and I decided that since we were in LA we should take advantage of that, so we got two-day passes to Universal Studios. It was a great weekend. We left early (about six a.m.) and got to Universal Studios about noon. That gave us a few hours before going to our hotel and getting ready for the game in the evening.

Universal Studios was interesting. I wasn't sure what to expect. It was more amusement park than studio, but there was some studio stuff. I'd have liked to see more behind-the-scenes things, peak on actual film productions, etc., but the atmosphere was fun. The studio tour was excellent. We rode on semi-enclosed wagons chained together to make a sort of train. The little buses drove through a large portion of the lot so you could see actual exteriors used in films. It took about 45 minutes. Each wagon included several small TVs which broadcast clips of movies in sync with the tour guide's commentary. This was neat because when we would enter a portion of the fake city Universal has on the lot, they could show a clip from a film in which that set was used. We saw the Back to the Future town clock set, which key in that film. There are also several "action" sequences during the tour. In one, you're inside a subway station when an earthquake hits: there's fire, the ceiling seems to collapse, an oil truck rumbles toward you, and there's water and darkness and chaos. In another the wagons are attacked by a shark. But the main thing is the film history, and it was cool to see the Bates Motel and Psycho house, though hilariously odd to see a portion of Whoville (from The Grinch) right behind the Motel.

The amusement park itself was a lot of fun. There were some rollercoaster-type rides, such as the Mummy ride -- all were movie-themed, of course -- which involved a very high-speed ride through a pitch black pyramid with occasional flashing monsters and such. The darkness meant you had no way of knowing which way the ride was going and it would go left, right, up, down in crazy fashion. Then at the end the ride almost crashes into a solid wall, then goes backwards through the same insanity you just went through forwards! Pretty cool. The Jurassic Park river ride was really cool, but we got absolutely soaked. The ending includes a real 90-degree free-fall that feels like you're totally out of control and are going to crash. The animatronic dinosaurs spray water at you. Some shows are not rides but performances, such as Waterworld, which was a really cool outdoor water set that included live stunts (a guy even catches on fire and drops into the water from 50 feet up), explosions, boat jumps, and even an airplane crash. Then there are the movies: the Terminator 2 and Shrek: 4D shows. Those include mini-movies shot in 3D (they give you 3D glasses to wear). I was very impressed by the 3D: it was actually frightening seeing stuff come right at you. In both shows they include some real-world effects to make the films even more alive: water sprays, air puffs, seats that rumble and move, etc. The effect is awesome: say something blows up on screen, you actually feel droplets of water and air pelt your face! Very impressive shows. I liked the way the Terminator show mixed live action actors with movie footage. Both shows, by the way, were new content shot exclusively for the park: the movies were not just recycled film footage. Other shows were informative, such as Backdraft, which goes into the history of that film and concludes with you standing in front of a set that basically blows up. There was a special effects show titled Chronicles of Riddick that had absolutely nothing to do with that movie but was a neat interactive demonstration of how special effects are done in movie. Audience members participated and saw themselves inserted into a film via a green screen, got to control an animatronic monster, and got to add sound effects to a soundless film. It was really cool: the hosts were amazingly good, making their canned lines sound original, and the scripts clever and hilarious. A great show.

Unfortunately, most of the shows are the kind of thing you only need to see once. There's nothing that deep with any of them. They're good, but not magical. Some of the rides you might like to do more than once, but even those are not necessarily worth the wait in lines to do so. I was also a little disappointed at the crass commercialism evident everywhere: almost everything you see is for sale. Rides and tours end within gift shops, there are food and shops everywhere. I wouldn't have minded those so much if they were unique, but the personality was all surface. For instance, one restaurant was the Jurassic Park Cafe, and its menu included Pizza Hut pizza, roast chicken, and Chinese food, exactly like another restaurant with a different theme in a different section of the park. The themes only effected the decor, not the menu, and prices were exactly the same all over the park. And of course nothing was cheap. Despite Arrowhead being listed as a park sponsor, the bottles of Arrowhead water were $2.75 each. Over two hot days of walking around, I went through four or five. The stores were boring, all carrying cheap junk: hats and movie-themed clothing, silly stuff like Terminator 2 mugs or Shrek ear hats, etc. If I was creating a theme park I'd create unique stores and restaurants with stuff you couldn't get anywhere else on earth. I'd include restaurants with different pricings, so people more interested in expensive food can go for that, and offer some cheaper stuff for people who'd prefer that. Of course it's been a long time since I've got to amusement parks: I went to many as a kid, but that was back in the 70's; no doubt things have changed a great deal since then, and not necessarily for the better. Still, despite my reservations and criticisms, I did enjoy myself. It was an experience. Not necessarily something I need to do again any time soon, but I'm glad I went.

