The Z/Web Archive

Very good little thriller about a blind woman (Audrey Hepburn) fighting off thieves. That sounds more dramatic than it is, because the bad guys are more like con artists, trying to manipulate her. Those mental machinations are a lot more interesting than mere violence, as the clever blind woman outwits the men. Excellent, though a little claustrophic -- like Hitchcock's Rope it's based on a play and the "whole movie in one room" aspect shows.

Impressive film -- so sad this is the final one writer/director Shelly's career (she was murdered in late 2006). She's created some fascinating characters, so simple and elegant we see them with all their flaws and fall in love with them anyway. Warning: don't see this film when you're hungry. The title is puzzling since it's more about pie-making than waitressing. The main character, played by a wonderfully adorable Keri Russell, is a waitress at a little pie diner, who almost creates unusual pie concoctions which serve as the film's core. She's married to an abusive, controlling husband and when she discovers she's pregnant, she's depressed because she now feels really trapped because with a baby she'll never be able to leave her husband. Then she foolishly falls into an affair with her new male doctor, and though we're shaking our head, knowing this is wrong (she would agree with us), we still sympathize with her and understand and are actually pleased she's found at least a glimmer of happiness. The film tells a simple story beautifully and wraps everything nicely in a somewhat predictable but agreeable ending. Surprisingly profound at times, this is a film that doesn't try to be more than it is, completely unlike most films today. Highly recommended.

I knew very little about this film going in... what a delight! Go out and rent it right now! This is set in a tiny village in Ireland, where someone in the village has one the lottery, but whoever it was won't admit it. Villagers go out of their way being nice to their neighbors, wondering if he or she's the winner. It's finally discovered that the winner is Ned Devine, a 66-year-old man, but the shock of winning has killed him! He's found dead in front of his television, the winning ticket in his hand. Soon the whole village has entered into a conspiracy to pretend that Ned's still alive and claim the 7 million pounds. Hilarious, and the characters are so real and wonderful, you wish your own town was so homey. Favorite moment? When the little boy asks the priest if he's met Jesus. The priest says, "Not exactly," then presses the boy to see if he's possibly interested in joining the priesthood. The boy says, "I don't think so. I couldn't work for someone I've never met and for no pay!"

Semi-interesting film about a young lawyer who's goal in life is to become a Senator. He meets a radical young activist and falls in love with her, but then she's killed in a car bombing. Years later, as his bid for Congress is looming, he's still haunted by her memory, and begins to see her. Is he dreaming or is she real? The movie leaves us in doubt, and seems to think that's clever, but frankly, after the first interesting sixty minutes, the film's boring.

I tried to prepare myself for bias before watching this anti-Wal-Mart documentary. I have mixed feelings about the company and wanted to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, this film makes no attempt at all at balance: its message is purely "Wal-Mart is evil" and no other viewpoint is even given a hint of exposure. That makes me question many of the film's conclusions. I really would like to know how pro-Wal-Mart people about some of the issues the film raises, but of course those views are not presented, so I'm left with a confusion of doubts and concerns. The real way to do a documentary like this is to show both sides and let the viewer make the decision about which is right. This one leans so blatantly in one direction it makes me want to lean the other way just out of spite! (I shopped at Wal-Mart immediately after seeing the film. It wasn't intentional -- I needed stuff at the pharmacy and they have the best prices for what I needed.) The film is also a bit shrill in some of its accusations. For instance, using emotional images of babies of single mothers who work at Wal-Mart but can't afford health care, interviews with small business owners who lost their business when Wal-Mart moved in, the whole segment on Wal-Mart parking lots' lack of security by showing emotional people who'd been mugged or raped, and the emphasis on "poor" Chinese Wal-Mart factory workers all felt manipulative to me. That isn't to say that there isn't truth in the film: some of the facts and statistics expressed in the film are enlightening and I'm sure Wal-Mart's not perfect and certainly needs to make improvements, but the way the film presents these things they come across weaker than they should. Just not good film-making. It's preaching to the choir -- it's not going to convince anyone to change their mind. People who already hate Wal-Mart will have new reasons for their hatred. Look at the genius of Super Size Me: it judged but only after the facts came in. Initially it was an experiment with no pre-drawn conclusion. That's a much more convincing way to argue. I was not convinced or impressed by this weak film. Disappointing, as I'd hoped to be enlightened.

This is a funny parody of Walk the Line, the Johnny Cash bio, this time about a fictional singer named Dewey Cox. It's an almost literal remake with the key momments of Cash's life mocked and mixed up, with hilarious results. What's interesting is the realism that's preserved: the singing's actually good, the story's good (not just silly), and the acting's excellent. Many parodies are so cheesy they demean themselves as well as the original work: here everything is celebrated. Only occasionally does the film lower itself into silliness, like the bit about Dewey accidentally cutting his beloved older brother in half with a machette -- and even there it's done in such a way that it's not so realistic that it's disturbing yet realistic enough that it doesn't ruin the tone. All-in-all, other than a few moments of questionable humor, I liked this. It's fun, silly, entertaining, and clever.

I knew nothing about Jonny Cash -- I hadn't even heard any of his music. But the trailers looked interesting and I loved the music. The movie's excellent. Phoenix practicallly channels Cash, and Reese Witherspoon (as June Carter) is surprisingly good. The story focuses slightly too much on Cash's controversial relationships, affairs, and drug abuse; I would have preferred more time on his music and how he created it. However, it does seem to be an accurate representation of his life and I liked much about the way it was presented. Excellent movie and I just bought two Cash albums.

