The Z/Web Archive

I'd never read an Elmore Leonard novel before, though I'd seen a number of films based on his books, so I was curious to see what he was like. As usual, this book is about confusion between semi-crooks and mobsters and a sum of money everybody is gunning for. It mostly deals with a guy pretending to be a priest, returning from five years in Rwanda, and orchestrating a scam to raise money for African orphans. Parts of this I found distastful, parts just boring, but Leonard does paint interesting and unusual characters. The ending's pretty good, with the scammers being scammed, but overall the book's so low-key one doesn't really feel that much excitement one way or the other. Basically light fun, but nothing significant.

A fascinating, dark tale, nothing like what I expected. I thought it was about a young girl's fantasy, but it turned out that's only a small part of the story which is mostly about life in Spain after their Civil War and how she imagines a world to escape the horrors of real life. In that respect it reminded a lot of Life is Beautiful, though it's a totally different story. It's a difficult film to categorize. The child and fantasy elements imply it might be good for children, but it's definitely not geared for children: it's extremely violent and gory and dark, and deals with mature subject matter. But I still liked it: it's not a pleasant film, not something you want to see every day, but profound, mysterious, and breath-taking. Recommended for those who can handle thinking about uncomfortable topics like death.

Surprisingly stale thriller. The plot's simplistic: a woman and her daughter buy a new Manhattan home that comes with a "panic room" -- a secure vault where you can lock yourself in case of an attack. (The former owner was a wealthy encentric.) Of course, in their first night, thieves break in. The mother and daughter manage to get into the panic room and close the steel door, but unfortunately these thieves are after money left by the dead previous owner and they happen to know the money's in a secret safe in the panic room. Doesn't sound like there's much room for drama with such a claustrophobic concept, but some interesting stuff happens. For instance, in one scene the thieves pump gas into the room's ventilation system to scare the two into coming out -- but their plan backfires when the woman ignites the gas and nearly blows them up! Unfortunately, that's about as exciting as it gets: after that the film goes downhill and just gets boring. Eventually it peters out in a predictable Hollywood ending.

This isn't a terrible movie. It gives you exactly what you'd expect given the trailer and plot. A new celebrity struggles with really evil paparazzi (who are unbelievably insensitive). Eventually they cause a car accident and nearly kill his wife and son. Then, one by one, the four photographers involved die... the actor is killing them off. Kind of a revenge flick, in a way. Everything's average (script, acting [Tom Sizemore clods his way through his bad guy role, overacting up a hurricane], directing), but there are some decent moments. Some of the deaths are pretty cool, there are a couple twists and small surprises (some fun cameos by Mel Gibson, Chris Rock, and others), and it ends happily. Meaningless but mildly satisfying, like popcorn. Fun if you're in the right mood.

This is a fascinating collection of essays by a writer for the New Yorker who moves to Paris for five years. His essays compare Paris culture with that of New York, France with America, and are funny, touching, and occasionally profound. Even if you're not a fan of French culture or have never been to Paris, there are stories and little discoveries that will entertain you. Adam's a brilliant writer, completely genuine, and his style is witty and engaging and makes Paris come alive.

While I didn't agree with all his observations (his comments on the world's sport of soccer were particularly naive and American), Adam often has some insightful comments on American society.

Personally, I found this book had a major impact on me for a number of unusual reasons. For instance, the fact that the author and his wife just up and decided to move to Paris was fascinating. I've often thought of moving overseas, but figured an opportunity needed to present itself. It never occurred to force an opportunity simply because it was something I desired. Another thing: since I myself grew up overseas (in Africa, France, and Belgium), I related and understood much of the cultural analysis that goes on when living in a foreign land. However, it's been years since I've done much thinking about that, and reading about the confusion of Adam's three-year-old as he's raised in Paris with a mixture of American and French cultures, reminded me of my unique perspective on the world and how valuable that is. I may not be very educated or knowledgeable, but I have had experiences that are uniquely mine, and there's power there. Basically, I'd like to write -- not non-fiction, but fiction -- about similar experiences. There were other aspects of the book that also influenced me heavily, from the talk about French cooking (while I love French food, I, unfortunately, also enjoy American cooking, and I think that's tarnished by taste buds) to Adam's writing style. Excellent book.

This is a brilliant film. But it's not perfect. It's extremely well-directed. Mel does an excellent job of telling the tale of the last 12 hours of Christ's life without the camera becoming too obvious and interferring with the story. I especially applaud his choice to do them in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles. It adds to the authenticity. On many levels the story is very simple and plain. Mel adds touches of complexity with strange visions and an obviously evil Devil, but in general it's the basic Bible story you expect. It is brutal, however. It is unflinching in portraying the violence inflicted on Jesus. The flogging scene will leave your stomach churning. Jesus is literally scourged until there's hardly any skin left: it's hanging from his body in shreds. And that, of course, is just the beginning of a horrible night of torture. While I applaud Mel for showing us the Crucifixion as it really happened (I'm sure it really was that bad), it is difficult to watch -- which is probably half the point. Mel does give us moments of relief via brief flashbacks into moments of Christ's life: breaking bread, washing hands at the Last Supper, writing in the dirt, etc. But the moments are not enough to redeem the oppressive nature of the film. The violence and gore is so strong it overpowers all else. To our modern eyes, unaccustomed to such brutality, it seems like too much; we want to protest, to try and stop it, and it's infuriating watching Jesus' mother stand by calmly watching the whole event. The biggest flaw is that film presents little hope. There's a brief resurrection scene, but it's far too brief. What I wanted to see was some glimpses of the lives affected by Jesus' sacrifice. Show us Malchus, the servant who's ear Peter cut off and Jesus restored, at home with his family that evening, a changed man. Show us Pilot, the roman governor who gave Jesus up for death, praying for forgiveness and mercy. Show us Simon, the man who carried Jesus' cross when he couldn't, and how his brief encounter with Christ changed his life forever. That was what the movie should have been about: changed lives. Instead, it's a sad film about a man who's tortured and horribly executed. Christians will understand the signficance behind the story and be moved, but unfortunately the film doesn't reveal much beyond the literal. That's too bad. It's an excellent film. But it could have been a masterpiece. I still recommend it. But it's definitely not for kids. Adults will find it difficult. It's a powerful film from opening scene until the end. You will be left emotionally drained. But it needed a little spark, something extra beyond the literal story, a glimmer of hope. Still, it's an amazing achievement, and it's even more amazing that so many will watch it. That's good. Hopefully it will touch people and motivate them to learn more about Jesus. If even one life is changed because of the film, it was worth making it.

Mild Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy romantic comedy. Hepburn's a marvelous athlete with Tracy as her grumpy manager and of course they eventually fall in love. Rather dated in a lot of ways (i.e. Hepburn apologizes for wearing pants instead of a dress, but explains they are easier for playing sports).

I hadn't heard good things about this, so I was prepared to be disappointed, but I loved it! It's a somewhat predictable story (the summary of "doctor believes humor is the best medicine" summarizes it well) and the lead character does fall to easily into a Robin Williams caricature, but the fact that it's based on a true story, and the way the doctor rails against the medical system and the arrogance of doctors struck home with me. My favorite moment? When student doctor Patch is doing rounds with one of his teachers who says, "Bed 6 needs blood work," pauses to blush, then corrects himself with "Mrs. Edwards needs blood work." Little things like the name of the patient, obviously trivial to busy a doctor with a head full of vital, life-saving information, do make a difference.