Tracy has got to be one of the best writers alive today. I loved her Girl with a Pearl Earring and I loved this book. She's amazing. I don't know anyone who can paint with such realism. Her characters are so real they feel like best friends. It's like she's inside the character's heads writing down their thoughts. I feel like a voyeur as I read. As usual, her story is a fictional "history" of a work of art. In this case, it's a set of unusual tapestries found in France. These tapestries depict the seduction of a unicorn by a young woman, but no one knows the history behind the art or why it was created. So Tracy created her own story behind the story, masterfully weaving a fantastic tale about lust and seduction, young love, art, and the complicated conflicts of social classes in 15th Century Europe. She writes first person, each chapter by a different main character. We meet the artist assigned to paint the scenes, the weavers who have just two years to create the six huge tapestries and nearly kill themselves in the attempt, and the nobleman family who commissioned the work. Every detail of the artwork is explained via events in the story, filling in all the puzzle holes. The characters Tracy creates are wonderful, realisticly flawed, charming, and sympathetic. The story itself is life, with the good and the bad. It's amazing stuff. It's a breathtaking read, highly recommended. Marvelous. I can't say enough good things about it. It seems like it'd be difficult to write this kind of a book, but Tracy not only succeeds, she makes it insanely compelling.

Disappointing film. It's interesting and has a few neat moments, but overall it's much ado about nothing. I was expecting the revolation about the characters to be something profound or unusual, but there's nothing like that. The story's simply about a water nymph that must be returned home, that's it. That could have been enough, if the film didn't build our expectations so much higher. But there are so many mysterious things -- strangely named characters, odd non-sensical behaviors, etc. -- that you expect the resolution to explain all of that and it doesn't. My theory -- which I came up with based on a misunderstanding of an article I read about the film -- was that the characters were all part of a story and trying to get back into it. That made all the weird people make sense, as they were not complete people but characters escaped from a book. That was not the case, of course, but I unfortunately liked my version better than the one in the movie!

I had little interest in this, even though it's a Coen Brothers film. It's a remake, and I usually don't know why films are remade. I also figured a remake was strange for the Coens, who usually use their own original material. I haven't seen the original film (and have no real desire to do so) so I don't know how this compares or if they changed stuff, but this turned out to be a total Coen movie. It's a definite black comedy, hilarious with those subtle Coen touches that make their films awesome. The plot is about a group of idiot thieves, led by the "Professor," hilariously portrayed by an over-the-top Tom Hanks, who plan to tunnel from the basement of an old house into the vault of a nearby casino. Unfortunately, there's a stubborn old black lady living in the house, so Hanks moves in as a room renter and asks to use the basement for his friends to use as rehearsal hall to practice renaissance music. It's a great scheme, but of course nothing quite goes as planned, with outrageous results. The old lady is amazing; actually, the entire cast is perfect. It's a just a great, fun, wonderful film. The ending is just killer and makes the whole thing worth watching. Really enjoyable. My only complaint was that there was an awful lot of unnecessary swearing; it felt out of sync with the rest of the film.

I was curious to read this tale from the guy who wrote Dracula. It turned out to be an interesting, though obviously dated, thriller. I was especially disturbed by the obvious racism (an African character is described as though it's normal to assume he's subhuman). The story itself is unusual: it's about a woman who can transform herself into a giant snake. It's unfortunately not quite as exciting as it sounds, but has its moments. The most signficant thing I got from the novel is the realization of how different readers are today. Stoker spends most of the novel subtly building up to his premise (you don't actually find out the woman = worm until very late in the story); I assume that's because it's such a fantastic idea that he figured people would have trouble believing it. But today we are so jaded by Hollywood and such that a wild plot like this is like, "Okay, fine, so the woman's a snake. Big deal." For me, the premise that a woman is a giant prehistoric snake is not enough of a story; unfortunately, that's about all there is. I think I'll check out the movie and see if the special effects help any.

After reading the bizarre book, I wanted to see the film, but I wasn't impressed. Extremely cheesy special effects weaken what could have been a fairly creepy film, and Russell takes a number of liberties with the novel, including setting it in modern times, making the snake bites vampire-like in that they are contagious, and most seriously, not having the woman and the snake as one being (remember, in the book she is the snake, which is the whole point). The first half-hour or so of the film is almost incomprehensible and the film only gets going during the dream sequences and when the snake-woman is on screen. Russell puts forth a number of interesting images, but in the end all you have is a traditional horror film with some provoking dream sequences.