Okay, this film is definitely sappy, predictable, and a weepy ending, but it still wasn't as bad as I expected. Mandy Moore is surprisingly low-key and does a decent job given the script. Unfortunately, her face is too cute to express real emotions. She needed scar or something to give her character. Make her bald; that would have worked. The story is nothing new: rebel boy meets geeky paster's daughter and falls in love with her. Why? Who knows. Because she's different, I guess. She sees promise in him. Her pastor dad is a horrible stereotype of religious fanatics, which is lame considering the circumstance and the way he's suddenly completely different near the end of the film. Basically this is a hodpodge of stereotypes put in a blender. The only really likable thing is the long-suffering Mandy, and even she's too good to be true. It has a couple moments and it was more interesting than I expected, but I still can't figure out how the film got financed. This kind of junk food is marketable but genius David Lynch has to struggle for movie money? Give me a break.

This is one of my favorite movies, for many reasons. I love the wildlife photography, and the story, which purports to be about survival in the wild but is really about survival within civilization (there's a lot to make you think about what exactly is the definition of civilization). It's a movie you need to see more than once, as it opens your eyes to life from a different perspective (but without preaching). It's a beautiful movie.

This is one of those modern independent films that tries to be like real life. That basically means it's slow, talky, and nothing much happens plotwise. I guess some people think that's profound. There's some lovely dialog, good enough for a play in places, but unfortunately this just doesn't work well as a film. It's too slow, talky, and just plain boring. The "plot" is basically about two best friends who grow apart when one gets engaged, leaving the other feeling alone and even more desperate to get married. As she struggles with relationships, the engaged girl struggles with potential marriage. Basically, this is just real life filmed and it's only slightly more interesting. It's got some good moments, and some good acting. I didn't not like it, but I wouldn't really recommend it either. It's certainly not a film you'd ever want to see more than once.

Pixar does it again! Another terrific film. This one is very different from previous outings: it's more similar to some of their dialogless shorts as there isn't much dialog. That means the story must be told via visuals and subtle character expressions. That's even more challenging when the characters are various kinds of robots, but the team at Pixar have done a great job conveying subtle emotions. The story is occasionally slow, but when it's going, it's going great, with tons of fascinating background visuals and gags that will mean you can watch this over and over again and see things you missed each time. There are hilariously quick bits like a shot robotic "mice" that look like Apple Macintosh computer mice, or the Macintosh start-up sound that plays when Wall-E reboots. The story is simple and elegant. After the earth is overrun with trash, the humans all leave to tour the universe on a luxury cruiseliner while robots clean up the earth, but 700 years later, the earth is still a mess and only one lonely "Wall-E" model robot is left, still compacting garage. When robot probe "Eve" shows up Wall-E ends up traveling back with her to the cruiseliner where he saves the humans and becomes a hero. The interaction between the robots is extremely well done: each have their own personality and yet there is minimal dialog (Wall-E can't even speak). Great for both adults and kids. Highly recommended.

This started out much better than I expected, with interesting characters and a story that seemed original, but the ending turned into a chaotic action piece that felt trite and out of place with the animation. Weak.

This is an over-the-top action movie that is a lot of fun if you don't take it too seriously. The special stunt effects are just as often funny as they are cool and are the main reason to see the film. The story's too far-fetched and mysterious to be much more than a frame for the spectacular action. The premise is that 1,000 years ago textile merchants put together a secret society of assassins (why is not explained) who still exist today. These assassins have almost supernatural power (like the ability to shoot a bullet in a curve or slow down reality so they can do impossible stunts). The main character's a nobody working in a dead-end office job who suddenly gets recruited into this society and is told his father was an assassin who was just killed by one of their own rogue members and it's time he be trained to use his hidden gifts. The training is absurdly difficult (like knife fighting with real cuts) but the boy is motivated because he wants to go after the rogue assassin who killed his father. Of course nothing is quite like it seems, but there are so many holes and questions in the plot that the whole thing is a bit silly, but if you're in the right mindset, the thing's so much fun you don't mind. Just go with the flow and ignore the stupidity and you'll have a good time.

Okay, I abhor politics but all this griping about the "war" with Iraq has got me irritated and I've just got to say my piece. Opinions to follow. You've been warned.

First, note that I put "war" in quotes. That's because call this thing with Iraq a war is a joke. We're talking Mike Tyson in the ring with a three-year-old with his ankles chained together. This is a skirmish or battle, not a war. That the media gives it this much attention is just because it's easy news for them, and the footage of explosions and missiles launching is high ratings. Yes, there will be (and have been) coalition casualties. But were talking hundreds, maybe thousands. Not hundreds of thousands. This is not a war. This is a battle. A war is something that will last for years. This will be over in months.

Second, the "anti-war" protests really bug me. That's mostly because they are supposedly against "war." That makes it sound as though if you don't agree with them, you are pro-war. Who was ever pro-war except for Gengis Khan or Hitler? War is horrible: people die. No one should be pro-war. Now there are many reasons to be against the decision of the U.S. to invade Iraq, but to be against it because you're anti-war is just stupid. Would you have been against the U.S. entering WWII against Hitler? (If so, most of the world would be speaking German today.) War might be an ugly thing, but this country was founded on war, and I'm proud and grateful to be a recipient of the freedoms I have today because of the blood sacrifice those farmers and pioneers made. Having a military force to protect society is one of the only excuses for a government to exist. If you're against us attacking Iraq, please say that. Say why (you think it's about oil, Bush Junior finishing what his dad didn't, political ratings, Saddam's a good guy, etc.), but don't just be "anti-war." I hate that.

Finally, you may be wondering which side I fall on. The truth is I don't know. The truth is my opinion doesn't matter. Bush has attacked without my advice and will continue to do so. Do I like Saddam? Hell no! I thought it was absurd we left him in power after Desert Storm. Really dumb. Now we're having to go back in and finish again, only this time he's rebuilt, rearmed, and possibly has weapons of mass destruction he'll use. The whole thing's a mess but the bottom line is it doesn't effect me directly and until it does I'll refrain from having that much of an opinion. I am sick of the debate, though, and the attacks on our brave soldiers who are risking their lives to do their job. I'm glad that we're actually attacking instead of sitting around talking about it for nine months. Maybe this will be over soon and we can concentrate on problems in the U.S. that actually effect Americans.