Not as bad as I expected. Extremely predictable and routine, but well produced technically. Could have been more interesting with a plot that revealed something we hadn't seen before, but it was the pretty much the standard "hero" movie: reluctant hero spurred into action by evil villain destroying something he values and he eventually defeats villain. BTW, this was a very bloody movie: lots of gruesome shots like a cannonball taking a guy's head off. Wars back then were so much less humane than today (grin).

Strangely, considering his geek reputation, I've never been a Gibson fan. This, his most recent book, is the first I've managed to finish. I don't like his writing style -- he overwrites, tries to hard to be poetic, and uses elaborate vocabulary for no good reason. This book was better -- I was able to tolerate the style -- but it's a strange novel.

Remember that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the crew meet that alien species that no one has been able to communicate with? Their speech is incomprehensible, even for the universal translator. Then Captain Picard figures out that their speech is entirely based on common historical references. For instance, if I said, "Romeo and Juliet at the balcony," you would know what I meant, and that simple phrase would conjure up images of romance. Well, to someone who's never heard of the play, the reference is meaningless. That made learning the alien's language tough. Gibson does a similar thing in this book (and perhaps his other books, I don't know). He casually throws out odd references and assumes we'll understand. While I, being a computer geek, understood the computer-related ones, there were a number that were fashion-oriented, and I didn't get those at all. Fashion plays a big role in this book, as do logos. You see the main character, Cayce, is allergic to certain logos and trademarks. She uses this "talent" to consult with companies on the logos they choose (she can tell them if the new logo they've picked is bad or not). That's a cool concept. But the woman is therefore extremely picky about the clothes she wears (she tears the labels off everything she buys), and I gathered there were subtle references to and jabs at fashion designers I missed because I pay no attention to that aspect of reality at all. Anyway, my point is that Gibson's prose is often impossible to comprehend because he doesn't explain anything. And he still overwrites. Here's the first sentence of the book: "Five hours' New York jet lag and Cayce Pollard wakes in Camden Town to the dire and ever-circling wolves of disrupted circadian rhythm." Uh huh. Yeah. Beautiful. Fortunately the whole novel isn't that way, just bits and pieces. Unfortunately, the plot is rather mundane. It seems like it's got promise, and I kept reading, and there are some fascinating diversions, but in the end the conclusion was unsatisfying. I will say that in that respect the plot is like real life. Of course I don't read novels (especially this kind of novel) to experience real life. The story itself deals with an Internet phenomenon known as Footage. Clips of an unknown film are being released anonymously on the 'net. There are 135 of them so far, and fans edit the clips together in various assemblages, debate and argue various viewpoints, etc., but no one knows who's creating the clips, if it's a part of an ongoing work or a completed film being released in pieces, or why it's being released in this manner. But it's becoming a cult with millions of fans around the globe eagerly waiting the next clip release. Cayce is one of these fans. Then her current employer hires her to find the source of the Footage. Her quest takes her around the world, and there are mysterious events happening. Someone has been in her apartment, she's being followed, someone tries to mug her, and she learns she can't trust anyone. It's a wonderful concept, but the ending is unsatisfying both because it's so ordinary and because we still don't understand the motivations behind everything. There are too many unanswered questions (a few would have been okay, but here there are dozens). This book is apparently very different from Gibson's other works, which was why I was interested in reading it. I wasn't that impressed though: it took me weeks to slough through it and for what? I didn't get much out of it. I am interested in Gibson as I writer, though, so perhaps I'll try one of his other books and see if I can't make it through. Not right away, though. I need a break.

I was looking forward to this film when I first heard about it. Based on a PKD story and directed by Woo? Wow! But unfortunately, Woo was not the right director for this film. The best aspect of Dick's work is psychological complexity. Woo's an excellent action director. The two compete against each other in this: it's not a great action film, and it's not deep enough to qualify as psychologically interesting. The story's a great concept: an engineer does work of questionable legality for corporation and has his memories erased afterward so there's no record. After his biggest job -- three years of work erased -- he discovers his big payday is nil. As he investigates, he discovers the FBI wants him, and his former employer is now trying to kill him. He has no idea why since his memories were erased. But a package he sent himself that contains twenty ordinary items (cigarettes, hairspray, matches, etc.) turns out to be exactly the items he needs to get himself out of troublesome situations. It's like he knew what was going to happen and planned for it, sending himself exactly what he needed. It's pretty cool and well done, but Woo throws in over-the-top action sequences that aren't the least bit believable (two scientists outrun a dozen gunmen and the FBI on a motorbike, the engineer beats up fifty trained bad guys, etc.). The film suffers in other ways as well, including a weak beginning (it doesn't get going until the big job presentation). The film's best moments are the science fiction and psychological impact of the invention, but those are glossed over. Woo himself said he doesn't like sci-fi and changed the script to be more action-oriented: a sad mistake. None of this makes for a terrible movie, but just not a great one. The middle of the film is the best part. The ending's predictable Hollywood. Still, when it's good, it's excellent, and overall I liked it. Just don't expect a great film and it's enjoyable.

Surprisingly good film. The special effects are useful in bringing the attack to reality, and the love story framework, while predictable and occasionally silly, does provide a good human element to the war. The second half of the film, where the U.S. retaliates, was new history to me and quite interesting. Considerably better than I expected (meaning it's above the "paint by numbers" piece I was anticipating).

I'm not sure if John Waters is losing his touch or if nothing shocks any more, but this movie isn't as ground-breaking as past Waters' classics like Polyester. Like most Waters' films this is full of his trademark bizarre characters (except they don't seem especially bizarre in this one; perhaps I'm jaded), it's set in Baltimore, and it's uneven. But there are some funny, witty moments. Oddly, the plot is almost sitcom in nature: a teenage photographer makes it big on the New York art scene, but overnight success ruins his family and he finds he can no longer take photos anonymously, but in the end everything works out happily. Certainly not for all tastes and not Waters' best, but interesting. For Waters' newbies I'd recommend the more tame but funnier Cry-Baby.

Considered the British version of Psycho, this is similarly tame film about a psychotic killer who's obsessed with filming the women he kills. There's very little violence; mostly it's shadows and expressions and the viewer's suspicion of what might happen that increases the tension. Not as good as Psycho, but it's a very different film, and excellent in its own regard. The significant flaw is that it's not particularly likeable, mostly because the lead character is not someone we want to relate to (even if we do).

Terrific auto-biography of the greatest soccer player the world has ever known. I figured the book would be mostly about soccer, but I was wrong. Turns out the book is a fascinating account of a man's childhood, his longings and dreams, his struggles into adulthood, and the challenges of being a legend in his own time. Very well written, the book is profound in an elegant, simple manner, similar to the way Pele played soccer. Highly recommended for everyone.

This book has a remarkable premise but unfortunately the ending is rather weak. The premise is brilliant and typical PKD: most of the population of earth lives underground while the nuclear war rages above. At least that's what the people think. Their only information from above comes via a television where their leader tells them what's happening. But when one man leaves the shelter for the surface, he finds the war's been over for years and the leader doesn't even exist -- he's an artificial man puppeted to keep the lie alive. Many of the concepts in his novel are just brilliant, but the ending just left me flat. It seemed like little had changed, though of course stuff had, it was just subtle.