Heavens, Patterson is becoming an expert at being a bad writer. He used to create some decent thrillers, but his last few are just terrible. This one is sad. It's a sequel to the mediocre When the Wind Blows, about a secret government biotech project to create children with wings. This book takes up where the first ended, as the FBI agent and veterinarian who rescued the kids attempt to gain custody of the children. Unfortunately, there's yet another secret government project, this one even more evil, as a mad doctor is trying to steal organs from involuntary donors so he can prolong the lives of aging scientists, politicians, and billionaires and create a new world. For some reason that's never clearly explained, this doctor wants the kids dead or captured, and so the novel is mostly about the kids trying to escape. I cannot come up with words to explain how lame the plot is: Patterson throws in pointless scenes of a sharpshooter who is ready to kill but then doesn't (just to create artificial tension, I guess); the adults are absurdly stupid, going to their own homes wtih the children, even though killers are chasing them; there are many scenes where the doctor taunts the children but doesn't kill them, only to give them a chance to escape and/or attack him later; there's absolutely zero logic or explanations for how the bad guys keep finding the children (they just show up whenever the novel needs some "excitement"); and an ending that is just incomprehensibly stupid -- it's not even clearly written so we know what happened, the story just sort of peters out and I guess we're supposed to assume that things worked out more or less okay. Besides all that, the novel is distasteful, as Patterson kills off a main character we like, and throws in an awkward sexual relationship between two of the children (supposedly these bird children are more mature than humans, so that makes it okay). Then there's the "science:" Patterson actually wants us to believe this dreck is somehow realistic, with a note at the beginning of the novel claiming that this stuff will happen in our lifetime. What makes that laughable is that the stuff he comes up with is absurdly complicated (science is a long, long way from creating bird humans who can fly -- we might be able to grow a human ear on a mouse but it's not like that ear is functional). Top off the bad science, idiotic plot, and horrible story-telling with poor writing and you've really got a dog of a novel. Patterson uses his new favorite idiotic technique of making each chapter 2-3 pages long, made horrible because each chapter must begin and end on an "exciting" note (almost always artificial, of course). This gives the whole book a seesaw "oh that's good," "oh that's bad," "oh that's good," feeling and makes it impossible to get involved in the lives of any of the characters. And did I mention that Patterson can't write children dialog at all? He even has the eight-year-old awkwardly using the F-word, for reasons I can't fathom. This is just a sad, sad work, probably written in a single weekend by a moron who could do so much better. I don't expect Shakespeare from former ad man Patterson, but this is way below even his shallow standards.

Prior to viewing, I didn't know what to make of this horror flick about a giant crocodile, written by the king of TV comedy, David Kelley. Was it supposed to be scary? Funny? An intentionally bad movie? It turns out it's a quirky comedy with some action and a lot of cool special effects. It's a horror film that mocks itself, while at the same time being a somewhat intelligent horror film. Unlike Scream, it's not a spoof, and the humor is sly and devilish, and comes more from the odd characters than jazzy one-liners. The special effects rival Jurassic Park in quality, though there are less of them. Very cool flick.

I'm a big fan of Romero and was looking forward to this. It didn't quite measure up to his Dawn of the Dead (my favorite), but it's still a good film. He takes it beyond the typical blood spatter flick by making social commentary. In this story, the living dead have taken over the world and a few non-dead have taken refuge in a city that is surrounded by water and thus protected from the zombies. The city is run by Dennis Hopper who controls everything and separates the haves and the have-nots. Some live in squaller while the wealthy live in splendor. Remarkably, the hero in this film is a zombie! What a great twist. He has no lines, but is intelligent and leads the living dead into the city. In a wonderful scene, the dead tear through the luxury mall and eat the yuppies and rich who are there. It's like the mall scene from Dawn except instead of the mall being empty, it's now full of people. Romero has put together a good story with interesting characters to found his movie and that's what makes it work. It's a lot of fun with a glimpse of social commentary, but not quite as innovative as his previous works. Still, it's better than 99% of other zombie films, and pretty cool overall.

Much better than the first film, though that's not saying much. It's got great action, a cool heroine, neat gadgets, and a globe-trotting plot. Unfortunately the plot's rather fantastic (literally), and without a good grounding in reality, we don't really care much about the end result. Yeah, the heroine wins, the bad guys dies, hooray. There's also a rather heavy-handed attempt at instilling three-dimensional characters into the movie: the script does this by bringing in a former lover of Lara's, which is supposed to bring all sorts of deep emotional baggage but is just off-putting and trite. Come on, folks: think James Bond. No deep characterization there. He doesn't need it. Lara, like James, is all about style, not substance. If she does cool stuff, we'll like her. That's pretty much it. Fortunately this film has some style, and except for a few misses, this isn't a bad ride at all. Good fun.