I wasn't expecting much other than a simple action thriller, and while at times this was mediocre and we're purposely left in the dark as to what's going on, the "twist" ending is actually rather cool and works well. Decent if you're into this genre.

I worried this would have the same ending as the book, which I hated, and it does. (Spoiler alert: I'm going to reveal the ending since that's essential to my comments). That ending -- that Earth bacteria/germs kill off the aliens -- could be made to work, but unfortunately, it's not. In fact, it's even stupider and more illogical in the film, since in the movie, the aliens have been planning their invasion for "millions of years" (how dumb is that). Wouldn't you think such a carefully planned invasion would sort of, like, check for diseases before invading? Wouldn't that be like Rule One of space exploration? Silly. Beyond that little flub up, however, the film's excellent. The character of Tom Cruise as a separated dad struggling to raise his rebellious kids part-time was good, and the action scenes and special effects were amazing. Unfortunately there isn't much intellectual depth here -- it's just a run-for-your-life sort of deal -- but it's well-done and interesting, which is more than one can say for most films.

Strange convoluted mismash about idiot kidnappers who steal a pregnant girl who's having a baby for hire. Distasteful. I don't care about any of these people, let alone their miserable lives. Worthless.

Pleasant, if predictable, romantic comedy. Nothing remarkable one way or the other.

Watched Meet the Parents on DVD and Molly again. Both were excellent, even better on second viewings. Recommended.

Today we had a welcome home party for my mom. She's been in Togo for three months and this was a nice get-together of friends and family to hear her stories and see the pictures she took of her adventure. People came and went but I guess there were about twenty. We grilled beef, chicken, shrimp, and tons of veggies (zucchini, mushrooms, onions, and peppers), and I served it with brown rice with herbs. I made crepes for dessert. Filled with fresh fruit (strawberries, blueberries, marionberries, and raspberries) and topped with Cool Whip they were yummy and not too bad in the nutrition department. It was a pretty good party!

Terrific film. I'd wanted to see it long ago, but never got around to it, but as it's by the writer/director of the quirky film Happiness which I just saw, I really wanted to see it. It's the story of a geeky junior high school girl who's picked on at school and invisible at home. Quite unusual, and unlike the typical Hollywood cliche, the ugly duckling does not turn into a swan at the end. Brutally honest and occasionally viscious. My favorite scene? It's the dinner scene where the mom is trying to get the girl to say that she loves the (bratty) little sister and the girl's refusing. So the mom says, "Then you can just stay at the table until you tell you sister you love her!" You can imagine what happens. Forced love. I love it!

I loved this movie. Unlike most American "rebel" films, the girl in this movie is not intentionally rebellious. She's a rebel simply because she's not a boy. You see, the New Zealand family she's a part of has a tradition where the first born son becomes the chief, but her twin brother died at birth. Her grandfather, the current chief, resents her, because she lived and her brother, the rightful heir, died. But while her grandfather treats her terribly, the girl adores him. She worships him and would do anything to please him, but she cannot be the one thing he wants: a male leader. It is the powerful performances of the daughter and grandfather that drive this film, as their conflict is the heart of the story. Somehow the grandfather's stubbornness and loyalty to strict tradition must be overcome, and it is, in a moving and beautiful fashion that will leave only those without a heart without tears in their eyes. Terrific.

As I expected: if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the film. The movie is just longer.

Unusual film that's a cross between a documentary and a fictional story as it attempts to explore spirituality through science (quantum physics). A story about a deaf photographer who learns a new perspective that changes her life is at the core of the film and it's intercut with interviews from scientists who talk about quantum physics. Much of the science was familiar to me (though I did discover a few things), but I was disappointed that the film didn't try to explain any science but simply presented it as knowledge (when it's all theory and conjecture). The film does get you to think about complex and deep subjects, however, which is interesting and good, but does seem to have an agenda, which is not so good. I did like the presentation, which is visually interesting and the storyline keeps you involved with what could be a dense topic. Worth seeing, though I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Odd little thriller about a woman seeing ghosts. Doesn't seem like much, and the casting of huge stars Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer seems overdone, at least at first. But both relish these small, simple roles, performing them with appropriate subtlety. As the movie continues, it grows more complex, and though ultimately the plot is predictable and less than satisfying, the film delivers some nice chills. Excellent directing, with Zemeckis milking the minimalists scenes to good effect. The long climactic bathtub scene is a classic masterpiece, never rushed, and fits in perfectly with the low-key style of the film. (It reminds me a great deal of the flashbulb scene in Hitchcock's Rear Window.) After that things go overboard and there's too much action for a psychological film, but the end result is still a decent thriller.

I have no idea how this movie ended up in my Netflix queue; I disclaim all responsibility. It's a lame teen Cyrano de Bergerac clone, with no actors you've ever heard of, and all the predictability of a Disney movie, but ultimately it's harmless. But why in the world is there a Director's Commentary on the DVD? Does anyone really care what this moron director thinks of this silliness?

Fascinating concept: a group of renegade geneticists create a new species of human, children with wings and the ability to fly. One of their experiements escapes and they must hunt her down (and destroy all witnesses) to protect their research. Unfortunately, it sounds more exciting than it is. Patterson throws in an unconventional FBI agent that's a cheap copy of Fox Mulder from TV's The X-Files and a beautiful veterinarian who falls in love with the agent and just happens to know a lot about genetics and birds. Basically, the whole thing's contrived, routine, and the ending makes you scratch your head and say "Why didn't they do that in the first five minutes???" Still, the book has good pace, and it's interesting, but like Chinese food, it leaves you hungry a few hours later.

