Luluhalabaloo Reviews

Casual (2015–2018)

Huh, so that's why I can't date anymore...

[7/10 · 21 December 2015]

At first glance, the show is full of selfishness, narcissism, and psychopathy. The "selfie" generation. At a deeper level, it is a commentary on the state of parenting and socialization; actually, the lack thereof.

The show focuses on three characters, all of which deeply flawed. Alex and Valerie are children of "me" generation parents, which means that they had to contend with not being the center of attention at all times of their parents. Valerie compensates to a terrible degree, much like most of her generation, in raising her kid. Her kid is a disaster; she was given no boundaries by her mom in her desire to be loved by her child and afraid to lose the attention that she did not get from her own parents. The daughter acts in all kinds of narcissistic, borderline psychopathic ways, and mom, a therapist no less, lets her get away with it because again, her desire to be loved overshadows her requirement to be a responsible parent.

There is no growth in this expose of millennial dysfunction outside of Alex. Maybe because he never had kids he is able to focus on himself and the problems within. He travels from intense swinger without a care to sensitive brother to Mr. Lonely quickly and satisfactorily.

Valerie is a failure as a therapist, and an odd duck to boot. She seems a little mentally unstable altogether, like someone headed for a breakdown perhaps. She is not likable at all, really, she is essentially lousy at everything. She actually can commit, actually commitment doesn't seem to be a problem for any of these characters, but it is to what they commit that is so worrying.

The daughter - this girl is really in trouble mentally. She is so scathed I cannot see her coming out of this without intense therapy, if she isn't already a psychopath and beyond hope. This is through no fault of her own and she should have been actually raised, not liberated way before she matured. This is a real reflection of what these over-permissive parents are doing to their children today and why we are ending up with terribly disturbed kids doing terribly disturbed things, if they don't contract the red measles or pertussis first due to the non-vaxxers.

In terms of the production - the sets are nice and full of interest and very Californian. The acting is good all around. There is a sense of claustrophobia in every scene, not sure if that is a function of the camera work or intentional. No shaky cameras though, big plus. What I am on the fence about and where I cannot score higher is the gratuitously liberal use of swear words and dirty talk (I for one cannot imagine and know no one who would talk with their brother about what Valerie talks about so casually...but maybe I am out of touch?).

As an aside, now I get why I find dating today so disgusting. I don't know, it used to be so much fun getting to know someone and anticipating the "big" night! I feel bad for this whole generation that is missing out on romance and respect.

Prime (2005)

Bad editing or bad filming...

[3/10 · 25 October 2009]

The story drew me as I wanted to see how this scenario played out. Obviously, the reality of it was marred by the fact that Meryl Streep was the boy's mother. That said, I thought that that bit of oddity would add some comic relief once Rafi found out. But it didn't. In fact, the discovery was completely anti-climactic, and therefore a huge disappointment. But the story was real in a lot of ways and dealt with issues facing an "upside-down" relationship. As for the acting, I found that the boy's acting was so slow, so quiet, I almost wanted to shake the TV to wake him up. He was boring. Cute, but boring. Uma Thurman I like normally, and she is good in this, realistic. But poor Meryl Streep, what a waste of her talent. Either she was really not into it, or she was showing up for the money, or the part was just that bad. With a better script, I think the part could've been great for her, so that is too bad. As for the flow, blech, and that's the reason for the 3. It moved so slowly, but it didn't flow, and I don't know how one achieves that, but either the editing was awful or the directing stunk. Almost elementary, like a first time at the feature film genre, there were so many scenes that didn't really flow nicely, so you had to wonder "hmmm, did I fall asleep for a few seconds and miss something?" Even if you left the film script as is, I would take another shot at the editing and try again to get some flow so even if it slow and thoughtful, you stayed engaged instead of having to pop out of the film when it suddenly shifts.

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

A TV movie at best

[3/10 · 19 January 2009]

I had high expectations for this film, loving everything about that time frame. But when it first began, I thought that this looked like a made for TV movie and checked the listing again.

I found the film very claustrophobic, dark, dull and frankly, boring. The costumes were awful - silly really. The girls looked like twins with only the colour of the dresses telling them apart. The dresses were dull, no great patterns, jewelry, or anything remarkable. Even the hair just look flat ironed and boring. True to the time? I don't know - I cannot imagine that they really did not have more variety.

Makeup? Hello! Where was the makeup artist? Even the Egyptians wore makeup. And I could not look at those weird hats after a while. Really? Everyone wore them? Without much variety again? It seemed like all the costumes were recycled over and over again.