I really wanted to have a better reason to like this film than the fact that it stars Angelina Jolie, but unfortunately that's just not the case. She's perfect as the title character, and quite heroicly does her own stunts, but the film itself is a letdown, even by action standards. I knew I was in for trouble during the opening sequence where Lara is fighting a robot. After several minutes of bullet dodging and close calls, I said to myself, "This is probably her training program." Sure enough, the sequence ended when Lara ordered the robot to stop. Lame, lame, LAME! And that directly leads the next criticism of the movie's structure: except for the actual plot, Lara never raids any tombs! What's up with that? We're just supposed to assume she's some bad-ass tomb raider because that's the movie's title? The problem with never having her tomb raid is that to make the movie "suspensful" (like we actually believe she'll fail), she can't be entirely successful at her tomb raiding related to the plot -- that'd be too easy. So she struggles at that, and the end result is that we never really get to see her in her natural element kicking tomb butt. The plot -- don't get me started. What a ridiculous mishmash! This was almost as bad as the first Mission Impossible movie. It didn't even make any sense! While not making sense isn't the end of the world (lots of films don't), they don't take themselves seriously either. This film pretensiously acts like it's real life yet does things like have stone statues come to life to fight without even a wink at the viewer! (For more pretension, watch the DVD extras where the cast and producers incessantly rave about what an awesome movie it is.) And I never did figure out how the bad guy knew Lara was going to come to him with the secret clock key before she'd even found the clock in her attic! Was that just bad editing or was the bad guy supposed to be psychic or something? Oh, the film's beautifully shot, the scenery nice, the action sequences are pretty good, and Lara (Jolie) is great -- but there's no story to hold it all together. The mishmash "character stuff" about Lara missing her father (who vanished 15 years ago) is weak and underdeveloped; besides, I just didn't care about any of it anyway! The DVD's not bad -- the extras mean more Lara (Jolie), which is all you want to see anyway. I wouldn't mind a sequel: if they put together a decent structure they'd have something, but they need to hire Ang Lee to do the next one.

I've never been to Vegas before. I have no interest in gambling, so it didn't attract me that much, however I was curious about the place, the architecture, the shows, etc. This particular trip was sudden: old friends of ours from France were visting their sister in Vegas for a week and we managed to get a cheap flight/hotel stay to join them. So we didn't gamble or anything like that; we just walked around, shopped, and ate -- a lot. They have really good food in Vegas. Especially the French restaurants in the "Paris in Vegas" casino, which even our French friends liked. I had to bring out my rusty French (it's been over twenty years since spoke it regularly) which was an adventure, but we had a great time. It was a quick trip as my mom had to get back for a doctor's appointment this afternoon, but we're glad we went.

I did have one sort of Vegas mysterious thing happen. I'd cleaned out my jeans pocket before we went as you can't take pocket knives and such on the airplane. So the only thing in my pocket was my Dramamine (I get airsick). My mom found a dime on the ground the first night we were there and gave it to me, so I put it in my pocket. The next morning, I had my hand in my pocket and I realized there were two dimes there! I was surprised, but a few hours later I was shocked, for again I put my hand in my pocket and this time there were three dimes! That's all I got, and I have no explaination. I am positive my pocket was empty before I put the first dime in, and I examined the original when my mom gave it to me, so I know it wasn't like two or three dimes stuck together. And I know absolutely that after I found the second dime I checked my pocket thoroughly for more -- so the third one appearing really makes this unusual. Oh, and we didn't spend any cash -- credit cards only -- so it's not like I got change back from a transaction and absent-mindedly put some of it in my pocket and forgot about it. Very strange and mysterious. I'm not a conspirist, so I'll leave the theories to readers, but it was interesting. The thought did occur to me that maybe I should have gambled these dimes -- like they were meant to be found and used -- but the slot machines just didn't interest me at all. I cannot fathom the fascination with them. What's the point? Where's the fun? (BTW, I was suprised that Vegas is 90% slot machines. I saw very little of other kinds of gambling. I guess you have to go into special rooms for other games, like poker, which does interest me as it's not entirely dumb luck.)

For some reason I've never read R.N.P. I guess I confused his books with James Patterson. Anyway, he's a lawyer and writes political thriller type stuff. I heard a radio interview with him about his new book and thought I'd give him a read. I picked up a bunch of used copies of his books and started this with one, his first. Impressively, he won the Edgar Allen Poe award for Best First Novel in 1979. It's easy to see why: he's crafted an excellent mystery here, though not without its flaws.