It's a sad truth that the short story market is suffering. Novels still sell, but few people read short stories any more. It's been a while since I've read a collection, but I'm definitely putting some on my shopping list: reading these was a terrific experience. They are short enough you can read one in ten to thirty minutes, yet they manage to envelope you in a world of their own. O'Henry writes with such verve and wit you just cannot help but smile through the reading, and so his many characters are inspired. This books contains dozens of classics. There are tragicomedies, fateful romances, stories of ill-fated robberies, Westerns, pursuits, and hilarious parodies. So many of these tales have made permanent marks on my psyche it's hard to know where to begin. A few things stand out: 1) O'Henry's ability to stamp a character with just a few phrases of description, yet keep the character from being a stereotype; 2) the elegance of O'Henry's prose, humorous almost without effort, and as ingenious as a riddle; and 3) the marvel of outrageous, clever plots that stem entirely from the characters and come across as natural and believable. An example of the latter? One story deals with star-crossed lovers. He's on the run for murder, hiding out in an anonymous South American town. He thinks she'll never marry him if she knows he killed a man in a bar fight. But when she confesses she's on the run for poisoning her abusive husband, they declare they are made for each other and agree to marry. Immediately after, however, a ship from the States arrives with the man the lover had supposedly killed -- he's not a murderer after all! He rushes off to tell his fiance that the wedding's off, only to discover she's read a months-old newspaper account that her husband didn't die from the poisoning, and she's left for America!

Here's an example of O'Henry style and wit:

"He wore his hat in such a position that people followed him about to see him take it off, convinced that it must be hung upon a peg driven into the back of his head."

(Note: The Amazon.com link above doesn't link to this book, but a similar one of O'Henry short stories; this book is apparently out of print. The version I read is in DOC format for the Palm PDA. The download is free!)

Terrific film. I'm only a third of the way through the book, but I was very impressed at the accuracy of the script. The story's condensed a bit, but captures the tone of the book. At lot of the dialogue is straight from the novel, as is most of the narration. The story is a coming-of-age tale about a 13-year-old girl whose mother kills her boyfriend after he abandons her. The girl must grow up in foster homes as she struggles to find her identity and come to terms with her mother. The performances are excellent, especially newcomer Alison Lohman as the girl and Michelle Pfeiffer as the mom. This is a fascinating story about psychology and characterization. It's worth watching and I recommend the book as well.

Rather routine by-the-numbers thriller from Follet. He takes a claustrophic situation -- bad guys holed up a family's house during a blizzard -- but the resolution is pretty ordinary. Some of the characters were interesting, but there wasn't much depth. Overall, I kept wondering why the book was written.

Okay, rather low-budget affair (oddly with big stars like Bruce Willis, etc.), and several silly plots about a dentist getting involved into the complexities of the mob and a contract killer whoÕs his next door neighbor.

I actually liked this. I haven't seen the original, so I don't know what that was like. The "surprise" is not much of one, and the long slow path to get there is exceedingly annoying, and there are huge holes in the plot and questions never answered. The worst is the strange car accident that opens the movie -- it was never explained and serves more as a red herring to confuse the situation and haunt the main character. But despite tons of flaws (including cult stereotypes), the story is somewhat intriguing, and though I thought I shouldn't have liked it, I did.

This is a severely flawed movie but it almost succeeds. It's a neat concept, playing around with identity and heartbreak. Basically, our hero was in love but his girl took off for Europe without an explanation. He was heartbroken, but it's two years later and he's about to marry his boss' sister. Then he thinks he sees his old girlfriend. She's gone before he can catch her, so he plays detective and tracks her down. When he finds her, he's disappointed to discover it's not her, but a completely different girl with the same name, same perfume, same clothing, etc. Without spoiling the twist ending, let's just say that explanations are forthcoming and make sense. Unfortunately, it's both the complexity and method of revealing those explanations that make the film bewildering, uncomfortable, and much too long. The film, essentially, is all flashbacks and dreams. It's often unclear if the scene was present day, two years ago, or a dream. Worse, the main character isn't the only one flashing back: several other characters do so as well. While that gives us looks at familiar scenes from different perspectives, it adds to the confusion. For the first hour the film is just bewildering and makes little sense. Eventually it does, but by that time you don't really care too much. The twisted plot is way too twisted, overdone, and full of itself; the movie goes on and on forever (it should have been 90 minutes max); and there are several sideplots and red herrings that should have been eliminated. That said, the film does have a number of positives. The twist in the plot is interesting. I liked it. (It just takes too long to get there.) The performances are also excellent, especially Rose Byrne, who is amazing: how she can alternatively be so plain and so striking I can't fathom. She's what makes the movie succeed for me. The others are decent, though mostly soulless. This is a strange film in that I didn't like it at all for the first hour, but liked the second hour and liked it after it was done. That leaves it with a bitter taste, only awkwardly successful. It really needed better direction and/or a new script not so dependent on flashbacks (ugh).

Cool, violent, strange Western. It's strange because it's so different from other movies. It's basically about bad guys -- really bad, evil, despicable guys -- do a tiny bit of good in the end. Fascinating, exciting, and excellently directed. Hard for me to judge today as the film's a classic that has affected so many film-makers since, but it's obvious it was ahead of its time.

The best thing about this film is that you get exactly what the trailer tells you to expect: four guys having a middle-age crisis go on a motorcycle road trip. Preposterous, predictable at times, occasionally dumb, occasionally hilarious, with fun casting choices, it's just a decent, feel-good comedy, completely harmless. There are a few crude scenes I found oddly out-of-place, and the ending's too pat, but overall it's just fun.