I wasn't expecting much, but I rather liked this. It was charming, in an idiotic way. It's about high school seniors who feel the SAT is ruining their lives, so they plot to steal the answers. It's a motley group of non-friends who form the team -- the brain, the pot-head, the poor rich girl, the jock, etc. -- and thus it feels like an 80's John Hughs movie. Fortunately the filmmakers see fit to recognize and mock that: The Breakfast Club references abound. Perhaps that's why I liked it (that was my high school time). It's predictable, fun, and certainly no brain stretch. The direction's got some panache (I liked the SAT opening credits and the way filled in answer circles spelled things), though he's obviously trying hard. I mostly wanted to see it because I was curious about my new screen favorite Scarlet Johansson; she's cute and funny and actually has one of the better roles. A good rental.

From the promos, I had no interest in seeing this film. It looked incredibly lame: a bunch of fishermen go out in a boat even though the storm of the century is approaching? How stupid is that? But that's not what happens: there is no storm when the men leave, but to get home they must return through the storm. If they wait, the 60,000 pounds of swordfish they caught will spoil.

Three-quarters of the way through the film I was saying to myself, "Wow, I like this better than Gladiator!" The action is non-stop and the special effects -- digital waves -- are astonishing. But then something incredibly dumb happens that completely ruined the movie for me (and I'm going to "spoil" the ending here): they all die and the movie ends. Now isn't that ridiculous? What's the point? Are we supposed to take away a cheesy moral: "storms are dangerous"? Is this supposed to be an educational film on the New England fishing industry? Why not do a documentary then? Is this supposed to be a mere tragegy? If so, where's the foreshadowing, the dramatic build-up, the subtle warnings that tragedy is in the air? Without them the movie is just dumb: our heros are killed off in mid-sentence without saving the pretty maiden tied to the railroad tracks. Stupid.

I'm not the kind of person that demands Hollywood give me a happy ending (I love the unexpected), but I do demand a good story. Stories are NOT reality. Reality is sad, ugly, and imperfect. Stories are crafted -- they seem real, but are crafted to guarantee certain emotions. As such they play by certain rules. When an author violates those rules, they violate us, the reader/viewer. This film is horrible in that respect. It reminds me of a short story I had to read in college: Max Apple's "The Oranging of America." Absolutely the worst short story I've ever read (even though, according to critics, it's in the top 100 of all time). The story is interesting and fascinating until the very end you find out that absolutely none of it is true or has any basis for reality at all. Essentially, everything you read was pointless. Instead of a traditional essay, I wrote a blistering rebuke of the story for my class response. I didn't even care what grade I got: I figured I'd probably get an "F" because if the teacher picked the story he must like it. If I remember right, I got a "C": he didn't agree with me, but what I wrote was certainly passionate and rational. I absolutely hated the story and I felt the author was a traitor to literature and mankind. (I will never read anything by him again.) This film doesn't quite raise my ire to that level, but it's close. I realize that the film is based on a real-life incident and that in real-life the boat did sink and everyone did drown: but that's not my problem with the film. My problem is that the film was written and directed like an action survival story, the kind where crafty people claw their way back to life with their fingernails and live to tell about it. Sure, maybe one or two of the group don't make it, and maybe there's a scar or two, but most live. If this film was supposed to have been a tragedy it needed a completely different feel. Look at Titanic: we knew going in everyone was going to die and that gave extra weight to all their words and actions. When we saw a character talking about his ambitions, we were horrified and sad because we knew he'd never get to realize those dreams. In this movie, there was no warning, no explanation, no healing, no hope. It's just an incredibly badly written film that had no point of being made except to show off some computerized special effects of giant waves. Sorry to be such a brute if you liked the film, but this one is definitely in my Top 10 Worst Films of 2000 category.

This is a film that doesn't seem to know what it is. Unfortunately that's key to its nature: there's a twist at the end that can't be revealed early, so the viewer's in the dark for most of the film. Halle Berry plays an undercover reporter trying to find evidence that a rich ad exec (Bruce Willis) killed her children friend. If they'd left it at that it could have been a could film, but instead they must get overly complicated and throw in some red herrings and a doozy of a twist that comes way out of left field and really ruins anything good the film originally had. Sigh. Don't waste your time.

Fantastic film! When I first heard of this I thought it was crazy and pointless: why remake Peter Pan? But this film is everything Hook was not: imaginative, fantastic, child-like, and meaningful. The Disney animated version never intrigued me: it was too happy, too light, and too innocent. There was no depth. This version is a marvel. The sets are literally fantastic, with pink clouds, supersaturated colors, and exotic textures. Even the "real world" of 19th Century London is unrealistic -- it's a pretty London of fantasy, not grim reality. The result emphasizes the movie's point about fantasy and adventure. The casting of unknowns in the children roles is brilliant: not only are they physically perfect but there's a touch of rawness to their performances that is delightful and endearing. They seem like real children, not polished actors. Equally important, the adults, while accomplished actors, don't make the mistake of overacting and turning their roles into camp (like Hook did). The story's true J.M. Barrie, much darker than the animated movie (for instance, Hook gets eaten instead of chased off into the sunset by the giant croc), and filled with philosophical insight into the whole problem of "growing up." There were some really brilliant lines of dialog between Peter and Wendy (both characters are well fleshed out). With the theme repeated throughout, it's obvious this is an important story and not mere entertainment. This is an excellent movie for the whole family. There's humor and adventure, silliness and fun, and a genuineness to everything that all will enjoy. Within the world of Peter Pan this is a great movie: it's the best Peter Pan ever. But if I had to come up with a negative, I'd say that it's still Peter Pan. The film is trapped in a fantasy world within a fantasy world, and the story's never going to go beyond those borders. For example, the story's about young children -- it's never going to be about adults. That's a minor nitpick, however. I generally liked everthing about the movie, even stuff I expected not to like (the amateur actors, the familiar story, etc.). This is a real gem. I hear it's been a disapointment at the box office so far (duh, it's competing with Return of the King), but it should have long legs as people who've seen it give it positive reviews. It's really charming and wonderful, and if you're not a kid, it will remind you of what being a kid was like.