The plot is convoluted: the main character is a government lawyer assigned to investigate stock manipulation by Lasko, a multi-millionaire tycoon who's close friends with the President. The lawyer discovers conspiracy, corruption within his own agency, and murder. Unfortunately, while this is revealed in an extremely realistic fashion, it isn't that exciting. A lot of the book reads like dry court transcripts. It's like watching C-SPAN. Patterson makes other mistakes: for instance, he introduces characters by the dozens, then brings them back later simply by name (expecting us to remember that Di Pietro is the police sergeant we met once at the beginning of the book). That makes for confusing reading. The main character, the narrator, is also rather too into self-analysis and analysis of everyone he meets: I'm sure Washington is actually like that, with everyone scheming, weighing words and deciding what information to reveal, but it makes for ponderous reading. Such things are fine in two or three places in a novel, or about a select few characters, but we don't need a psychological profile of every Tom, Dick, and Harry. With all the vague intrigue and mystery, the book didn't get going until well-past the halfway point, but then I couldn't put it down. Patterson has a gift for dialogue and intuitive psychological accuracy; even without reading his more recent stuff I can predict he'll get even better.

This movie came out on Showtime a while back but somehow I missed it. Anyway, it turned out to be pretty good. I thought at first it was quite partisan, painting the Democratic candidate as perfect, but that's resolved in the cool ending. Basically it's a film about the media and a presidential race. Four journalists essentially sabotage the Republican candidate live on the air during a debate two weeks before the election, revealing scandalous information. This raises all sorts of ethical questions about the media's role in politics and the power of the media. Eerie, considering the political situation facing the country right now. An interesting aspect of the film is that it uses several dozens real-life journalists and pundits in cameos, the same ones seen on all the news networks during this election crisis. Pretty cool.

What's the purpose of this film? I don't know. It's supposed to be chilling or edgy or innovative or something, but it's just dumb. The film looks and sounds amateurish, and there are obvious editing mistakes. Craven uses techniques like rapid camera movement, odd cuts, and close ups of unusual cropping to generate "excitement," but all it does is bewilder the viewer, as you can barely tell what's going on. The main bad guys are all so much alike it's difficult to tell who's who, and the language and style are all so early seventies they're difficult to understand. The plot is just pointless: a group of prison escapees rape and murder two girls and are then murdered by one of the girl's parents. Fun. No, just dumb. Theoretically you ought to root for the parents as they take their revenge, but everyone in the whole film is so ugly, evil, and disgusting that you really just don't care about anyone. Very strange, distasteful, and vile film. Nothing really that shocking about the violence, though it is violent. Might have been mildly impressive at the time of release, but now it's dated and junk.

Cool book. The plot's low-key and takes place across a decade (1970-1980). The point of view is the narrator, a young man who moves to a small town in Mississippi and takes over the town's newspaper. He learns about the area and covers a sensational murder trial that takes place. In the process he meets a remarkable black woman who has seven children who've all grown up and earned PhDs. His weekly lunch with this woman becomes the rock of his life, and it is her story we glimpse through the man's own, as she becomes a key juror in the murder trial. Unlike most of Grisham's works, this is a character story, not a plot-driven thriller, and it's his best novel to date. The story's a touch slow at times and the ending's slightly contrived (but still satisfying), but this is not a novel about a story but about a place and time and people: just let yourself get lost in a different world and enjoy it. Impressive. Show's Grisham's depth and growth as a writer.

Not bad at all. A bit convoluted and odd, and the mystery lasts a bit longer than it should, and though the resolution makes sense, it's a bit mundane. It's hard to reveal much without spoiling things, but the story's about a brother and sister who find some "toys" on a beach and these toys basically give them superpowers. The boy's suddenly smarter, the girl can float, etc. There's a lot of odd things happening and the viewer has no idea what's going on, but apparently the toys are there for a reason: the children need to use them to save the earth. Of course all the adults have no idea what's going on and don't believe the kids anyway, so it's all up to the children. While the film does a great job setting atmosphere with mere odd sounds and strange lights and such, it leaves things a bit murky for the audience: it's sometimes difficult to tell exactly what's happening. For instance, at times I wasn't sure if the sounds were sounds the characters were hearing or merely a spooky soundtrack for the film. But overall the film's really good. Kids would definitely enjoy it (there were a lot at the theatre were I went and they seemed entertained) but adults will find it enjoyable as well (fortunately, the adult characters in the film are not idiots, but realistically draw parents and teachers).