The movie felt filmed on sets for almost everything. There was never a sense of space to me, just one set to another, and some really strange shots as if there was a limited space so we needed a body part up close like an elbow then another character in the distance to indicate space. This seemed like a very under-budget way of directing to me.

The acting though I enjoyed, and even if the story wasn't entirely factual, it was fun, and seemed to ring true as to the nature of Anne Boleyn.

Ultimately, this seemed like a TV movie fitted to the big screen (as opposed to the usual vice versa). So much room for so much gorgeousness, wasted in tight shots and dinginess.

The Number 23 (2007)

23 Skidoo

[6/10 · 15 March 2008]

The movie's pacing was too slow and pedantic for my taste perhaps, relying too much on visual gimmickry. I did, however, enjoy Jim Carrey -comedians tends to have a dark side to them and in this way he gets to play it out (maybe that'll prevent him from sinking into a deep depression, psychosis or suicide). I was not crazy about Virginia Madsen in either of her roles - she seemed too matronly for the femme fatale and too old for the wife. She is wonderful but a tough one to cast because she looks so steady, stable and mature which ages her. In fact, while lying on her side on the bed sleeping at the end of the nightmare scene, she looked like Bette Davis in All About Eve.

What I was really impressed with was the introduction where the significant events encompassing the number 23 are flashed. I would bet there were 23 flashes as well, but I could not count during this viewing. The 23 stabs that was flashed? Ceasar was stabbed 23 times. Dr. Sirius Leary (seriously?) is interesting because Sirius the Dogstar rising from behind the sun on July 23 signifies the start of the dog days of summer. In Airport, the mad bomber sat in seat 23. There are lots of '23' referrals (for more 23's,see http://www.geocities.com/fairyoflyonnesse/ as well as other sites).

And let's not forget 23 Skidoo, the 23rd Chapter called Skidoo in Aleister Crowley's Book of Lies in which the commentary says 23 Skidoo means "get out" and the chapter describes "a man ridding himself of all his accidents". I believe that Walter Sparrow says something of the sort. It almost seems as if the movie was based on that chapter.

The Astronaut's Wife (1999)

If only I hadn't already seen Devil's Advocate...

[3/10 · 23 October 2005]

Wow. If I shut my eyes, I would swear that was Matthew McConaughey. Johnny Depp is excellent at finding inspiration for roles and making it apparent to us, but in this case, I was disappointed. While he was eerie, his voice and accent really reminded me of The Wedding Planner so I couldn't really take him seriously, and much as I like Matthew McConaughey, I get really tired of his accent. So, I was tired of listening to Johnny early in the game.

And the visual didn't help either. I also love Val Kilmer – anyone remember how cool he looked in sunglasses in Top Gun? Well, if you don't, he looked like Johnny Depp's character in sunglasses. Too much identification with current and overused characters.

But wait, it didn't end there. Charlize Theron – Devil's Advocate wife Revisited? An almost identical performance in an almost identical role. I don't like it when an actor invades a role and similarities between roles exist due to the actors themselves, and this is what I felt happened with Theron's character.

In terms of the film, I couldn't figure out the time frame. I know it was the shuttle, etc., but the dress of Natalie Streck seemed so '60s or early '70s. Then fast forward to a modern haircut on Theron and that apt in NY, but with an old radio that transformed into a pretty good sound system at one point. The radio that Natalie had was very '50s – it all seemed off in time. Finally, when at the end, Theron has on a '70s brown wig and looks right out of the '50s, again. I am in my 5th decade so it isn't as if I hadn't been there when we landed on the moon and saw how the astronauts' wives used to look.

Redeemingly, though, the movie had a dark, artsy feel, and if I hadn't seen Devil's Advocate, I may have actually enjoyed it. I liked the ending, although I think that Theron could have looked as menacingly as she did after she was invaded, but she seemed her old self a little bit and that was disappointing. The twins were great, however, and I hope that there will be sequel but without the unfortunate title of "The Astronaut's Wife II". I would like to see what happens with the twins, how they will work together, and how the aircraft they will build will hurt humanity. That would be interesting. The twins could almost make good comic book antiheroes (or heroes thanks to her pre-invasion genes!).

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

It's a Small Small World catches fire - we can only hope

[9/10 · 10 October 2005]

This film translates so well to IMAX, where I saw it with with my 12-year-old son. There is no question that a film adapted for IMAX just adds so much! Besides the classic Tim Burton look, it takes you right into the film as opposed to simply watching the film. But the real scene stealer, the man of the show, of course was Johnny Depp.

