lingmeister

This film 40 days and 40 nights is about our main character Matt, played by Josh Hartnett, abstaining from sex for 40 days as part of Lent in order to grow from his deprivation. In that sense, this movie fails miserably. Matt didn't seem to get anything out of it, except get more and more desperate toward the end. Basically, the only thing that goes on in this film is Matt trying not to think about sex, and obstacles are constantly thrown in front of him. For the first few times, it might be mildly amusing, but to go on and on with the same jokes makes the movie tedious and pointless. Even going to his parent's house where they suddenly starts talking about sex positions seem to turn him on, besides the whole situation being incredible since nobody ever discussed about these things in the open before this topic of Karma Sutra positions came up, it should also not turn him on hearing his parent talk of such things. But this film doesn't know any better.

The behavior of Matt is also at odds, since I would presume the toughest period would be the beginning, then once he get used to it, he would cruise home like a monk. But the way this film treats sex is as if it is food, where the longer you are deprived of it, the worse condition you become. Toward the end, he is in full mad dash toward the finish line, as if one is running toward home with a full bladder, where the closer you get toward home, the more you feel like going.

The relationship with the girl he meets at the laundry is real odd, with him returning there the next week for some unknown reason. I would think he would forgo following up on that brief encounter for the sake of his goal. Then they have this non-sexual relationship, but it seems to indicate without sex, there is no relationship. Then he goes on titillating her with a flower while both of them are unclothed. If the goal is celibacy, doing this violates the spirit of it, if not technically. Even Matt's relationship with his last girlfriend seems at to be odd, with the blissful memories he had versus the vampy personality she portrays upon her apperance.

I am not sure why the countdown goes to midnight, would it not be easier if he starts right at the point where he decides to abstain from sex? Or from the time he last had sex? I am not even sure what the ending indicates, since he goes on this massive 60 hour sex-fest, throwing what little concept this movie had out the window.

Lover's Grief seems to be China's attempt at a hollywood style blockbuster. But it seem to failed miserably.

The film is about an American pilot Owen Neumann, played by Paul Kersey whose plane was damaged by the Japanese while on a spy photo mission, then landing behind Japanese occupied land in China. He is rescued by members of a Chinese communist army has to be sneaked out of that region. On the way, Owen falls in love with one of the solder Angel, played by Jing Ning.

The portrayal of westerners seems so ludicrous that it is as if westerners were irrational fools. The acting by the western actors seems so bad that it seems that the director don't know how to direct them. The aerial scene were particularly embarrassing, with the acting nothing more than reading of the lines on top of the already inconceivable scenario. The voice-over by Owen is a literal reading off the script, not even pausing between sentences to given the sense of insight and retrospect.

We also have a few American invincible hero scenes where the good guy/guys is wildly overmatched by the bad guys but somehow guns most of them down. Many of the scenes seem to be heavy on the sentimental, especially the repeated replay of the scene where Angel is posing for a picture. They are trying to have a hollywood feel but not knowing how, missing on much of the fine details.

This movie also takes a liberal interpretation of history, with the war within a war reference so oddly thrown in that I had to rewind to see if they were fighting the Nationalist or Japanese soldiers in the prior scene.

I do wish the flashbacks were not so blatantly used, some of it seems a little forced, not being flashbacks of anybody at all, but more like tools to show us what happened there. There must be some other way to convey what happened without having to use this method. Angel's flashback is used in a better way that it meshes better with the story.

The main thing going for it is the expansive view on the beautiful mountainous landscapes. The extreme zooming out from the soldiers to the whole mountain range also conveys the vastness of the region, and many of the foreshortened view of the Yellow river gives us a feeling of immediacy to its turbulent waters.

The development of the love story seems to be well paced, without it being rushed or forced. Although the fact Owen proclaiming his love for Angel and wanting to marry her seems to be superceded by the big dramatic moment afterward where he kisses her. Somehow that the importance is oddly reversed. Also, her death is oddly construed, since we don't see Owen not being able successfully swim across the river with Angel tied to him, or Angel being on the verge of death, although that is probably what the film is trying to portray, but then where is her sacrafice for him that is central to the plot?

The special effect is bordering on embarrassing, with miniatures so obvious and still figures blatantly visible. Really simple things like shooting in high frame rate and slowing down the playback by 3-4x in order to give a feeling of larger scale wasn't even used. Or shooting in small aperture on close-up shots of miniatures so they don't look like miniatures. Or placing the real and miniature version of the plane hanging over the cliff at similar position so we think they are the same thing, and maybe using dolls that does more than have its knee move from the pulling of a string. Consistency in the ship attack scenes are clearly lacking, with the ship moving one second and standing still the next, not to mention the visibilty of the rope below the waterline that is used to tow it.