Huh? Some sort of mishmash about the last day of the world. Why the world is ending is never clearly explained, though hinted at, yet why does the world choose to end exactly at midnight? The film explores the lives of various interrelated characters as they party, pray, or weep as the end draws near. No doubt it's supposed to be profound, but I just couldn't get into it. I didn't care for most of the characters, and without a story driving the thing, everything was meaningless anyway. Boring and lame. A definite "must avoid" movie.

Different from what I was expecting. In many ways it's deeper, but it wasn't the cool action flick I was craving. Unfortunately, it's a serious movie, and while at times that's nice, it's a darn depressing film. The story is about Japan in the 1800s when it was attempting to transition from the Samuri culture to a Western-style culture. The young emperor and his advisors want alliances with the West, but the Samuri want to preserve the old. The emperor brings in Western soldiers to train his troups in Western-style fighting, including Tom Cruise's character, a drunk who's fresh from the nightmare of the Civil War and Indian fighting. Tom's obviously got a deathwish, but when he's captured by the Samuri they don't kill him, but keep him prisoner in order to study him. Slowly he learns the ways of the Samuri and eventually becomes one. This is the best part of the film as we see Tom's character changing and developing, and the interaction and conflicts with traditional Japanese is fascinating. At some point, though, the film becomes an action flick, with Tom and his Samuri pals wielding sticks and swords. This is rather predictable and boring, routine stuff. Finally, we get a huge battle scene a la Braveheart, and this a really special and awesome part of the film. But in the end, the Samuri are all defeated (or are they?) and everyone dies. Like I said, it's depressing. The film tries to make the ending upbeat by spinning hope into things, but it doesn't really work. Instead, watching the beautiful Japanese culture die, we feel like we just watched a thousand baby seals being clubbed to death. It's not a happy thing. The film is long, and there are a few weak scenes, but overall it's excellently written and performed. The only real flaw is that the film can't be catagorized easily. It's not an action flick, though there are scenes which qualify. It's got points of real characterization that are legitimate drama, but those are dropped when it's time for action. The battle scene feels epic and would make a great movie by itself -- but it's alone in the middle of the rest of the film. In short, this feels like it was shot by three different directors, each focusing on their specialty (drama, action, battle) and then the three parts were woven together by an excellent editor. That's not to say this is a bad film by any means: it's very good, one of the best of the year definitely, and top notch if you consider a good movie one that moves you emotionally. But it's just a little awkward at times, a little schizophrenic, and that takes some of the shine off its luster. I left feeling disappointed like this could have been a masterpiece but someone didn't finish polishing it. It's a fascinating film from a historical viewpoint, similar to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in that respect and worth seeing just for that, and the middle part, where Tom learns the ways of the Samuri, is spectacular, and a must see. But the whole is lacking; the parts don't add up to the whole.

Fun thriller about a sexy con artist (deliciously played by Linda Fiorentina) who manipulates everyone around her. She convinces her husband to steal $1 million in drug money, then escapes with the cash. But now she needs a divorce before she can legally keep the money (the moment she spends it on anything, it becomes an asset he can argue is half his). So she seduces a young man and makes up a story to convince him to kill for her. It's stylishly done, but there isn't much substance. Still fun, though.

This is the recent A&E production, and it was okay, though vaguely disappointing. Nothing much happens. The premise is fascinating: whatever a young man dreams comes true, and when he awakes, the world is different and no one recognizes that it's changed but himself. He's seeing a psychiatrist who begins to manipulate his dreams and give himself more power and fame. James Caan is excellent as the psychiatrist, but he's not given much of a script. The dialog does nothing more than move the story forward; there is no depth. Good ending, and the production is okay, but ultimately the film has no soul. The scope of the changes made is minimal: there's unlimited potential for changing the universe here and very little is done with that. Disappointing.

Far superior version of the film. According to the DVD, this was the first film every made for PBS. It's amazingly high-tech for 1979, especially since it only cost $250,000. The script is much better in this version, with the dialog being much more interesting, conveying both character and plot. And the 2002 version left out critical details from the book, such as the invasion of the aliens. The aliens might seem silly or B-movie to some, but they're critical to the story because they show us the ultimate, fantastical power of harnessing the man's dreams to change the universe. By showing us that power, and the way it can be turned against us, we realize how dangerous it is manipulating reality through the dreams of another. Fascinating stuff. This version made it clearer that the doctor did know the man was telling the truth -- his dreams did change reality, he wasn't crazy -- but that left me confused as to why and how, since supposedly everyone else forgot that the world had ever been different. The film has its flaws, but it's still well above average, and amazing considering the complex subject and the budget and the year. The new version had a bigger budget and better special effects, but wasn't as good.