I was not expecting to like this. First, it's a musical, and I'm really picky about my musicals (I abhor "talk-singing" and singing without a realistic reason). Second, it's opera, and I'm not a fan of unintelligble lyrics and high-pitched warbling that's supposed to be singing. Third, it's nearly two and a half hours long, which sounded awful. Finally, though I'd never seen any version of Phantom and didn't even know the story, I've seen enough parodies and derivative storylines that it seemed that I had. Well, I am pleased to report that despite all the above, I loved this film. Here is why. The first thing I liked was the modern direction. Joel did a great job of using modern techniques to enhance the story. For instance, the opening scene where the ancient, dust-ridden, falling apart opera house morphs into the colorful, grand Paris opera house of its prime is amazing. You really get a feeling for the building's impressive architecture, history, and style that you wouldn't otherwise. Next, though I did not like all of the music, and there were a few too many "talk-songs" (where people "sing" to tell you ordinary things as in "I'm walking along this corridor, heading to my bed after a long hard day of work, wondering what tomorrow will bring..."), I did like a fair number of the songs and several were quite excellent. The dramatic "phantom" organ music that plays whenever the phantom appears is really, really cool. Finally, the bare story was impressive and held a lot of emotion. It deals with a young girl, Christine, who lives at the opera house. For years she's been talking music lessons from a mysterious, unknown voice which haunts the opera house: it's the phantom. He's fallen in love with her and slowly his malignant nature emerges as he sabotages the star singer and (eventually) kills to advance her career. She becomes an overnight sensation, but also finds a suitor, a young man she knew as a child who's now a count. The Phantom, of course, is jealous, and thus the conflict is set. We feel for the poor Phantom, face disfigured and horribly mistreated as a child, who grew up alone in the vast underground recesses of the opera house, and who's a musical genius, and yet we are repulsed by his violence and unforgiving nature. We want a happy ending but sense a tragedy in the making. It's a dramatic and vivid story and the music enhances everything, heightening emotions, and helping us feel fear and love and chilling excitement. Impressive and well-done.

Fascinating book. I'd never heard of British writer Kerr, but he's definitely on my list of writers to check out. This is a story about the search for a serial killer, but he's an unusual one in that he's a philosopher and thinks his killings are rational and justified. The female cop who trails him is great, and she and he have fascinating intellectual discussions. Great stuff if you're into philosophy. The story's set slightly in the future (2013) and so there's fancy new computers and other technology. As far as the mystery or tracking of the killer, it's so-so: in this particular book the focus is more on the side elements, like sexual harassment of the policewoman and the philosophical discussions. In that respect the story's a little light. But there's nothing wrong with that: it's very well written (Kerr has a great feel for language though, at least in this novel, he frequently uses $10 words where a fifty cent one will do). Overall, two thumbs up.

This is a lightweight film about a guy being held at bay in a phone booth by an anonymous sniper. However, it's so well done that you forget the slight plot and just enjoy the ride. Colin Farrell's on screen almost every minute and he does a competent job, but Kiefer Sutherland as the caller is what carries the movie. He manages to be reasonable and insane, moral and immoral, at the same time. The tension that mounts when Keifer shoots a bystander and the cops arrive thinking Colin did and order him out of the phone booth, but Kiefer tells him not to obey is cool. Colin sweats like a liar attached to a lie detector as he can't tell the cops what's going on, but must do everything the sniper says or be shot (or his wife, who is on the scene). Cool flick.

I original saw this in August, after renting it, and thought it was worth buying on DVD. It's a fascinating experiment of a movie. It was made independently for an extremely low amount of money ($60K). It's black-and-white and rather bizarre in places, but it's weakest parts are when it tries to be too Hollywood and turn the movie into an action thriller (which it does toward the end). It's basically the story about a mathematician who goes crazy while searching for the magic number that defines the pattern of the universe (represented by the stock market). It's an intellectual movie, represented more by concept than anything concrete, and while it seems a bit incomplete, or falls short of its lofty goals, it's a wonderful start for a budding filmmaker. It's certainly like nothing you've ever seen. Excellent, if you're in the right mood. (BTW, you don't really need to know anything about math to understand it.)

Is it possible to make a bad Holocaust film? With such drama and history, it seems difficult. This one is certainly moving, and even shocking: you'd think we'd have seen everything by now, but some of what the Nazi's did is beyond comprehension. The story is the true story of Szpilman, Poland's greatest pianist. The Germans take over Poland, put him and his family into the newly established "Jewish Sector," and eventually kill his family. It's a miracle he survived.

What I liked about this film is the way it's so understated. Our protagonist isn't a hero: he just a guy. I compare him to a rat. I don't mean that in a negative sense, just that he's a rat scrounging for survival, and every time you think he's down, up he pops again. But it's not really a survival story either: mostly the guy survives via luck and friends. He doesn't particularly want to survive in some ways, he just does. It's like he's so overwhelmed by his circumstance he doesn't know how to do anything else. Adrian Brody gives a terrific performance as Szpilman, especially toward the end when things get desperate.

Polanski is smart in his handling of the film: he just gets out of the way and lets the story tell itself. I didn't notice one superfluous camera movement or transition: you just forget you're watching a film and get wrapped up in the time period. It is a long film (over 2.5 hours) but every frame is important. One intriguing aspect that I felt was brilliant in retrospect (a bit of spoiler here) is that we don't get to really see Szpilman play the piano until late in the film. Sure there's a brief scene at the beginning, and a couple in the middle, but he's not really playing. That's wonderful, because part of Szpilman's pain is that throughout the war he has no piano to play, and we, the audience, glimpse that pain through the subtle absence of his playing during most of the film. When he does play at the end, it's a catharsis for both of us -- we've both been aching for that moment. We're overjoyed at his joy at being able to play again. Superb.

All that said, where does this film rank in cinema history? That's difficult to say: it's tough to criticize a Holocaust film without coming across as a brute. This is an excellent film, and I liked that it tells a different story of the war and shows us new images and a new perspective, but ultimately it can't escape what it is: a Holocaust film. That tag carries a lot of baggage, and frankly, once you've seen once Holocaust film you've seen a portion of all others. There's some new material here but it's definitely not as original as Life is Beautiful, a film I liked far more simply because it dared to be daring (a comedy about the Holocaust). This is a great film in the sense that it's well-done, emotionally moving, and has historical significance, but while I wouldn't have a problem watching Life is Beautiful over and over again, I can't say the same thing about The Pianist. I'm very glad I saw it, and I might watch it again on DVD, but like Schindler's List, this is not a movie you want to watch over and over again. That diminishes it slightly in my book (for instance, it wouldn't be in my top ten favorite films).

Unusual Australian film based on the true story of a group of schoolgirls in 1900 who go on a picnic and several of them mysteriously vanish. Searchers and bloodhounds find no trace of the girls. Were they murdered? Did all of them fall down a hole at the same time (if only one or two fell down, surely the others would have gone for help)? Very strange. Languidly paced, with haunting pan flute music by Zamfir, the film builds a lot of suspense and is quite fascinating, but goes nowhere. In the end, the girls are never found, and to this day no one knows what happened. I hate mysteries like that. No wonder I prefer fiction -- it's much less messy than real life.

My Mom lent me a condensed, children's version of this, which I read in about an hour, and it was so good I had to read the real thing. I'm glad I did, too, because the real version is awesome! It's definitely in my favorite book category. First, you've got a fascinating premise: a handsome young man gets his wish: his portrait will grow old while he will stay young. Second, you've got a book absolutely filled with Wilde's unparalleled epigrams and witty quotations. I literally at times wondered if I was reading a book of quotations or a novel! Almost every line is a gem. What surprised me was was how similar this book is to Dangerous Liaisons. One of the characters, Lord Henry, basically corrupts young Dorian Gray, seducing him with fine words and clever speeches. Henry leads Gray to the well of evil and the young man drinks deeply. His life becomes a moral wasteland, but while the cost of his crimes are revealed on his portrait, which grows gray and hideous with sin, Gray himself looks like a twenty-year-old. The ending is classic and appropriate. A hundred years after it was written, this book has profound modern relevance -- perhaps even more than ever, considering the state of the world today, where people sell their soul for youth on a regular basis. This book is a must-read.