Apparently, the Chinese officials thought so highly of this film, its story of reconciliation with the long time western nemesis indirectly told by the love story, along with the sacrifices by the brave Chinese people. But the American epic blockbuster feel they liked so much actually works against the film because it is so amateurish by western standard. Granted, there are big budget American films that are no better than this one, but none are hailed as worthy of an Oscar.

If you want to see the film, do so because you want to see Jing Ning, or because you want to see how everything could go wrong when you imitate a style. But not because you want to see a good film.

Unsuccessful version of the buddy cop movie. There might have been a few funny moments, but much of it seem to be a satirical parody of television industry/police world. Even in those scenes, it doesn't totally succeed, since frequently, the satire seems so light that it is more of a behind the scene view.

The whole concept of getting the cop on TV and getting the two characters together seem too ill conceived. The side plot involving the bad guys are so thin and lame that it seems to be tacked on afterward, but it probably isn't because that is when all the big actions happens.

The pacing also seems odd, the film tries to be a quirky comedy at times, but the scenes just isn't that odd or hard hitting enough. So it ends up feeling like those low laugh sitcoms.

Much of the jokes were predictable, like their description of DeNiro's facial expression when they were in the dressing room, others parts of the plot are so unbelievable like the armored truck robbery in broad public or shooting down of the house. Is that why the bad guys went out of their way to buy these handheld cannons with armor piercing depleted uranium shells? You would think there would be a more sinister arms dealing with foreign or militias involved.

Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro characters might have their scenes, but not when interacting together. Basically, there is no chemistry between the two, and what little bonding that occurs in the Corvette seem to be forced onto us by the movie. William Shatner was good also, but we can't help wanting him to be more Kirk-like, since we seem to be in a spoof movie.

Another great movie from the Disney/Pixar team. It has the unique story which is great for both children and adults. All the little touches throughout the film depicting the Monstropolis world are inventive and fun. It did not go for parody overload like Shrek did, but instead went with understated quality. These things were not flooding the screen, but were placed here and there so that it would reward one who catches them.

For the story to be an offshoot of children's imagination and expand to a whole world based on that is very imaginative. The rest of the film has it all, being clever, witty, heartfelt, edge of your seat action and suspense.

Another inventiveness is the the musical during the ending credits, which is the off-shoot of what Wazowski and Sully made up during their cover-up, as opposed to Shrek's kareoke after the movie, which has nothing to do with the film.

The other great part of Disney is that the personalities of each character takes on the being they are portraying. Although this film cannot follow that format since almost all the characters were monsters and we could only assume how they act in real life (as opposed to a caterpillar or a fish.) But it also allows the animator to be limitless in their interpretation of the monsters physical attributes and the way they act, although in some parts, Billy Crystal has to be Billy Crystal. On top of that, Boo character just stole our heart.

In all, a great movie for every member of the family to enjoy.

This movie had a lot of fun and laughs in the beginning when Peter Parker, being the adolescent nerd tries to fit in with the rest of the kids in school. Along with the discovery of his power and the not so direct path in learning how to use it, physically and mentally. Including some immature attempt to make some money in order to buy a car so he could please Mary Jane.

The Development of the characters, including Peter Parker, from an innocent kid to this superhero was very well done. As for the Green Goblin, he was portrayed well as this troubled scientist who had an alter-ego. Too bad his costume masked his whole face, since pretty much all of his devious characterizations were portrayed through a mask that didn't animate. We did get to see a little of the eyes later on though when he keep the mirrored googles in its opened position. Jamson's character was the most colorful, it is as he is lifted straight out of the comic book.

The swinging sequences were quite unique, giving us a perspective from spidey himself. The only scenery that has a grand portrayal is on the Queensborough Bridge. I guess this movie didn't really aim for that.

Much of the scenes seemed way too dark, where it looks like it was filmed in a dark place, with dim lighting so the central action is not high lighted. And if that was not enough, most were fast paced action. What one ends up seeing is a whole bunch of dark blotches and blurs, making us have to guess what those scenes were about.

A scene I found too sappy is the one where Spider Man takes Mary Jane for a ride down the city via his spider webs. Seems to be straight out of Superman during Loise Lane's first flight with superman.

To sum it up, an enjoyable superhero movie.

Orange County seem to be a movie that tries to pander to everyone, but ending up satisfying nobody. It tries to be a satire, but it is interrupted too frequently by slapsticks. Then it tries to be sentimental or inspirational, only to be followed more gags and bad jokes. Ultimately, it is not funny enough in either way for it to succeed.

Some things that was funny were portrayals of odd characters and the satires nature of the film. The discussion between Shaun Brunder's (Colin Hanks) and the writer and the revelation of his short story is quite touching.

Shaun's brother Lance (Jack Black), is just plain annoying. It seems as if his whole purpose in this movie is to unintentionally sabotage anything anyone is trying to do. I presume Shaun having lived with his brother his whole life, would know better than be in proximity of him in which there will be a remote chance of him screwing things up.