Not as bad as I was expecting -- it's predictable as two rival divorce attorneys fall in and out of love with each other -- but with a degree of realism I wasn't expecting. Unfortunately, the film doesn't have much depth beyond the love story, and the resolution is so easy that one wonders what all the fuss was about.

This was an exposition at Spartan Stadium, and the place was packed with Club America (Mexico) fans. I was more familiar with the Italian team, though I haven't been able to watch them lately since Fox Sports World no longer broadcasts Italian soccer (lame). But Club America was impressive: they played strong attacking soccer, were fairly well organized at the back, and it was fun to watch. Lazio was more controlled, very patient, and deadly when given an opening. Club America, after missing a slew of chances, had a potential penalty kick not given. Then they finally scored midway through the first half from the top of the box with a blister shot that gave the keeper no chance. But that woke Lazio up and not long after they equalized. A through-ball came over the top, and the Lazio player chested it, and volleyed it into the goal when it dropped to his foot. Great stuff. The second half was boring from a Lazio perspective, while Club America had a ton of chances, which was exciting, but in the end they couldn't take a lead and the game finished an appropriate draw. Final: 1-1.

Strange film. If you took a number of film genres and put them in a blender and spun them around but forgot to put the lid on some pieces flew out, what you'd have left would be something like this. Part comedy, part drama, part romance, part Paris adventure, part French farce, part crime thriller. The end result? Confusion. The movie uncomfortably jumps from genre to genre, throwing in a psychotic killer periodically, humor, drama, romance, etc. The plot's about a girl who goes to visit her pregnant sister in Paris. Right as she arrives, her sister's French husband leaves -- permanently. He's just walked out without an explanation. The French (apparently) think it's weird that the American woman is bothered by this. They think it's a little tacky (after all, his wife's pregnant), but normal. As divorce proceedings start, things get complicated. The woman can't return to the U.S., because that might look like she's running away with assets. Then there's the matter of the family heirloom she brought with her from her parents: it's a painting that's been in their family for generations, but now it's assumed to be part of the estate that should be equally divided between the couple. As attention is focused on the painting, there's suddenly speculation that it's an unknown La Tour and worth a fortune. Then there's the visiting sister: she's quickly becomes the mistress of one of her in-laws, a wealthy Frenchman. Does she love him? Who knows? How can one know anything in this film? Some films that break genres are awesome because they do exactly that. This doesn't, however; it's just nothing. You never know if you're supposed to laugh, cry, take things seriously, be scared or happy, or what. It's very strange and uncomfortable. Now it's not badly done at all, and it is entertaining, and there are parts that are excellent. But the whole just didn't come together for me. The movie was far too long at two hours: it should have been trimmed to 90 minutes, eliminated a few of the silly, superfluous plotlines, and focus on whatever kind of movie it's suppsed to be (light comedy, drama, whatever). Then it would have been an awesome treat. As it is it's okay, but not great. It waters itself down.

This is a French graphic novel my brother brought back from Paris for me. I'd never heard of the series, about a wealthy American businessman named Largo Winch. The back story is that Largo was the illegitmate son who inherited a $10 billion empire one day out of the blue when his father died. Suddenly the earthy Largo is in a position of incredible power, and he chooses to use that power for good instead of evil, unlike his unethical father.

This book opens with Largo being interviewed on a TV show when a guest, a former employee of the man, blows his brains on TV. Largo learns that one of his many subsidiaries, a small snowboarding company in Montana, was closed for lack of profits, and in doing so essentially destroyed the economy of an entire mountain community. This man's business was ruined and so he shot himself, blaming Largo for his ruin. Largo decides to investigate and unearths a complex mess of fraudulent accounting and realizes that someone switched the books, making it look like the snowboarding company was failing, when in reality it was profitable. When Largo goes to Montana to follow up on a lead, he's framed for murder and arrested. He escapes and the book ends with him on the run. That's correct, I said the books ends... because apparently this is volume one of a multi-part series! I hate that. Worse, this book was published in June 2004, so I guess I'll have to wait for the ending. Bummer. But it was an interesting story, a little complicated for my French considering the accounting terminology, but it was good practice for me -- by the end I was reading it fairly well. Apparently Largo Winch is popular in Europe -- there's a TV show and everything. I'd have to read more to see how I like the whole series, but the concept isn't bad and the artwork is excellent.