This is the film about a shy loser who befriends rats and uses them to instigate his revenge. It's a mildly entertaining effort at a cult classic that doesn't quite make the cut. First, it's not vicious enough: the rats really only kill one person (his mother was on her last legs so I don't count her). For this to be really frightening or thrilling, we must see the rats' power more than a handful of times. Second, a part of the plot is that Willard doesn't have complete control over the rats -- this is the ending, where the rats turn against him, makes sense. Unfortunately, this also weakens the whole rats-as-weapon thing. It would have been much better if there was only a hint of lack of control once at the beginning (like when Big Ben disobeyed and got into the sack) and then the rats always obeyed Willard until the final scene when there was a sudden table turn. That would have been exciting. As it was, the first point means the rats aren't very scary, and the second means we aren't too worried about what Willard will do with them (since his control is questionable). Finally, the writing sets up Willard as such a sympathetic character, and all the other people in his life (mother, boss, co-workers) as so over-the-top cruel, that we're totally rooting for Willard and the rats. But then the film tries to make us think of Willard as evil for using the rats to kill, and that conflicts with the way we were set up to think. Weak. I also found it surprising that Willard had no special powers or connection with the rats. I guess the writer was going for realism, but I felt that weakened the story. It would have been much better if Willard had some sort of unique ability to "talk" to the rats and get them to do his bidding, like a Pied Piper sort of thing. (Speaking of viciousness like I did earlier, remember in the Pied Piper story he gains his revenge for non-payment by stealing all the children in the town. People tend to forget that tragic ending!) By giving Willard some sort of special ability, it would have enhanced his character, making him special. As it is he's just another loser wimp who discovers a way to get revenge. I really wanted to like this film, and there were things about it I did like, but just not enough to take it above average fair. It could have been a classic with more character development (less stereotyping) and more ominous actions by the rats.

This film is both marvelous and terrible; the producers take some horrible liberties with the story (adding in a strange lurking villain that is so stereotypical as to almost ruin the film) and make it a musical (huh?). There are a few great songs ("Candy Man"), but there are also several duds, and the musical aspect feels awkward and destroys all realism of the story. The casting is decent; Gene Wilder's happy-go-lucky Wonka is great until the odd ending (anger and confrontation is so not Wonka). The strange deviations of the script seem pointless and contrived. One aspect I liked better than the new film is the way this one reveals more of the factory, showing us glimpses of all sorts of intriguing and marvelous inventions. The new film just sticks to the plot. Overall both are decent films. The special effects in this old one suck big time, but it's not so bad it detracts from the story.

Nice light romantic comedy with a couple surprisingly earthy moments from Kirsten Dunst. I liked her character, however, as the reigning "bad girl" of the tennis circuit who falls for a former tennis great who's game is down but goes up when he's around Kirsten. Having him win Wimbledon is absurd but fun and well-executed, but overall the film's a little short of depth to be a true romance or classic.

Today there was a huge windstorm in Oregon (winds over 100mph at the coast) and a tree in my backyard fell onto my neighbor's house! Here's a picture of the tree:

I don't know what happens next -- the tree people are all extremely busy as practically every road in Oregon is closed with a tree down.

Somber WWII film, with plenty of graphic action and gore. The extended battle sequences are impressive, giving me a better understanding of the big picture of how a war works. For example, in one scene the group of men radio the ship of shore the coordinates of where to shoot the big guns, successfully blasting out some bunkered enemy troups. I never thought about the foot soldiers and the battleships working in cooperation like that. Educational. Unfortunately, what intrigued me about the film -- the Navajo "codetalkers" -- isn't enough of the plot. (I love codes and code-breaking stuff.) Instead the Navajos are merely pawns in the game, and we get to see racist treatment of them by other soldiers. Good performances all around, amazing action, but ultimately still a war film, which means it's a downer.

Being bored during action sequences doesn't bode well for a film. Essentially Top Gun in outer space, this thing's totally predictable. I love sci-fi and thought it looked interesting, but I got a lot of reading done during this movie.

Remarkable film about the migration of birds from the birds' point of view. We actually follow along side of flying birds as they migrate, giving us an incredible, never-before-seen view. The closeups and photography are truly amazing. However, there isn't any sort of plot to the movie and it gets a little repetitive even with different species of birds. Bird lovers probably won't find it boring, but I'm not particularly in love with birds (though this film certainly took me a step in that direction). I found the "making of" documentary on the DVD more interesting than the film itself. Here we learn how 500 people spent four years making the film, actually growing the birds we see from hatchlings so they would grow up used to the sound of ultralight motors and the presence of humans. Very impressive.

This is a marvelously written book, practically poetry, with vivid descriptions of life deep in the Ozark mountains. The hero of the story is a 16-year-old girl whose drug-dealing father has disappeared, leaving her without any money to care for her two little brothers and her demented mom. Bravely she struggles on until she learns that her father put up their house and land as bond for his court appearance, but with him gone, it seems like the house will be forfit and the girl's family will be living in the fields with nothing. Unless the girl finds her father in time. Thus she sets off on a wild quest that takes her into some pretty dark places. This is a fascinating, chilling story about a world most of us didn't even know existed. Amazing. Highly recommended.

I hadn't seen this movie in years, but saw it was on the Disney channel the other night and recorded it. It's a superior kids movie, about a plot by witches to change all the children in England into mice. The special effects are a bit theatrical (lots of colored smoke) but fun, and the talking mice are really cool. Somewhat similar in humor to the Harry Potter books (except in this case magic and witches are evil). Overall, fun for kids, though its realistic and serious (i.e. non-cartoon) portrayal of witches could be scary for youngsters.

Grim and depressing serial-killer thriller about a group of people stranded in the Australian desert who get help from a seemingly well-meaning creepy, who then tortures and kills them. Well done with some twists that make the simple plot seem more elaborate than it is. Great villain.

Nicely acted, slow-paced film about a criminal (Kevin Bacon) released on parole and trying to fit back into society. We aren't told his crime initially but we get the dreadful feeling we have an idea and are conflicted. We have sympathy for him but his crime is reprehensible. But is he reformed? Occasionally he acts like it, but other times it's hard to tell and we wonder. He seems to have remorse and worries he will fail again. This culminates in the movie's most dramatic scene where the man is tempted to act and we wonder what he will choose. That's when the predictable takes a twist -- and it's a really cool result. I won't spoil it by explaining it, but trust that this is a serious look at a taboo subject. Well worth your time.