There is not one movie in which he plays a part that doesn't cave to his on-screen charisma. It is so obvious that Johnny loves to act and loves to act in fun, character-driven roles. Every look, swing of the hand, and grimace has intelligent nuance and meaning behind it. This brings such a robust, well-rounded attitude to the character of Willy Wonka, and frankly, one that only a parent could love.

His dismissal of the kids, not so much the words other than the "what would it matter" or the "stop mumbling" lines, but the looks he gives, the "smiles" or grimaces, the wave of his hand when he first starts the tour, all reminiscent of a parent who has, well, had enough for awhile and really doesn't like kids all that much anyway.

But how about his lascivious look at Violet's mother? Johnny Depp can look at me anytime like that - so sexy - he becomes an adult right there...or,the crazy loon look when they were going "up and out"? Only Johnny Depp can channel his other characters, like Hunter S. Thompson (Raoul Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) in the jungle scene especially peeking out from beneath his hat, walking in that unique Raoul Duke - wait a minute Raould Dahl/Raoul Duke - whoa - way (yes, he does the swagger in the jungle) or trying the green bug slime (andrenachrome anyone?), or Edward Scissorhands (papa? sniff sniff) and get away with it as only Johnny Depp can. It's almost like a separate Johnny Depp sub-culture that permeates all his films now - and I like it!

There were lots of adult jokes ("don't touch the squirrel's nuts, that makes him crazy"), or "try some of my grass". There were drug references like the repeating of the same thing (hmmm, grass?) and the phasing out (hmmm, grass again? or just tired of the kids...). And if you are a parent sandwiched between kids and older parents, you will get the old people jokes. (My son couldn't stop laughing at his look when visiting his father - he says I get the same look on my face when visiting my mom or dad).

I also loved the "white hair" look - there were absolutely no adults over 21 in the crowd but me, so I was the only one laughing when he held his new white hair up and looked at it with that look that only those of us who have lived through the first white hair go through. Which brings me to the Good morning, star shine line - immediately Hair - which just cemented for me the idea that this movie is geared to 40-somethings.

My son saw a lot of me in Johnny Depp's performance which meant to me that the performance itself was recognizable as a disgusted parent speaking with that "I'm going to kill you but we are in public now" teeth talk which is so familiar to many, especially those around grandparents and kids too much and are starting to be not overly fond of either.

Interestingly, the elevators were hilarious - I used to have nightmares about elevators going in all directions and I was speechless when I saw it in this movie. That, along with the boat ride - heck you can almost see the Disney ride! There were obvious references to that stoner of a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey,and in my opinion, when the puppets are singing a la "It's a Small Small World" Disney ride which bursts in flames (we can only hope), and I even thought "The Fly" with the teleporter, along with, or course, "Hair". The "relatively new" puppet hospital and burn centre, the pink sheep, can't see them as kiddie jokes, and his braces/headgear - oh yeah, so reminiscent of my 70's teenage years (although I too have oddly perfect teeth as do my all my 40 something cousins). And the platform boots/"Prince" get up...so 40 something.

I'll tell you, at the beginning I half expected Vincent Price to pop out during the chocolate making scene - wow, how Edward Scissorhands. And frankly, the hut and the snow - Fiddler on the Roof meets Beetlejuice. Actually, the TV scene set reminded me of "The Prisoner (the 60's show). I bet there is a ton of stuff I am missing but I only saw the movie once so once I see it again, maybe I will post some more if I see anything else! And maybe have a glass of wine before...

A kid's movie? I don't know, really. My son caught the adult jokes because he would look sidelong at me each time they happened (like the squirrel's nuts joke) which he has been doing lately now that the jokes aren't flying over his head like they used to when he was younger. Johnny Depp is not a child's actor per se, but a smart kid can appreciate some of the things he says and does, as most adults can. This movie seems to be riddled with inside, 40-something culture knocks - no one in the theatre laughed until someone laughed at us because they were all too young to relate.

Definitely one of the smartest movies around - and much as I love chocolate, I wish to never get fat and stuck in a tube or be rolled around for de-juicing. New nightmares to add on to my collection of sideways elevator rides.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

Two words: Vince Vaughn

[9/10 · 14 July 2005]

This is funny. Not in a stupid, teenage sort of way, but rather in a purely for adults way. The opening was priceless, with the audience gasping in laughter at Vince Vaughn's comments to the divorced couple, while seemingly relating to the scene itself (obviously, the majority of the audience had been through a divorce, it seemed). The film then oddly slows down to loud music and a frenzied tempo, and although I have never experienced that kind of weirdness, I am reading Hunter S. Thompson again so I can "dig it". It finally picked up, and from there, the fun lasted until the sappy beach scene which was a little nauseating, but I think we kind of needed a rest from laughing and straining to hear every word coming from Vince's mouth.