I'd heard this was weak, but it was better than I expected. I have not read the comic book, though I'm a big Alan Moore fan, so I cannot speak to the authenticity of the story (I've heard they changed it considerably, deleting some characters and adding others). The concept is wonderful: it's the late 19th century and a group of extraordinary people -- famous literary characters such Alan Quartermain, Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde, the Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, Dorian Gray, etc. -- form a league to fight an ultra-villain. In the film, the ultra-villain is a guy who wants to provoke the world in a "world war" so he can sell his military equipment. Each member of the League uses their unique capabilities to help defeat him, and it's fun to see them do it. However, the film overdoes things. The villain steals Dr. Jeckyl's formula, the Invisible Man's invisibilty potion, etc., and then creates villains with those same powers to fight the League. Come on, can't we come up with villains with their own capabilities? Why do they have to reuse those of the League? Lame. The special effects are very impressive, probably the best I've seen of all the big blockbusters released so far this summer. Lots of explosions, Captain Nemo's huge submarine, the Invisible Man, the Vampire Lady, etc. are all excellent. Mr. Hyde's some huge ape-like creature that's close to the Hulk except he's not green. Unfortunately, there's isn't a lot of story to go with all this great technology. The first half is pretty good, while we build up, but in the second half we learn that the entire first half was a sham and everything we thought we knew is wrong. Basically the tail eats the head of the film. Dumb. The ending is predictable (the good guys win, duh) but satisfying. The whole thing goes down like a McDonald's Big Mac: easy to eat, not terribly good or bad, but not particularly wholesome either. It could have been much, much better.

I was not expecting much from this book, the first in the wildly popular series, but to my astonishment, this is an excellent book. It's surprisingly well-written, quick-paced, and interesting. The book begins with the Rapture -- where Christians are taken to heaven and mysteriously vanish from the earth. Whether or not you believe in the Rapture, it makes for fascinating reading, as those "left behind" desperately come up with wild theories to explain the disappearences of their friends and loved ones. I found it wonderfully ironic that if all Christians are taken away, those left behind are obviously the least likely to accept God as the cause, though of course a few are convinced the disappearances are of supernatural origin.

I've heard the series described as a soap opera, and that's probably true, but it's still good fun and the Christian message, while occasionally heavy-handed, is presented a realistic and wholesome manner. A lot of Christian books are terribly unrealistic with characters and situations that don't exist in the real world, but I was pleased that this book presented both secular and Christian views from a balanced perspective (that's difficult for a writer to do).

As to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Biblical prophecies that are the basis of the series, I must inject my own views and say that that's irrelevant. The Bible speaks of the end times in riddles and metaphor: who is to say that we can interpret them accurately? What difference does it make either way? While some thought of the end times is good and appropriate, no one can guarantee their interpretation is correct. I find the concepts and stories fascinating, but fiction is the best vehicle for these kinds of ideas (versus the numerous non-fiction books written on the subject).

The series apparently continues on through the Tribulation, the period of suffering God inflicts on the world after the Rapture, and the core group of new Christians in this book become leaders of a resistence group. While I'm expecting the series quality to decline, I find it interesting enough I've ordered the next several books in the series, so we'll see what happens next.

I'd heard this was very bad, and while it's not good, it's not as bad as I expected. Well, it's uneven. In places it's really pathetic, in others it's passable, and in others it's actually quite good. But overall it's weak. The first problem is the script. The novel is trimmed quite a bit and events are condensed, which serves to eliminate a lot of the suspense and excitement of the book. Of course this was a Christian production, so they couldn't trim out the religious details, and unfortunately those come across as heavy-handed and awkward. There just wasn't enough substance to the script to support such drama. I like the effort, and it was an ambitious effort to make this outside the Hollywood system, but unfortunately it has a video-tape movie-of-the-week feel to it. The story would have been better served by allowing Hollywood to do it, but with Christians controlling the production and having final cut. Not only would the production have been higher quality, but the perspective would have been more genuine (much of the story is as witnessed by non-Christians). I wonder if it was a financial success and they'll do more?

Decent, fun, silly film about a blonde girl who enrolls at Harvard Law to follow her boyfriend and discovers she good at being a lawyer. Reese Witherspoons character was really good: I loved the way she was so clueless as to not realize that people were making fun of her blondeness and just dive right in, being friendly and mindlessly happy to all. Her character has a gift for helping people out of their shell and uses that in her law career. Pretty cool idea and fairly realistic; she's not stupid, just interested in fashion and other things. Ultimately this film flirts on the fence of being silly and stupid or silly and worth something, and I think it just tips toward the latter, though not by much. Good fun.

Decent sequel, with similar feel and humor to the first film, but the silly plot (about Elle g