This is a documentary on crossword puzzles and I wanted to see this as I hoped it would explain crosswords to me. I've never understood crosswords and it annoys me terribly. I'm a very analytical person and crosswords just baffle me. The clues have no rhyme or reason behind them and I find them utterly frustrating (to me they often cheat, being purposely obscure to the point of unfairness). Unfortunately, this film did not help me there. No mysteries were explained. Crosswords are still just as opaque to me. However, I still found the documentary rivoting -- the interviews were mostly interesting and I found the competition exciting -- but my favorite was the guy who explained how he creates crosswords, as he proceeded to write one just for the film, and the insights gained into his process were fascinating. But in the end my bafflement wins out. What the heck's the deal with crosswords? Why do people like them? How do they solve them? No answers.

What an incredible tournament the 2002 FIFA World Cup is turning out to be! Amazing, unexpected, historic events are happening in almost every game. I don't know if it's because the tournament is being held in the Southern Hemisphere, but everything is backwards in this competition. World champions France are out. Favorites Argentina, who looked so good in qualifying, are flying home. The U.S. and South Korea upset fifth-ranked Portugal, whose dream is over. Brazil, which shocked everyone by struggling to get the World Cup, are doing great -- but they haven't faced serious competition yet. One of only two teams with three wins in the opening round (Spain is the other), and with the confidence of having already scored 11 goals, they now are the team to beat. Nothing is predictable in this World Cup and that's great. Anything can happen, and any team can be sent home.

The Americans, who played so well against Portugal, have struggled and played worse in every subsequent game. What's up with that? I realize the players are tired, that other teams have studied the U.S. games and know our weaknesses (that was very obvious in the Poland game), but the U.S. defense has looked like they were out-classed and over-whelmed. Offensively we've been stronger, but even there we're inconsistent. Mathis is a good player when he's on, but he fades in matches and it's like we're playing with ten men. Claudia Reyna has never impressed me: he was the reason for our poor play in France 1998 and I can't figure out why he's our leader. He can play well -- it's just that he often doesn't. The U.S. has a lot of players like that: Hejduk, Sanneh, Regis, etc. In the Poland game Reyna was ineffective in the attack, and he often gave the ball away leading to dangerous counter-attacks by Poland. Reyna does better when he sits back and defends, but he likes to move forward too much. I'd either bench him for the Mexico game or give him strict orders to sit back and act more defensively. At the back, Goose is a good player past his prime. I'm glad he's gotten some World Cup experience, but in truth I'm relieved he's out injured for the Mexico game. While he brings a lot of experience and stability to the U.S. team, he can do a lot of that from the bench. On the field he's a liability at this level. Unfortunately, the U.S. isn't deep in quality defenders, and that's definitely our primary weakness. But Mastroanni needs to be on the field (in any position). Pope has been great, but he can't do it all. He needs a partner back there. Heiduk has been excellent, playing better than he's played in years (people forget he was widely considered our best player at France 98 and he got his German contract based on that performance), but he's out suspended for the Mexico game. Eddie Lewis strikes me as the best substitute, but he'll need the game of his life. I'd tell him not to move up unless we're down more than one goal or up several: that leftback position is primarily for defense and we don't need forward runs that leave us exposed. Sanneh's just been brilliant, with his only mistake giving up the penalty in the Poland game. He'll be ready for Mexico. O'Brien had his weakest game against Poland, but he's a strong player. Stewart is also important, though I don't picture him going 90 minutes. Not starting DaMarcus Beasley in the Poland game makes me wonder what's going on the Bruce's head. Perhaps he was just trying to give DMB a deserved rest, but Beasley's a critical player for us. Not only is he super dangerous on the counter-attack, but he does some incredible defensive work, coming back and stealing the ball from the other team. He's our brightest star so far (not counting Brad Friedel, who's been insanely amazing). Landon Donovan needs to be more involved. He's already a much better player than Reyna, and the U.S. team would do better to run play through him instead of the captain. Landon's got so many good attributes: he's fast, has a great first touch, he's a lethal finisher, and has the best vision of the field of any American player ever. His quick flicks and through-balls are breath-taking, and they make him a double-threat: he can score himself or slip a ball through to a teammate who can finish. The best position for Donovan is "sunken forward" -- pair him with McBride and they can feed each other balls. McBride was invisible in the Poland game. After two great games from him, I put that to fatigue and the fact that the Poles were strong in the air. But McBride needs to be on the field: he's strong, can be lethal if given the chance, and he's a battler who can win balls for the U.S. in the upper midfield. I'd tell him in advance he's going to play for fifty minutes -- let him run his heart out -- and then sub in Josh Wolff. Wolff's speed make him dangerous and I'd like to see him get more playing time. Clint is the biggest puzzle. He's such a one-dimensional player. When he wants to he can be a playmaker, but much of the time his task is just to score goals. He can be a liability in how he gives up the ball. His passes are often weak and easily picked off, and in the Poland game he caused us a lot of problems by helping Poland start counter-attacks. Still, Mathis can be magical. He's got a spark that can invigorate a team. He can do amazing runs and strikes that are world-class. Depending on his attitude, he probably should start, though he'd make a dangerous sub as well.

Well, these are just my thoughts before the game. We'll see late tomorrow (Sunday night/Monday morning) who Bruce puts out and what happens. Good luck, USA!

While others were predicting a goal-fest, that made no sense to me: I figured it would be 1-0 in favor of either team. First goal wins, in a sense. People criticize Brazil's defense, but their defense is actually pretty good. Germany might be able to score, but would be happy would a one-goal lead. Brazil's won their last few by one, as has Germany, so why not in the final where everything is at stake?