Much of the story defies logic, like the concept of giving up the chance to give up study under a famous writer and going to the equivalent of 13th grade just to be with some high school sweetheart, the family who doesn't even know what college is. I mean these are not Beverly Hillbillies, and he is only going to college a few hours away, not permanantly relocation to another country. Also, the sudden turnaround of a surfer bum who somehow in a year has a cumulative GPA of 3.5 and SAT score of 1530 baffles me. Even if it is just the character tha has changed, it wasn't portrayed as a like scenario.

Much of the other charicatures seems also obviously set up purely for gags, like the mom who gets drunk right before and during the visit by a school board member. I thought schools likes people who overcame disadvantaged childhood like Shaun, but they make it look like Stanford only wants children of foreign leaders.

Other scenarios are set up so clumsily that you knew it was coming a mile away, like the urine sample on the table, the handling over of the bottle of asprin found in Lance's jacket (even when Lance handed his sweater to Shaun's girlfriend, its like, a drug mixup is coming up.)

To sum it up, it is probably better than the rest of the teen movies, but it is still ho-hum for the rest of the crowd.

I heard since this movie came out on how funny this movie was with its adult themed humor, but I avoided it because it is from the same people that brought out Antz. I finally gave in and saw it. This movie is funny with some laughs, it also had a good story about inner and outer beauty. The characters and voiceovers by Mike Myers and Eddy Murphy were hilarious. Even the ending gave a bittersweet ending instead of the usually happy one.

But I did not find it clever or witty enough with the pop culture references. It seems many were just reference for the sake of it instead of taking a sharp jab. As for many of the Disney characters, too many were just there again, for the sake of it with their few seconds of screen time to do its thing so that we know who they are. It is not that they didn't do anything with them, it is just that some were quite duds. They could have done something smarter or a lot more hilarious with pop culture references and Disney characters, but they did not.

The concept of inner beauty did not quite gist either, since the portrayl of King Farquaad as a short person signifies somehow his stature is what is lacking and he somehow has to compensate for it.

The film tries to attract young audience by gross humor instead of wholesome characters like the do in Disney animations. In doing so, it probably took a shortcut in the developing of the story. The building up of the relationship between Shrek and the princess involves her showing she is not a prissy by burping in front of him.

To sum it up, it is a funny movie with some heartwarming central story. Good for the teenage crowd, and decent for the adults.

A Beautiful Mind, is not a movie about the life of John Nash or about a mathematical genius. It is about a person whose schizophrenia gets worse and worse and how he overcomes it.

To label it as a story of John Nash, portrayed here by Russell Crowe, is inaccurate. Much of the unsavory parts of his life has been edited out and other parts has been changed. This is all to make him a character whose only flaw is his sickness, which is also something the filmmaker wants the people to sympathize with. Plus, many characters seem to be invented so that it will easily fill the story. Watching the film at first, and then finding out his true life, you feel as if have been conned by the filmmakers. I think if they dealt with all aspects of his life, likeable or not, his character would have been more real, and it would have made a fuller and more complex film.

The mathematics aspects of the film seems to be glossed over much like window dressing, all to display his abstract genius mind without delving into anything deep and truly explaining the complexities of it. When I was watching the film and saw the numbers being highlighted, I thought this was a pathetic joke, something like math for dummies, a picturisque coffee table version. Eventually you realize the movie has nothing to do with mathematics. In some aspect, I was disappointed by it.

The film's true focus is on his sickness, including all the delusions he has, his treatments and all the effects it had on him, his temptation to go back to his old exciting self and eventually his will to fight the battle on his own. It all makes for a emotional drama, although it is one that is heavily sugar coated by Hollywood.

Russell Crowe performed remarkably in this film. He was always a versatile actor, with a great performance in The Insider. If it was not for the mysterious Oscar that he got for The Gladiator, he surely would have won one for this. As for the Oscar that Ron Howard and the film got, it is questionable since the film was not groundbreaking. I guess that is why films like this gets Ron the Oscars and Mulholland Drive gets David Lynch the award at Cannes.

In all, recommended, given that one take it as a film about a man's fight with his sickness and nothing more.

Not being a fan of hyper action films, I was pleasantly surprised at the movie Purple Storm. It was not the usual shoot them that has a paper thin story line and tons of action used as fillers.

The main part that interested me was the much of the way the style of the movie was made. Not so much the action sequences, but the overall feel of the film, with the dark, anxious feeling it conveyed.

The storyline was somewhat interesting also, with the dilemma that the main character Todd, played by Daniel Wu, who just had amnesia, had to make on his past life as his memory slowly comes back, and his relationship with wife and the paths and sacrifices everyone makes in their quest for their goals.