I could quote from this book all day, but here are a few classic lines, just to give you a taste of Wilde's wit:

Lord Henry on pleasure:
"Anything becomes a pleasure if one does it too often. That is one of the most important secrets of life."

Lord Henry on women:
"How fond women are of doing dangerous things! It is one of the qualities in them I admire the most. A woman will flirt with anybody in the world as long as other people are looking on."

Lord Henry on boredom:
"The only horrible thing in the world is ennui. That is the one sin for which there is no forgiveness."

Lord Henry on skeptics:
"Skepticism is the beginning of faith."

Lord Henry on reason:
"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect."

Lord Henry on youth:
"To get back one's youth, one merely has to repeat one's follies."

Mr. Erskine on America:
"Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected."

I sort of wanted to see this but it sounded a little boring so I skipped it in the theatres. Big mistake. It's wonderful. It's not boring at all. The story's simple and the director intelligently keeps the film short (less than 90 minutes). I wish more directors would do that. Many, many of today's films would be better at 60 minutes than they are at 120. But back to the movie. I had heard this was about a girl preparing her first Thanksgiving dinner. Well, that didn't sound too exciting. But what was missing from that description is very important. First, the girl is estranged from her family: she hasn't seen them in years, and they disapprove of her lifestyle and choices. Second, the girl's mother is dying of cancer and this will probably be their last Thanksgiving and last chance for any kind of reconcilation. Ah, now the story has impact and importance! Why wasn't that info in the previews and descriptions? Who knows; it doesn't spoil anything but makes the film more intriguing. What follows is a relatively simple story: the girl struggling with the turkey dinner, her oven dying and her running from apartment to apartment trying to find an oven to use; the family driving to visit her, arguing and dreading a conflict-filled visit; the mother, troubled and dying and impulsive; and the girl's black boyfriend, not at all what her parents are expecting. The ending is fantastic: not a wrong note anywhere. Short and sweet, dramatic without being overdone. This film is a nice, well-done, emotional story without a lot of frills. Perfect.

One tip to the filmmakers: if you use an oven bag, you can cook that 15-pound turkey in two-and-a-half hours instead of five. Of course that would have eliminated one of the film's central conflicts!

From Soderbergh's visually conservative approach to sex we jump to Greenberg's almost pornographic visuals. But this film isn't about cheap thrills. I'm honestly not sure exactly what it's about -- it jumps all around, touching on eroticism, literature, sexual identity, the meaning of life, death, calligraphy, beauty, ugliness. It's the story of a Japanese girl whose writer father painted stories on her face when she was a child, and now as an adult she seeks out lovers to paint beautiful words on her body. Her problem is that the good artists are poor lovers and the good lovers are poor artists. Later, the woman begins to write on her lovers, and realizes her dream of becoming a published author. Oddly, she "submits" her work to the publisher on the body of her lovers. I found it puzzling that one could write a whole book on the flesh of a person, but I guess these are poetry-type books (and since each character is a word, oriental languages are more compact than Western ones). Even more bizarre, the publisher doesn't seem to find this unusual presentation strange. The film's title is what we would call a diary or a journal, though with an Eastern slant: most of the writings are Confuscious-like phrases or "lists" (i.e. "Things that make the heart pound."). Interesting, but not exactly enlightening. (My favorite were the fun ones like "A hand cannot write on itself," written, of course, on the fingers of one hand.) My knowledge of Eastern culture is minimal, so I'm sure I'm missing a great deal of the film's message. It's a complex movie: Greenberg frequently uses overlapping video sequences so several events or perspectives are happening simultaneously. It's a powerful technique and beautifully done (in one scene he has everything in monotone except for the little girl's face in the mirror is in full color). Another thing I liked: the multitude of languages. There's English, French, Chinese, and Japanese mixed almost indiscriminately throughout the film. It's delightful. (The music's also similarly multi-cultural.) Overall, however, this is a bizarre, unsettling film: beautiful, exotic, and untouchable. (One other note: the DVD of this film is not widescreen and has zero extra features. Pretty much just VHS on a disc. Lame.)

I enjoyed the first one but thought the second, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, was terrible because it didn't end. This movie is the conclusion of that one and at nearly three hours, it's some conclusion. Fortunately, it mostly lives up to the billing. It's definitely far too complicated, with numerous characters each with their own secret motivations and each plotting against the other, but at least it's more of a complete story than the second film. In this one the main characters head off to the end of the world to rescue Captain Jack Sparrow who was sent to Davy Jones' locker in the last movie, and then everything's set up for a big battle between the British armada and the nine pirate lords for who will rule the seas. It's overlong and overdone but there's enough going on to keep your interest. At least the film still has its irrascible sense of humor (which is much needed). Captain Jack is still the best character, though I was pleased to see that finally Kiera Knightly's actually got a meatier role (she's pretty much second to Johnny Depp in prominence). The special effects, even in this jaded day, are jaw-dropping impressive, and many are so subtly and effectively done you barely realize they are effects. Overall, I was entertained, though the film does feel long. There's a bit too much convoluted "pirate lore" and I found myself confused on several occasions, but just roll with it -- eventually everything works out. The ending is not exactly surprising or clever, but it works well enough, I suppose. I was a bit disappointed but the characters seemed happy enough with it. At least it's not a bland "everyone lives happily ever after" kind of thing.

Pretty much a by-the-book sequel, with all the familiar characters back, inside jokes, horrifically goulish creations, fun, mayhem, humor, and wild adventure. Unfortunately, while this is decently done and entertaining, the film ends in mid-plot as we're supposed to wait for the third part next summer to discover what happens! Back to the Future II did that and annoyed me greatly and I never quite forgave it; I can't believe I fell for the same trick again (I'd heard they were filming the two sequels at the same time but I didn't expect the story to not be concluded). Arrrgh!

Surprisingly terrific film. Astonishing: a film based on an amusement park ride is the most original film of the year so far! While almost every other big movie this summer is a sequel, and therefore familiar and lacking innovation, this smart movie is fun, funny, scary, and non-stop action. The story involves several people: the governor's daughter, who's kidnapped by Captain Barbarosa; pirate Jack Sparrow, who was betrayed by Barbarosa; Will Turner, an orphan who's in love with the girl; and of course, Barbarosa himself, Captain Sparrow's former first mate. Barbarosa and his men are cursed to not die but not be alive, and they sail the seas pirating and looting, searching for the secret to relieve the curse. While most of the characters are stereotypical, this is not supposed to be a deep movie. It's about fun. Johnny Depp is awesome as Sparrow, who is hilarious as he's every pirate stereotype yet still unconventional and quirky. He's a lot like the pirate in the classic The Princess Bride, surpremely confident to the point of absurdity. Keira Knightly, as the daughter, also raises her character above the role. She is feisty, strong, and rebellious, not to mention astonishingly beautiful. Geoffrey Rush and Orlando Bloom are also great. The combination of the acting, plus interesting special effects, great action, fun dialog, and a clever plot make for an excellent movie. It really is an amusement park ride! Don't expect profundity of any kind, but you should be thrilled and entranced.