The first half was all Germany. They came out aggressively, but couldn't really find much of a goal to shoot at. Brazil defended, and Germany's physical play and tight marking meant they rarely got anything going. Although Brazil had the better chances, requiring a few desperate defender saves and saves from goalkeeper-of-the-tournament Oliver Kahn, Brazil only played in flashes, never able to build to a goal the way they like. In the second half, in was more of the same, but with Germany a touch more desperate and Kahn's saves a bit more frantic. Finally, on a hard shot from Rivaldo that seemed harmless as it went right at Kahn, the wet ball dipped at the last moment and Kahn's shutout streak went away. He couldn't hold the ball and fumbled his catch. The ball bounced out of his arms and right to the feet of a charging Ronaldo, the last person on the planet you want with the ball in front of goal if you're his opponent. He slid the ball into the net without breaking into a sweat, and suddenly Brazil was leading and Ronaldo had done what he'd vowed: score in every match of this World Cup! After that, it was time for Germany to attack ferociously, desperate for the tying goal. But that left them exposed at the back, and it didn't take Brazil long to capitalize. A half chance for Ronaldo and it was 2-0 Brazil. Incredibly, Ronaldo ties Pele's 12 World Cup goals (the most for a Brazilian) in the same 14 games. However, Ronaldo's only 25 years old and potentially has two more World Cups left. He might win the Golden Ball (tournament Most Valuable Player, decided on Tuesday by the world media) but he definitely wins the Golden Boot (most goals in the tournament with seven). Overall, a predictable performance by both teams. Brazil was quieter than expected, more like the troublesome team we saw struggle through qualifying and occasionally hiccup in this tournament (like in their lackluster 2nd match against Turkey). Germany played their predictable boring defensive game, lots of high balls in the attack, and relied on their super-keeper Kahn to keep them in the game. In the end, Brazil won, and that's great. It's their record fifth World Cup title (Germany and Italy have three each), and though this particular Brazil team is beatable, they did what they had to do in this tournament, and that's the bottom line. Good stuff. Final: 2-0 Brazil.

Well, that's it. The World Cup is finally over! After a month of 64 soccer matches, I'm pretty happy and exhausted. Despite the U.S.'s failure and France's foul-up in the final, it was an excellent Cup. I'm disappointed that France couldn't win -- Italy played a dry, defensive game, despite all the talk about their new offensive style -- but that's the way it goes. Shameful of Zidane to lose his temper like that and get the red card; not a good note on which to end your career. But Germany, the hosts, were excellent, and the competition itself was wonderful, with lots of first-time teams competing well, some great goals. This Cup was more about parity than one team standing head and shoulders above the rest, but that's just a sign of how well soccer is progressing around the world.

Wild game. After a nearly goalless first half, Bolivia's Paz put them ahead with a diving header. But minutes later Crespo equalized for Argentina on a corner kick. In the second half, it was all Bolivia. Are great volley from Colgue and a header from Botero put them two ahead and surely out of reach of Argentina who showed very little offense. But in the final few minutes, they did! Crespo got his second in the 89th minute, and Sorin found himself unmarked in the box off a free kick to score the equalizer in injury time. Amazing come-back! Final: 3-3.

In the first half, Ecuador dominated, though Brazil showed dangerous flashes. But shortly into the second half, Ecuador put together a brilliant run into the box and though the shot was going wide, Delgado slid into it to put Ecuador up one against the mighty Brazil. After that it was war: great chances on both sides made for a great game, but in the end, the goal held up, and Ecuador gets the major upset! Final: 1-0 Ecuador.

Crazy game. Venezula's Rondon got things going for the home team with a great header 22 minutes in off a terrible giveaway by a Columbia. Things were quiet for a long time, but finally the home team got another in the 82 minute by Arango on a shot from the top of the box. It seemed like mighty Columbia was going to fall. Then, suddenly, things changed. Bedoya's header one minute later gave Columbia hope, and then Bonilla's goal and a wonderful through pass equalized things! Who would have thought Columbia could come back in six minutes after showing no offense the whole game? Final: 2-2.

Awesome game! The U.S. played very well, with a number of quality chances, including a sure chip goal from Josh Wolff that was dramatically cleared off the goalline with a bicycle kick from the Costa Rican captain Parks. The U.S. dominated the first half, but Costa Rica forced Keller to make a few good saves in the second half. But the great news for the U.S. was Wolff's 70th minute goal. On the corner kick the ball bounced around in the box and came awkwardly to Clint Mathis. It looked like it hit his hand, though it obviously wasn't intentional (his hand was up in the air before the ball came to him), but the slight deflection may have helped as the ball dropped away from the keeper and right to Josh Wolff's feet. He barely need to touch it to put it in the net. The U.S. defended well after that, though there were some nerve-racking moments, but the Americans held on. The victory means the U.S. has -- incredibly -- won all three of their World Cup qualifiers so far (seven more to go) and with nine points is well on their way to a slot in World Cup 2002. They're leading their group by five points! Final: 1-0 United States.

Awesome game! No regular league soccer this weekend as it's World Cup qualifiers, so I shelled out twenty bucks to watch this on pay-per-view. It seemed outrageous to me, but then some morons pay $60 for wrestling, so who's to say. Anyway, this turned out to be an excellent game. England was at the bottom of their group and this was a must-win for them to have any shot at going to the World Cup in 2002. Their new coach, Lazio's Erikson, had to come up with a critical win in his first real game (their recent friendly didn't count). Things weren't looking good when England's early pressure didn't yield a goal, and suddenly a mistake at the back deflected the ball into the net instead of clearing it: Finland were ahead. England kept pushing, however, and just before the half miracle boy Michael Owen became a hero when his long shot curled into the goal. In the second half, England came out storming, and Captain David Beckham came up big. He got the ball on the right side with some space and blasted it into the Finnish goal. He'd had a few great shots during the game and they all went right to the keeper, but this one struck pay dirt. The Finns couldn't come back from their deficit, though they fought hard and made the last ten minutes very interesting. In the end, though, all was well for England. Final: 2-1 England.