I thought there might have been too many scenes left on the cutting floor, as many parts of the film felt choppy and incoherent. Scenes like the attempted rescue of Todd by his father, who was invading whom? Who's these guys carrying coffins? Why are commandos sent into the building? Who is that guy with the crew cut and flak jack doing all the shooting during the same invasion? isn't that our man Todd, who looked and dressed same and was being lead away only a couple of scenes earlier? Only on subsequent viewings would things clear up. Other parts are vague, left hanging and should have been better explored more in depth. Such scenes includes death of Todd's child, why Soong, played by Kwok-Leung Gan was so after the head of the ATF. Some of the scenarios seemed incredible or with plot holes so obvious that you ask yourself `how did that happen.' This might be typical of action movie genres in general though.

The action sequences are OK, with some special effects that looks like it was done with film overlays as opposed to CGI, giving it a low budget feel (by American standard.)

The acting by Daniel Wu seems to be a little dramatized, especially when he is confused and torn between his two realities. Otherwise, he gave a good performance as the reluctant terrorist. Kwok-Leung Gan might not have played it right. He did not do the demigod character usually found in global villains, but he still had a bit of that attitude. Figuring him being a revolutionary, you would think he is only working for the bigger goal of reviving the Khmer Rouge again.

To sum up, moodish movie that had an interesting storyline, something not usually found in films of this genre.

Beautiful Creatures is a British dark comedy about these two women who meet up with each other under undue circumstances and plotted a scheme so that they will come out ahead. It is somewhat funny, with most of the males in the film being their enemy standing in their way. Many of them are portrayed as seedy, opportunist or just plain lowlifes. The women eventually somehow overcomes them all. It is similar to Thelma & Louise, but our heroine are not so innocent themselves, and we have a happy ending.

Interesting movie in which the story was laid out, revealing little by little on what happened to our missing character and what motives she had for the things she did.

The plot was very intricate and complicated, with its weaving in and out of the characters, along with simultaneous revelations of their past and secrets, either through flashbacks, code-cracking or face to face confrontations. This made it things fun to follow, but sometimes you will have to stop for a second and think along the line of if A=X, B~Y, B>X, how did Y<A? It is not a high paced or high tensioned suspense, therefore the movie plays out as one is doing a crossword puzzle. Thought provoking, if not on the edge of your seat.

I don't think the film is trying to explain any aspect of the code cracking part, since the finer aspects of it are thrown at the listener so fast that its purpose is to give us a view of the complexity of their work. But this works against the film because later on, we cannot judge how close they are cracking the code, know where they are deadlocked on, or even guess ourselves what could be the problem. So we basically see a lot of shuffling of paper, getting undeciphered code from somewhere else, transposing letter, etc, and all of a sudden, we see them either solve it or say it can't be done. Beautiful mind tries to simplify what the code cracker sees for the audience, at the same time show the abstractness of his thought by displaying the complexities of his work, all without telling us one bit how his mind work. But that movie is not about mathematics or code-breaking, so it worked better.

Overall, a decent film to watch. Maybe on second viewing, one could pick up what they are talking about with all the code cracking explanation and actually follow them throughout those parts of the film.

The film, although simple, is very good. It gives this chilling feeling the whole time, and the tension builds up toward the end. Although it does have its moving moments in the middle, which is something we know Stephen King sometimes writes with books/film like Hearts of Atlantis.

Christopher Walkens does something different from his usual roles by giving us this conflicted man who doesn't know what is happening to him and what he should do about his intuitions. Martin Sheen gives us the two faced politician/thug who will do anything for power.

To sum it up, a good thriller without the fluffs.

This film is pretty slow paced, barely making its audience break out a sweat.

There was two plots going on simultaneously, one about the investigation on the murder of a woman in which the identities of the guys who did it are not hidden. The other being the lead detective Cassie, played by Sandra Bullock, dealing with her dark past.

The first plot is mildly more interesting, with a couple of kids plotting a murder with all the forensics details planned out so as to confuse the investigators. But one of our calculating killer who studied every aspect of forensic evidence and how to forge them, happens to vomits while dumping the body and forgets to clean up after himself. And they plant evidence so as to produce a conflicting profile of the killer, while letting the trail lead to a suspect that is complete opposite of what the investigators were expecting. Not very good if you want to have an open and shut case pointing to that person.

Compared to the much more realistic NYPD Blues, the dual interrogation that takes place looks pretty lame, with the investigators laying out their theory and expecting a confession, getting none, they slowly start floating the idea of the first one to snitch gets to live. This is as opposed to playing off each of the perpetrators by revealing their theory as the other suspect's admission. It is much more effective to let the suspects think the incriminating information is obtained from their criminal counterpart as opposed to some wild thing that the detectives dreamed up. And at the end, even if one of the kid's release is obtained by his lawyer, they could continue to play the second kid until he breaks instead of releasing him.