Terrific sci-fi thriller about a transport vessel that crash lands on an unknown planet. One of the members is a convict being returned to prison, and his escape creates the initial tension. Soon, however, it is discovered that much more dangerous brutes exist on the planet: dinosaur-like creatures (miniature raptors with wings) that consume a person in seconds, like piranha in the Amazon. The creatures, however, are killed by light, which means everyone is safe as the planet has multiple suns and there is no night. That is, until the group realize a once-every-twenty-two year total eclipse is about to occur, plunging the planet into complete darkness. You can imagine the rest.

I wanted to see this again after watching The Chronicles of Riddick since I couldn't remember much about the original. Far superior flick. First, it's self-contained, in a tight plot: a group of misfits are stranded on a strange planet and must work together to survive. Included in that group is the murderer Riddick, an escaped con being returned to prison by a bounty hunter. But it turns out that Riddick is the least of the group's problems. The planet is inhabited by raptor-like creatures that kill incredibly well. The creatures are wounded by light and thus only emerge in the dark -- but the planet's just about to have an eclipse that will darken it for a long period. When everything goes dark, the creatures will eat them. So it's a simple survival story, very well done. Unlike the new film which tries to be several films in one.

Hilarious! I'd never seen this infamously bad film. I'd expected it to be bad from a technical perspective, but that wasn't it at all: it was the fact that this was very "B"-grade material which the author/director seemed to think was deeply literary. The ponderous narration that occurs throughout was way over the top without even realizing it. A classic of bad movie-making, so bad it's good.

This is an old movie from the 80s. I probably first watched it 20 years ago. It holds up surprisingly well. On the surface it's just your typical slapstick road movie with all kinds of chaos and bad things happening, but deep down it's got some heart. It is serious without being serious and fun without being too stupid. I actually was very impressed by John Candy's performance. He plays a buffoon, but with sincerity. It's really quite remarkable. Steve Martin is always good. A great classic flick.

Interesting film. Good fun. Not intellectually taxing, but visually appealing. The plot's a little simple for such a big budget flick, but it works, except the tacked on "complicated" ending weakens it. It's not a remake, which I liked. Some good performances. Mark Walberg's rather invisible as the human lead, and Helena Bonham Carter somehow still comes across as human. But Tim Roth as the evil ape is absolutely magnificent: completely believable as an ape with his frantic outbursts of rage, flickering eyes and rapid movements, and yet human in his greed and lust. He's an evil character with little good (unlike so many "gray" evil characters in modern films), which is a refreshing change as you can root for his demise with no guilt. The film looks great, has a nice twist midway through, and the apes are definitely an improvement over the original film, but the film wasn't as dark as I would have liked. At times the film reminded me of the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park -- remarkably evil and frightening -- but then it would make the apes do human-like things and they'd lose their power to frighten. Overall, it's a fun flick and worth seeing if you liked the original and/or enjoy science fiction.

On the way home from vacation, we stopped in Ashland, Oregon, to catch some plays at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. This one was in the outdoor theatre. I was not impressed. It was fiendishly hot, and at the back where we were, it was difficult to hear. The actors didn't help, with several amateurishly turning their back to the audience while delivering lines! The quality of the acting was disappointing: some were great, but others were quite mediocre, completely demolishing the meaning from Shakespeare's amazing poetry. I also had issues with the costumes: some were dressed in modern clothing, others in period dress. It was confusing. For instance, at the very beginning, a group of soldiers were dressed as Nazi's, making me wonder what interpretation the director had in mind. (It turned out they were just supposed to be soldiers, but their uniforms were too Nazi-like for me.) There were other errors as well: two characters were dressed in riding outfits, making it confusing as to which was which (they each appear briefly in different scenes in the beginning). As the play continued it got better, mostly because the story had more action and because the leads were on stage more. Still, it was a dull rendition of what normally is a hilarious play.

A much better production. The costumes were modern, but consistent, so they made sense. I loved that Julius Caesar was dressed as the Godfather. Hilarious (and quite brilliant)! The only weak part was the role of Mark Anthony, which is key to the production, was performed by a non-actor. The guy wasn't the worst actor ever, but he wasn't outstanding, and if there ever was a role that needs an outstanding actor it's Mark Anthony (the play is essentially conflict between Brutus and Anthony). The actor who was Brutus was excellent, a terrific actor, but the second half of the play, which features Mark Anthony more, was much weaker. The guy even blew some of the best and most famous lines of dialog, screwing up the "lend me your ears" speech! Fortunately, everyone else was good enough to minimize the impact of the poor Mark Anthony, but I was still a bit disappointed. The play was still worth seeing, however. I liked the production and direction, and Brutus was awesome.

After the play ended, at about midnight, my cousin and I drove home to California. We arrived in Oakland about 5:30 a.m.

I can see why this failed. Rather distasteful, confusing, and ultimately uninteresting. Supposedly we're supposed to feel compassion for a doctor who's lost his license being forced to work for a criminal, but who really cares?

This is the film about two modern-day kids being transported into the black-and-white world a 1950's sitcom and slowly infecting that world with modern free thinking, thereby colorizing it. I watched this for the first time on DVD; my impression of the film changed considerably when I watched the commentary tracks (the DVD has two, one by the director, and one by Randy Newman, composer of the movie's score). My initial impression was that Gary Ross doesn't know the difference between reality and television -- he seems to think he's being clever satirizing a 1950's sitcom world (as if a 1950's sitcome isn't a satire in itself). Ross treats Pleasantville (the fiction TV series and town) as though it's real, and by mocking the archaic values of that world he can emphasis the superiority of today's open-minded world. Listening to the comentary, however, I realized there's a generation gap at work: I didn't live in the Fifties (or even the Sixties); what I know of the Fifties I know from television shows exactly like Pleasantville. The television of the Fifties is so hokey that I never dreamed that the world was ever really like that. Ross, however, makes it sound as though that world really did exist. If that's the case (I'm not convinced), then that changes how I feel about the film, because that world does sound repressive, and I agree with the film's "let's overthrow Eden" conclusion (though Ross goes to the extreme of throwing out the baby with the bathwater). If the real-life Fifties weren't like that, then the movie's nothing more than a cheap gag trying to sound profound (since it's illogical to draw conclusions while comparing apples and oranges).

That said, this is a film worth seeing. I was surprised at the depth of the film -- and I wondered why I'd never heard anyone discuss that aspect. Reviews and comments from fans always talked about the impressive special effects and unusual premise. But the movie's quite complex, with themes of sexual liberation, racism, feminism, existentialism, and anti-Communism. Draw your own conclusions as this is a movie that forces you to think. There were aspects I really liked -- such as the "No Coloreds" signs popping up when half the town residents were black-and-white and the other half Technicolor -- and aspects I profoundly didn't like, such as the sitcom Mom discovering her independence via an extra-marital affair. Overall I liked the movie's final moment, which basically said that we shouldn't hold our lives up to the expectations of others (such as assuming that our dream should be the "American Dream" of a husband and wife, 2.1 kids, a dog, and a house with a white picket fence).

The theme of Pleasantville has been done before, and better, in films like David Lynch's far more disturbing Blue Velvet. This is a gimmick film; well done, but ultimately it can't escape the limitations of its premise.