Very sad that the U.S. lost their first game at home in sixteen years. It was a harsh loss: Earnie Stewart was both the hero and the goat, scoring two goals but missing the penalty kick that could have preserved at least a draw. Honduras certainly made the U.S. back line look feeble, beating them dozens of times, and requiring terrific saves by various players and the goalkeeper. The Honduras penalty was very weak (Agoos fell down before the other player; I find it difficult to believe that could be a foul): probably just a make-up call for penalty given to the U.S. Final: 3-2 Honduras.

AWESOME GAME! This begins the first of ten brutal final games that will determine which three teams from the CONCACAF region go to World Cup 2002. It is critical the U.S. do well, but fifteen minutes into the game, our best striker, Brian McBride, had to be taken out of the game with an injury. He'd bonked heads with a Mexican player and his right eye swelled up horrendously -- I've never seen anything like it. His eyebrow was the size of a baseball, swollen so big it closed his eye and he couldn't see. A half hour after that, the engine of the American team, Claudio Reyna, had to be taken out because of a groin strain. Terrible, just terrible, and Mexicans were really pressing the U.S. Remember, in international play only three substitutions are allowed per team per game, and we'd used two in the first half. The game was played in Columbus, Ohio, in twenty degree weather, and it sure looked like doom was in the air. But just two minutes into the second half, the two substitutes worked major. Clint Mathis, of the New York/New Jersey Metrostars, put in a fantastic 50-yard ball over the back line of the Mexican defense. Speedster Josh Wolff, in terrific form at the Olympics in Australia, burned up the track, rushing past the defenders to grab the ball and run upfield. Mexican keeper Jorge Campos raced out to stop him, but wasn't quick enough to beat Wolff. Wolff's touch bounced the ball against Campos and came back, hitting Wolff and going forward. It was a bit of luck and a bit of opportunism, but Josh did well to grab the loose ball and coolly put it in the back of the empty goal. The U.S. led 1-0. After that the Mexicans went all out to defeat the U.S. The took off defenders and put in attackers, and pushed and pushed, but the U.S. held well. A couple of times Brad Friedel, the American keeper, had to make a save, but the U.S. defense was so good he really wasn't tested. Still, in such a close game, anything can happen, and the packed stadium held their breath for 42 minutes. That's when Mathis and Wolff combined again, with another long ball and Wolff running toward the corner flag, obviously attempting to waste time. But suddenly he broke free, miraculously dribbling out of a maze of Mexican defenders and running up the end line toward the goal. His sidefooted pass was glorious, perfectly placed, splitting the Mexican defenders, and going right into the path of the onrushing Ernie Stewart. Stewart didn't waste his opportunity -- he just blasted it into the goal. Wow, not only was the U.S. winning, they were winning well. And this was without two of our key players! Amazing, and a real triumph of American soccer. It might be premature or overkill to say it, but from what I saw, this game marks a new day in American soccer. A decade from now we just might look back at this game as being the start of something amazing. From the Olympics to the full national squad, young Americans are proving that they can play the world's game. Remember, this wasn't a Sunday match-up: World Cup qualifying games are taken extremely seriously around the world. To put this in perspective, in 90 World Cup qualifiers Mexico has only lost 10 times. Think about that! And make it eleven. Final: 2-0 U.S.A.

The U.S. got off to a terrific start with Ante Razov, who threatened mightily against Jamaica when he was put in for the last few minutes, got the start. Just two minutes in he scored on a terrific 40-yard feed from Jeff Agoos (Captain of the San Jose Earthquakes). Minutes later Ernie Stewart had a one-on-one with the keeper and flubbed his shot, but made up for in the 20th minute when he stole the ball from a defender and ran on to score. The rest of the game the U.S. defended well, and T & T weren't without their chances. Man of the Match was Agoos, who stopped many of T&T's attacks. Great game, great result, and the U.S. has now almost clinched a spot for World Cup 2002. Next they face a huge game against Mexico in Mexico City on July 1. I can't wait. Final: 2-0 U.S.A.

A mix of good and bad. ABC had the nerve to completely pre-empt the coverage of the U.S. National Team's World Cup Qualifier against Jamaica, an absolutely cruicial, must-win game for the States, with talking heads rattling on about the U.S. bombing Afganhistan. I understand them needing to report breaking news, but 1) there was nothing to report (no one knew anything), 2) what's wrong with occasional news briefs or a running headline underneath the game coverage? and 3) ABC could have moved the game to ESPN or ESPN2. (They did, apparently, air the game tape-delayed on Monday on ESPN, but of course I didn't know that until after it had aired, too late to record it.) Finally, does anyone really care about this "war?" Is anyone surprised or alarmed? Isn't this what we've been expecting since Sept. 11?

Now for the good news: the U.S. not only won their qualifier, 2-1, but upsets in other qualifiers mean that the U.S. has officially qualified for World Cup 2002! It was a fluke series of events: Mexico and Costa Rica earned a 0-0 draw for one point each and Honduras was stunningly defeated at home by bottom-of-the-group Trinidad and Tobago! Those results leave both Mexico and Honduras with 14 points and only one game remaining, a head-to-head clash in Mexico. Only one of the two will be able to qualify (a tie puts Mexico in, so Honduras must win). The U.S. faces Trinidad and Tobago in November, but that game is of no significance now. (Prior to the other results, the U.S. had to win today's game and the game in Nov. to qualify.)

Whew! This was a critical game for the United States: a loss and they miss going to the World Cup in 2002. They easily beat Barbados 7-0 at home, but in an away game, anything can happen. As if to prove that point, it started out poorly for the U.S., with the horrible, choppy, wet field creating havoc. The ball rolled awkwardly, passes missed their targets, and erratic bounces threatened an accidental goal. Barbados had a few chances, but the game really didn't get going until about a half hour in, when Meola's save ricocheted