I thought the high tech stuff in the interrogation rooms was going to delve deeper into the suspects than what could be seen with they eye, like voice stress analysis, IR camera for heat distribution in the body and perspiration buildup. But none of those things were there. It was a lot of hype over nothing.

The detective's work seems pretty shoddy for someone who is the best. Missing the ring on the suspect in the first place, apprehending the suspects by telling one to come over and forgetting the other one. They were all critical things in which it affects the story.

As to the second plot, it is a total waste of time. It is about Cassie, having being a victim herself in the past and having it rule her life. Turning her into some character in which her co-workers label as hyena. There is almost no purpose to this subplot, except for the fact she now automatically identifies self-centered rich kids as suspects because she thinks they think they could get away with anything.

There were a few too many of those `Don't go there scenes' for my liking, turning it into one of those cliché scenes in slasher movies. And the final climax with the fake suicide, sudden burst of strength from a person on the verge of passing out and dying, the collapse of the porch, and of course the handling of the stick. It was just too over the top.

The acting was forgetful by Sandra Bullock, she seems to either knows how to play romantic comedy or tomboy roles, with nothing in between. The only person who was good was Michael Pitt, whole played the mysterious recluse genius Justin.

All in all, nothing great about it, but watch-able except for some of the hollywood add-ons.

This film is pretty slow paced, barely making its audience break out a sweat.

There was two plots going on simultaneously, one about the investigation on the murder of a woman in which the identities of the guys who did it are not hidden. The other being the lead detective Cassie, played by Sandra Bullock, dealing with her dark past.

The first plot is mildly more interesting, with a couple of kids plotting a murder with all the forensics details planned out so as to confuse the investigators. But one of our calculating killer who studied every aspect of forensic evidence and how to forge them, happens to vomits while dumping the body and forgets to clean up after himself. And they plant evidence so as to produce a conflicting profile of the killer, while letting the trail lead to a suspect that is complete opposite of what the investigators were expecting. Not very good if you want to have an open and shut case pointing to that person.

Compared to the much more realistic NYPD Blues, the dual interrogation that takes place looks pretty lame, with the investigators laying out their theory and expecting a confession, getting none, they slowly start floating the idea of the first one to snitch gets to live. This is as opposed to playing off each of the perpetrators by revealing their theory as the other suspect's admission. It is much more effective to let the suspects think the incriminating information is obtained from their criminal counterpart as opposed to some wild thing that the detectives dreamed up. And at the end, even if one of the kid's release is obtained by his lawyer, they could continue to play the second kid until he breaks instead of releasing him.

I thought the high tech stuff in the interrogation rooms was going to delve deeper into the suspects than what could be seen with they eye, like voice stress analysis, IR camera for heat distribution in the body and perspiration buildup. But none of those things were there. It was a lot of hype over nothing.

The detective's work seems pretty shoddy for someone who is the best. Missing the ring on the suspect in the first place, apprehending the suspects by telling one to come over and forgetting the other one. They were all critical things in which it affects the story.

As to the second plot, it is a total waste of time. It is about Cassie, having being a victim herself in the past and having it rule her life. Turning her into some character in which her co-workers label as hyena. There is almost no purpose to this subplot, except for the fact she now automatically identifies self-centered rich kids as suspects because she thinks they think they could get away with anything.

There were a few too many of those `Don't go there scenes' for my liking, turning it into one of those cliché scenes in slasher movies. And the final climax with the fake suicide, sudden burst of strength from a person on the verge of passing out and dying, the collapse of the porch, and of course the handling of the stick. It was just too over the top.

The acting was forgetful by Sandra Bullock, she seems to either knows how to play romantic comedy or tomboy roles, with nothing in between. The only person who was good was Michael Pitt, whole played the mysterious recluse genius Justin.

All in all, nothing great about it, but watch-able except for some of the hollywood add-ons.

This movie totally puts the chills in you, with the atmosphere that the director instills, Nicole Kidman's characterization of a mother that thinks she is losing her mind because things are not making sense, and the newly arrived housekeepers in which we don't know if they are plotting something.

There is none of those big scares like those horror movies. Most of it are indirect or off-screen, resulting in something that is more of the bone chilling type of scare.

I don't think every piece of the puzzle connects at the end, but nobody is trying to follow some rule here like the way they were trying to in The Sixth Sense, which by openly defining what one could and could not do, and following that rule on the screen does not mean the character could function as if they are normal and not detect their state.

All in all, a very good movie if you want to get the chills. Don't know how it will be on second viewing since I haven't done that yet.

This movie is about a man, whom with no aim in life, slowly discovers his past, and his eventual purge of it. The film provides a great atmosphere to the brutally harsh environment all these people endured, but somehow, I didn't find the emotional connection to the movie or feel for the main character Quoyle. Maybe because of they way they cast him, basically being a spineless dimwitted nice guy who, by the way, has to face his demonic past. He might be written that way so that the Prowse character could easily fall in love with him. If someone were more troubled or disturbed on the outside, it would be very hard for another person to be attracted to him without him having some a redeeming heart deep down inside.