This film has two key flaws: one, it's a murder story without a resolution (extremely unsatisfying -- the murderer isn't caught), and two, the fairly ordinary plot is told at a snail's pace. While Penn's technically excellent (I liked a number of things he did, including an interesting camera move through the open skylight of a car), he seems to confuse a slow pace with depth: a glacier pan across a lake does not make a scene profound. Thus the film feels ponderous and heavy and several hours too long. That wouldn't be horrible if the payoff was worth it, but it's not: the tale is simply that of a retiring police detective who becomes involved in a case of the rape/murder of a little girl on his last day and can't let go, continuing to investigate even after his retirement. Basically, this is a film that wants desperately to be deep, but ultimately isn't as profound as an episode of Law and Order. Perhaps I'm just bitter because I put this in wanting an action film, but this isn't worth your time. It's a lot of potential wasted. Cut 50 minutes out of it and it might be a pretty good film.

The story's a little odd. It's simple at first -- a Martian girl taking her first voyage to earth via a detour to Venus -- but then in Venus we get into a political kidnapping and all sorts of nonsense, which is a bit silly and the action clashes with the non-action of 90% of the book. And we never get to see her actually get to earth, which makes the whole thing seem a bit pointless. But what makes the book work is the charm of the female narrator, young "Poddy" of Mars. She's just amazing, hilarious, brilliant, witty, with wonderful ways of speaking (writing) that make the book, despite it's early lack of action, a joy to read. Definitely a classic on that basis alone.

This is the film Ed Harris produced, directed, and stars in, about the life of the painter Jackson Pollock. I knew nothing of Pollock except that his paintings were abstract and worth a ton of money. This portrays him as a disturbed individual, extremely conflicted, agonizing over his craft, and a dangerous drunk. It's a sad tale in many ways, but inspiring in others. Jackson seemed so desperately unhappy most of the time I wondered about the Catch-22 he seemed caught in: when he wasn't painting he was frustrated and depressed, and when he was creating, he was still unhappy because no one understood his art. How many struggling artists (no just painters) are caught in that dilemma? Is it any wonder that most creatives are disturbed? Cool film, excellently done. A little slow.

Friday I flew up to Oregon for the three-day weekend. The flight up was delayed for an hour by an "emergency"... the coffee pot was broken (we also didn't have a pilot, but that was a minor detail). By Sunday I had caught my uncle's flu, and Monday evening I was not feeling well at all. For some reason my stomach was ridiculously upset. I totally felt like vomiting even before I got on the plane (which was thirty minutes late departing). The flight was hell. I threw up once in the bathroom, and I couldn't sleep at all. Just miserable. When we finally got near SFO, the pilot came on and said we were going into a holding pattern because of bad weather at SFO they wouldn't let us land. After thirty minutes of that, they decided to land at Oakland airport instead, as we were running out of fuel. That descent, through a violent rainstorm, was worse than hell. At one point we dropped 20 feet in half-a-second. All the passengers gasped and I saw the people in front of me rise up out of their seats we dropped so fast. If I hadn't been so sick, I'd have been terrified. As it was, crashing seemed like a pleasant alternative. I don't really remember the actually touchdown, which occurred a few minutes later, as I had my head in the barf bag. Once we've arrived at Oakland, we were told the plane would refuel and in one to three hours we'd head to SFO, once the weather cleared. Well, it was already almost midnight. Waiting for several more hours before I could get to my car and drive two hours home in my condition did not seem like a great plan. And knew positively, absolutely, that I was not going to survive another take-off and landing that night. So I deplaned at Oakland and called my Aunt, who was gracious enough to pick me up and let me stay at her place. On Tuesday she gave me a ride to SFO where I got my car to come home. Now I'm in bed, trying to recover from this flu. I only slept twelve hours yesterday, I think I'll go back to bed.

This was the Christmas special at Peoples Church in Fresno, Calif. (My parents attend Peoples.) It was pretty good, though a bit long at two hours. An original production, it told the story through song and drama of a musicical instrument maker in Scotland. The old man was ready to retire and close his shop; from one corner of the stage he reflects back on his life, from childhood where he first discovered music, through courtship and marriage, childbirth, the death of his wife, his son's marriage and successes, etc. The cast was huge, with hundreds of choir members (children and teen groups as well as adults) participating in various numbers as well as most roles being portrayed by multiple actors (at various ages in life). Lots of costume changes. Some of the drama was weak (obviously not by professional actors); in places the story really dragged. The music was the highlight, but unfortunately not all the songs really gelled with the story; they felt rather tacked on. A few I really liked, but a couple had lackluster arrangements ("The Little Drummer Boy" was particularly woeful). Overall, interesting and extremely ambitious. I liked the main theme of a hard-working man leaving a legacy to his friends, family, and town (in the story the son, who originally was leaving home, decides to move back after seeing the influence his father had on the townspeople). The production was impressive: a huge set cleverly manipulated to serve multiple purposes, smoke and snow machines, and even a floating angel descending on wires from the ceiling! I found out later the troup was doing three performances a day for four days (2:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m., and 7:30 p.m.) -- that's crazy! I salute them.

I've never seen the original and I hated Peterson's last film, The Perfect Storm, so I didn't hold out much hope for this one. Surprisingly, the story was decent. It's one-dimensional and somewhat predictable -- a motley group of people try to escape when their cruise ship flips upside down and one-by-one they die except for a final handful that actually do escape -- but it was the lame special effects that I found most irritating. The outdoor shots of the wave hitting the ship looked uncomfortably fake and digital to me; either I'm getting jaded or perhaps they cut some budget there. Fortunately the majority of the movie takes place inside, with trapped passengers trying to escape "up" to the bottom of the ship. There things were well done, with scenes of tension and drama and people randomly dying. It's pretty good, though the technique reminded me of a typical slasher flick. Not a lot of character depth here, but it's an okay film overall. I liked some of the actors/characters better than others, which made it more watchable.

Interesting film I knew nothing about. It's set modern day with an American researcher in England studying the life of a poet who died 140 years earlier. He comes across a startling revelation -- that the chaste poet who's famous for his love poems to his beloved wife -- might have had an unknown mistress. His research leads him on a sort of detective's journey, trying to solve a 140-year-old mystery, restracing the steps of the poet and deciphering clues in his poems and those of his mistress. It's a bit clunky at times, but surpisingly good at others, and though, in the end, the mystery's not all that mysterious or exciting, it makes for a decent film. Thumbs up from me.

Odd film that doesn't know what it is. Is it a love story? A thriller? A mystery? A fantasy? I expected the latter, but instead was treated to a bizarre mix of all of the above. Basically two sisters, both witches, are suspected of killing the one's evil boyfriend, and face investigation into their lives by a snoopy police detective. The film's supposed to be "enlightening" about the effects of discrimination (ordinary townspeople are critical of magic) -- the sister witches just want to be normal -- but I find the TV show Bewitched did that much more effectively thirty years ago. This was heavyhanded and silly.