I think Kevin Spacey tried to hard to be that character. Although he fully immersed himself into it, what comes out is a person who doesn't have a wide range of emotions. So what he basically did was creating a caricature portrayal of a slow wimp, with being wimpy his only emotion.

Figuring the film was from Lasse Hallstrom, you think he would make a heart-wrenching film, but he didn't completely succeed in this one. Throwing the storyilne of the novel while trying to preserve it overall meaning will frequently lead to an incoherent attempt to convey the original message, which is what seem to have happened here.

Still, not too bad a movie, mostly for the gorgeous views of Newfoundland, interesting side stories and some decent performances, notably from Julie Dench.

This film is about a man who has been too caught up with the accepted convention of success, trying to be ever upwardly mobile, working hard so that he could be proud of owning his own home. He assumes this is all there is to life until he accidentally takes up dancing, all because he wanted to get a closer look of a beautiful girl that he sees by the dance studio everyday while riding the subway on his way home.

His was infatuated with her at first, going to the dance class just to idolize her, but he eventually lets himself go and gets himself into the dancing. It eventually becomes apparent to him that there is more to life than working yourself to death. There is a set of oddball characters also learning in the studio, giving the film a lot of laughs and some sense of bonding between the dejected.

There is also revelations of various characters, including the girl he initially admired, giving some depth to them by showing their blemished past and their struggle to overcome it.

The dancing was also engaging, with the big competition at the end, but it is not the usual story where our underdog come out at the top by winning it. Instead, there are downfalls, revelations and redemption.

All these makes it a moving and fun film to watch.

This movie is about an a studio publicist's who has to re-unite an soon to be husband and wife team in order to promote the last film they starred together in. Its main plot gives a behind the scene on many of things involved when rolling out a movie. A secondary plot of love and romance also goes on. The film is not entirely successful, with the good part not good enough to overcome the bad.

The main story was much more interesting, with prissy stars, publicist pulling strings and manipulating the image of the actor/actresses in order to sell the film. There are some poking fun at the industry, but it is more of a light jab instead of a stabbing. So we end up with more of a `lifestyle of the rich and famous' type of movie instead of a sharp witty satire.

The development of the romantic relationship is much less interesting and seem to be the main drag, breaking the pace for the whole film. It would have been perfectly fine if this whole subplot was removed.

Christopher Walken was interesting in the role of the director of the film in which he refuses to release until the press showing. But the surprise film, which consists of hidden camera footage during the filming of the movie, did not work for me at all. Here is this crazed genius who has won so many awards, showing this movie (even if it is a little bit) that didn't have coherence or wit, looking like someone's home video. I don't know how a film like that could run for 90 minutes.

Catherine Zeta-Jones did a great job as the narcissistic movie star, showing many facets of the prissy, phony person she is portraying. Maybe it wasn't so hard, since she herself is a movie star.

The rest of the cast are nothing to write home about. Either over the top as Stanley Tucci was, or uninspired as Julia Robert's role.

In all, a mildly amusing film on part of the movie industry, if you ignore the romancing that goes on.

This film is pretty slow paced, barely making its audience break out a sweat.

There was two plots going on simultaneously, one about the investigation on the murder of a woman in which the identities of the guys who did it are not hidden. The other being the lead detective Cassie, played by Sandra Bullock, dealing with her dark past.

The first plot is mildly more interesting, with a couple of kids plotting a murder with all the forensics details planned out so as to confuse the investigators. But one of our calculating killer who studied every aspect of forensic evidence and how to forge them, happens to vomits while dumping the body and forgets to clean up after himself. And they plant evidence so as to produce a conflicting profile of the killer, while letting the trail lead to a suspect that is complete opposite of what the investigators were expecting. Not very good if you want to have an open and shut case pointing to that person.

Compared to the much more realistic NYPD Blues, the dual interrogation that takes place looks pretty lame, with the investigators laying out their theory and expecting a confession, getting none, they slowly start floating the idea of the first one to snitch gets to live. This is as opposed to playing off each of the perpetrators by revealing their theory as the other suspect's admission. It is much more effective to let the suspects think the incriminating information is obtained from their criminal counterpart as opposed to some wild thing that the detectives dreamed up. And at the end, even if one of the kid's release is obtained by his lawyer, they could continue to play the second kid until he breaks instead of releasing him.

I thought the high tech stuff in the interrogation rooms was going to delve deeper into the suspects than what could be seen with they eye, like voice stress analysis, IR camera for heat distribution in the body and perspiration buildup. But none of those things were there. It was a lot of hype over nothing.

The detective's work seems pretty shoddy for someone who is the best. Missing the ring on the suspect in the first place, apprehending the suspects by telling one to come over and forgetting the other one. They were all critical things in which it affects the story.

As to the second plot, it is a total waste of time. It is about Cassie, having being a victim herself in the past and having it rule her life. Turning her into some character in which her co-workers label as hyena. There is almost no purpose to this subplot, except for the fact she now automatically identifies self-centered rich kids as suspects because she thinks they think they could get away with anything.

There were a few too many of those `Don't go there scenes' for my liking, turning it into one of those cliché scenes in slasher movies. And the final climax with the fake suicide, sudden burst of strength from a person on the verge of passing out and dying, the collapse of the porch, and of course the handling of the stick. It was just too over the top.

The acting was forgetful by Sandra Bullock, she seems to either knows how to play romantic comedy or tomboy roles, with nothing in between. The only person who was good was Michael Pitt, whole played the mysterious recluse genius Justin.

All in all, nothing great about it, but watch-able except for some of the hollywood add-ons.

This film is about Hank, played by Billy Bob Thorton, who caused the suicide of the son that he never loved, all because his son did not live to his standard, set for him by his father when he grew up. Even though he was indifferent to the killing, his eventual probe into his son's death causes him to look into himself and eventual realization that it was his whole self that was at fault. He then goes on to purge every aspect of his life which caused him to be that person he now despises. On the way, he meets up with Leticia, played by Halle Berry, who is also in a state emptiness. Their gradual reliance on each other eventually leads to something more, in which they encounter obstacles they have to overcome.

Billy Bob Thorton does a pretty good job in his role as Hank, showing his redemption from this closet bigoted misogynist to someone completely opposite. Halle Berry is decent, nothing Oscar worthy though. The emotions conveyed are raw, with nothing sentimentalized.

I somehow feel that the script did not delve deep enough into Hank's inner self and emotions in order for him to take upon his quest to purge out the devils within him. Even though his encounter with Leticia was accidental and the buildup of the relationship was gradual. A person with that kind of attitude towards blacks and women will take a bit more to overcome than what was shown on the screen. Billy Bob Thorton could mope all he wants, but that will not convince us that he became a changed person. Somehow, it is as if the middle third of the film has been edited out or something.

In all, still an OK film, just not a totally convincing one.

This film is about how a husband Matt, played by Tom Wilkinson and his wife Ruth, played by Sissy Spacek deals with the murder of their son, and how far they are willing to go through to erase one thing that will forever be a reminder to the event for them.

After their son's death, Matt and Ruth, each with different personalities and views of life, handle their emotions very differently, in which it eventually puts a strain in their marriage. After Ruth constantly runs into her son's killer, who is out on bail, along with the possibility of him being released from jail and back in their life again in only a few years, Matt decides to take care of the situation himself. The method is particularly extreme, but it was the only way, and no doubt that he was persuaded by his friend Willis (who also assisted him) who gives his outsider clinical perspective. We come to realize at the end that it wasn't just Matt taking care of the matter on his own, but Ruth also had knowledge of what's going to happen and was not against it. She was even indifferent to what took place after the fact, all for the sake of her peace of mind. But to give her that, Matt has to live with what he did forever.

I think the movie tries to take the simplistic approach, going for the "get rid of the problem" path too quickly, and too little on dealing with everyone's dilemma and ironies that arise from their actions. What little they do introduce is too easily overshadowed by the climactic event that occurs. Kieslowski's Decalogue or Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter this ain't.

There is very little melodrama in the film, it basically let the events drive itself. Although I do feel in the second half of the film, while the director is trying to show the empty and hollow life the family are experiencing after the murder, he might have dragged some parts a little too long, mostly by letting much of the idle scenes continue just a bit longer that needed. Much of it still could have been conveyed with some trimming to those scenes.

Overall, still a pretty good movie.

Joe the King is about a boy, who having been raised in a broken home with an abusive drunken dad and absent mom, heads the wrong path by stealing ever bigger things and eventually having to face the consequences for it. His only salvation is the crack that has opened between him and his parents, and the humanistic nature to do good in him that has been so overcome by the other things in his daily life.

We're shown Joe coming from a broken home, which is pretty standard in these kinds of movies. That resulted in a boy that doesn't conform to the general crowd and is often confrontational. Stealing doesn't even become a moral issue anymore for him, but an opportunistic one. In the course of the film, we learn that Joe is not stealing for self-fulfillment, but is often out of necessity due to hunger. What we gradually learn is that it is also due to him having a heart deep down inside him, in which he yearns to show his feelings in the only way he can. Instances like giving away most of the ho-ho's that he just stole to a bunch of hungry kids than gathered around him, to him going out of his way to steal food from the grease spoon joint that he works in so that his brother won't go hungry, along with doing the big heist to pay off his forever in-debt father and replace all his mom's records, which were broken in one of his father's drunken rage. At the same time, he rides that bike that is on its last leg, and keeps on wearing those sneakers that are beyond worn out. This is probably why Joe is the King, although reference to it does not indicate why or implies otherwise.