Today we celebrated Grandpa's pre-birthday. His birthday really isn't until May 9, but two of my cousins, Tami and Philip, flew in this weekend as it fit into their schedules the best. Philip's in Manhattan, Tami's in Houston. Tami brought her 14-month-old son, Rowan, so Grandpa got to see his great-grandson and boy was he proud! I escaped Grandpa from Oakwood and he was at my house all afternoon and we had a great time of fellowship, fun, and way, way too much food (for some unknown reason I'd prepared for 50 people when we only had a dozen). It was a terrific experience and Grandpa really enjoyed it.

The key problem with this film is that the setup -- a woman alternately waking to find her husband dead and later alive and later dead again, leading her to realize that somehow she's getting a glimpse of the future and he's not really dead yet -- takes way too much time to establish and the film has little to happen in the meantime. The filmmakers therefore added in red herrings which just confuse an already confusing mess. In the end things do make sense, but the journey takes too long. Too much of the film is bewildering, leaving the audience frustrated. Sometimes such a story can work, if the main character is just as confused as we are and is searching for answers too, but only in the hands of a masterful director, which is decidely not the case here. The film feels slipshod to the point of embarrassment. In several scenes the director resorts to cheap techniques such as handheld cameras to indictate tension, with the result being audience nausea from the awkward movement and a complete breakdown of the story (like the coffin scene, which was so ineptly handled it was difficult to figure out what was going on). This is all unfortunate, because the story had some potential. I liked the resolution, and some aspects of the characters was good. But it was poorly written and directed. For example (and I'll spoil a few minor plot details here), in the opening scene we see the loving couple buying their first home. Then we see them with their children and realize that years have passed. But then they act odd: the woman's reaction to hearing her husband's dead is under-dramatic, and later, when her husband is alive again, she does not rush to embrace him, but simply stares at him in bewilderment. He leaves for work without any affection toward his wife: no kiss, no good-bye, not even a wave. This seems very odd. Of course the film by this point is deep into the whole "premonition" plot thing, and so we're wondering if this behavior has something to do with that. No, it turns out their relationship is on the rocks and has been for some time. Once we understand that, of course, their behavior fits perfectly. It's well-done, actually. The problem is that because we don't know that in advance, those scenes feel off and don't work for us. The film has several instances of this problem by nature of the gimmicky plot, which gradually reveals information from the future and the past. The producers obviously thought this revealing of new information would be shocking or interesting or dramatic, but because it's all arriving out of context, it's not: it's just confusing or lame. A better director would have realized this and compensated by giving us subtle clues and signals. For instance, just add in an earlier scene that shows the tension between the couple -- then the death announcement scene and her subdued reaction makes sense. Instead, we see it and are wondering all sorts of theories, connecting her reaction with the plot, which it's not. It's merely the director holding back information from us. Pretty lame and inept.

There are other problems, too. The whole "premonition" thing does not fit the definition of premonition. Instead, this is more like Groundhog Day, where every time the woman goes to bed, the next day is either the future or the present. In the future world her husband has already died. In the present, he's still alive, but she knows he'll die soon. Traditionally premonition is a vague feeling that something bad is going to happen, but in this film, it's more like a vivid dream or alternate reality. That is confusing to the audience and should have been explained or foreshadowed.

The bottom line is that despite a handful of good scenes and a potentially good concept, the movie's so incompetently written and directed that anything good is washed away to nothing. Sad.

I really hate politics. I hate the bickering, the divisiveness, the arrogance, and the dishonesty. Generally, when I bother to vote, I vote for "None of the Above." That said, I have lot of political opinions (especially in regards to government reform). I tend toward the abolition of all government. I hate big brother. So I haven't paid much attention to the presidential race. I don't like Bush and I can't stand Gore. Nader's too much of an unknown, and no one is even in the running. I missed the earlier debates, but tuned to most of this one. Here's what I thought.

Gore initially surprised me with his knowledge of facts and figures. Whereas Bush was very general, "This is going to cost a ton of money," Gore was specific: "This will cost 53% more than 1% of the top tax bracket." Of course I have no way of knowing if anything he said was accurate (I found out later that some was not), but it sounded impressive. But my initial warming toward Gore (which surprised me) quickly evaporated as Gore abused the debate rules. He continuously ignored calls for time and kept right on speaking, and near the end of the debate actually disobeyed Lehr's command to not rebut and instead answer a different question, going off on a long rebutal. When he finally got around to the question, Lehr canceled it, saying "We're moving on," but he never gave Bush a chance to rebut Gore's unauthorized rebut! (BTW, I thought Lehr was biased toward Gore, a moron, and a complete wimp. You could see him there waving his hand and stammering "T-t-time, Mr. Vice President," but he never once cut Gore off, though he cut Bush off several times.) In short, Gore was a jerk, while Bush handled himself with dignity. My estimation of Bush (which had been pretty low, considering his father), rose considerably.

What I don't like about politics came out early in the debate. Why did Bush refuse to answer Gore's accusation about non supporting the Dingle-whatever bill (something with patient rights the Demos support and the Repubs don't)? Bush kept ignoring the question, even though Gore pushed it several times. Either Bush supports the bill, in which case he should say so, or he doesn't, so he should tell us why, or he's never heard of the bill, and he should say that. Just ignoring it was dumb. There were lots of games like that. For instance, Gore seemed to have trouble understanding English. Bush said he supported "affirmative access," not quotas (he explained affirmative access is a Texas program for encouraging ethnic diversity in schools and business). Gore said he wasn't for quotas either, but he supported affirmative action (he didn't say what that was). Bush came back saying "If affirmative action is not quotas, then I'm for it." Then Gore pushed again (violating the debate rules by asking a direct question, not part of a rebuttal), "Well, do you support affirmative action?" Huh? These guys were agreeing and yet they were still arguing! Grrrr. Stupid, stupid. And what was the deal with numbers? Numbers should be easy to compare, right? One's bigger or smaller, it's simple! So why did they get into a silly "My plan's cheaper, yours is more expensive," "No, my plan's cheaper, yours is more expensive!" It was like hearing two-year-olds argue!

The final straw for me was regarding taxes. I'm a tax hater, so I like Bush's tax cut plan. Gore did a whole thing about how Bush's plan is going to give tons back to the wealthiest 1% of America. Bush explained, "Everyone, wealthy or poor, is going to get a tax cut. You can't give everyone a tax cut and not not give the wealthy a tax cut." Makes sense to me. Sounds fair, too. I have nothing against the wealthy. I hope to be one of them someday. Why shouldn't they get a break like anyone else? What's the point of being wealthy if the government just takes more of it away? But Gore's counter really struck me as being so Washington I wanted to barf. He just repeated himself, saying "See! I told you so! Tax cuts to the wealthy!" What a moron.

When it came to education -- an issue I see as being one of the most important -- I could not support Al Gore. When a tiny private school, with 100th of the funds per student as a public school, can do a better job educating, it tells me that money isn't the problem. The problem is bureaucracy. Gore wants to increase that bureaucracy by expanding the school system. Some of his ideas were good: I support standards and accountability, but Bush had a good point when he said that there were no consequences for bad schools. Bush claimed he wanted schools to be local, saying programs like vouchers should be up to the individual states. I can't support Bush on that. If there's one thing that should be standardized across the country it is schools. As someone who went to a different school for nearly every grade level, I had a "Swiss cheese" education, where different schools taught me the same thing and neglected other (mostly this was true in history and geography, where schools typically alternated be