His relationship with his parents is the type where only the basic things are said to each other. His parents, who are so pre-occupied, either being drunk or working to support the family, forgot to realize that the kids needs more than just a roof to live under and barely enough food in the stomach. There is this assumption by the mom that the kids would somehow turn out all right, as long as there is the bare minimal amount parenting involved. Joe yearns for more affection from them, but they do not provide any, and he doesn't know how to open up for it.

In the end, on Joe's last day of freedom, we see a glimpse of hope in him. His yearning for a family truly shows, he tries to go all out on his last meal but cannot indulge on it. And on the final goodbye between him and his parents, the emotional door opens slightly. He still have mountains of hurdle ahead, but the light at the end of the tunnel have gotten a bit brighter.

The movie takes its time telling the story without forcing the big event to happen until the characters are fully developed. Although the event that sends him away does might have been anticlimactic, this is probably due to our assumption that he is heading that way already, and the fact that there is nothing out in the real world for him anyway. It is his self-realization of himself and redemption that has more of significance.

The film does not try to sentimentalize anything, everything is told as is. The acting by Noah Fleiss, playing Joe was very realistic, playing the boy who have never been loved. His mom, played by Karen Young, is really good. Her inability to communicate with Joe, but her feelings for him showing through in her distant expressions. His father, played by Val Kilmer, is mixed. The drunken violent man is played to the extreme, but he does allow the character to have subtleties at the end.

This movie gave a moving portrayal of Native Americans, between ones that wants to dismiss their past and assimilate with the outsider and their cultures, and ones that wants to hang on to their tradition. It shows how some are struggling with keeping their tradition in the modern world that is continuously moving forward, while others are torn between accepting the new and keeping with the old, or even ones who are completely disillusioned with their heritage to the point of violent counter-reactions. It all comes down to a complicated clash between various characters and how each one resolves the issue within itself.

This was a good mystery film too, revealing little by little as to the motive for the murders.

Chris Eyre did a good job in this film, having seen his other movie Smoke Signals, he gives a somber atmosphere to both of these films. Not invoking the usual depressing ambience usually portrayed on these kind of environment, but not over-glorifying any aspects either.

All in all, a worthy film to watch.

Watching Vanilla Sky made you think it is mostly about nothing until you see the David Aames, played by Tom Cruise, in a mask talking to the prison psychiatrist, played by Kurt Russell. Then you wonder what has he done that brings him to this situation. It does lead you through a convoluted story that sometimes didn't make sense, or where character and their relationships did a flip, until it is revealed at the end. It makes you to think about one's whole existence and the perception of reality, and which state are we in now.

Some of the parts were a little forced upon us, mostly the ending, which is like a Scoby-Doo explain it all type of scenario. The appearance of the tech support for a few scenes and his explanation of David's ability to change his outcome did not make too much sense since he seem to be telling David outright that his is not living in reality. And I am not sure how in the world he forget such a shocking experience and did not try to apply it to the tragic experience he was encountering? Others include the beginning scenes where his company is surviving and thriving for any period of time when it is under the control and management of `I don't care about anything beside having fun' David is a little incredible. Also, the belief that one is reliving an album cover makes no sense unless one sees it from the camera perspective, which I presume, would arouse suspicion.

This movie seems to be Tom Cruise's venue to show his acting ability, where he is pretty much driving the whole movie. Kurt Russell and his interaction was not convincing enough for me to believe that David was looking at the Doctor as a father figure and the Doctor was providing that back. And forget Penélope Cruz, her acting ability seems to consist of reciting lines.

Cameron Crowe seem to not be able to get himself out of the 60/70's time period. With these old cars, old music, old album cover, etc. It is great when the plot revolves around it or when it is set in that time period, but when you see everything revolve around it, it kind of detract from the feel of the movie.

A interesting film on lucid dreams is Waking Life, where the subject parallels this film, but with a little more of am I asleep or am I awake question.

Overall, a good film, with some quirks, but with lots of thoughts to ponder upon.

This movie is about a princess simultaneously seducing a prince, his protégé and the protégé's sister, portraying herself as either a man or woman, all in the name of undoing a wrong that her family has done to the prince's a long time ago. It has some wit, with some wordplay, some farce comedy, and the slow breakdown of each of the character giving in to her seduction. But the buildup and final revelation at the end does not have the usual Shakespearean touch, where she would get closer and closer to being revealed, until a final big bang. This film just didn't have that, although it did produce some laughs when the protégé and his sister both come out dressed in clothes they otherwise would never be caught wearing.

The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film. The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.

Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period.