In an Benny Hill sort of way, it was campy too, which would appeal to those over 40. This makes the film so much more attractive to a middle aged group that is not baby boomer but early gen-x. Owen is a good straight man, but has his great straight comedic moments at the right time. Christopher Walken is in enough of the movie to satisfy me, and the bedroom scene, well, that was just...so...brilliant.

But Vince Vaughn, he was 6'5" of hunk, a little meaner and more cynical than in Dodgeballand that's where the comedy really shone. My love of Will Ferrel has been replaced, finally and totally. Vince can deliver words so fast yet so clearly and also understand what he is saying! He doesn't ever break character,and he has superb timing.He doesn't look like he is having fun,he is serious,and takes his "fun" seriously in this film, which is so funny for Vince Vaughn. He stole every scene he was in, and his psycho girlfriend was an excellent match for him and when they interacted, it was magic. That bedroom scene, simply a classic.

Owen was cute, as always, with hints of his Zoolander character here and there. But to me, Will Ferrel really kind of surprised me. His character seemed old, or he looked old, actually, he looked like the "Darrin" in Bewitched! That's it! He didn't seem to really bring anything to the flick for me - he was grosser than his character in Anchorman (and I hated that movie), and really, his comedy was more of the teenage boy sort of stuff that the movie up till then really didn't portray. I was sick and tired of his physical stuff, but maybe I just didn't get that humour. I noticed that the laughter during his parts was deeper than otherwise, which means more men laughed than women. I loved him in Elf ("Does it have sugar in it? Then...YES!") and many other things, he was my favourite for a long time, but, it seemed that this part was written in strictly for him and really wasn't necessary. It is almost scary that Will has already hit the "cameo" stage when he hadn't really peaked yet - I wonder if we will see great full-time work out of him ever now.

This is a comedy for adults, for men and women, for first dates, for group outings, and for those of us who grew up in the 70's and are still cool (or at least, WE think so...).

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

This movie could have been a great "what-if"

[7/10 · 2 July 2005]

This is a film I could really get into because I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, lately the home of extreme weather. We just recently had freak thunderstorms and days of rain resulting in heavy, prairie engulfing flooding. As my basement flooded and I couldn't stop it, and my backyard became a lake, I wondered what would happen if the rain didn't stop. Winnipeg lies in the grip of deadly cold for weeks at a time, but somehow, this rain disturbed me. So, as soon as the rain subsided, I went to rent a video and the movie jumped out at me.

What was right? The graphics were great, especially in the first hour. The ideas were sound, at the beginning. I was excited – I thought I had it on a more or less realistic "what-if" that I could almost identify with! But no. It degenerated so fast it was ridiculous. Let's start with the obvious. When it gets really cold and icy, cold enough to freeze 4 feet or so of salinated ocean water, you are not going to be touching metal with your bare hands. But, that's what our friend Sam Hall did. Over and over again. And again. Jumping down the stairs as his hand glides effortlessly over the steel banner. Grabbing at metal runs, ledges, and so forth, and holding on and releasing with no trouble.

Let me describe a very very common event here in winter. I bet more than half the population of the US would be familiar from a very young age with this kind of story. Years ago, I placed my little boy in a metal shopping cart to go grocery shopping. It was about -20° outside (farenheit or Celsius, really doesn't matter when it is that cold) and there was a slight breeze. Not a bad winter eve. He was of course completely swaddled, except for his tongue. He just discovered that he needed to lick everything, and as I locked the car, I caught him in the corner of my eye dropping his head down to the metal cart. I knew what he was going to do, and screamed, but it was too late. We know what happens. He is now completely stuck.

I was panicked. I headed for the store quickly, all the time spitting on his tongue to warm it up while screaming for someone to bring warm water. Once we got in the store and got warm water, his tongue released. So what's the lesson here? First of all, all the better stores only use plastic carts now, and second, why the heck would the film research team not ensure they knew enough about cold weather to be a little more realistic? All they had to do was phone anyone over 2 north of the imaginary line they drew in the film.

The second obvious thing – no breath vapour. So I guess it wasn't really all that cold. And the snow really looked like that artificial plastic snow. They need to improve those flakes. If the flakes were really that big, they would be more moist and it would be warmer outside and the flakes would clump together. If it is that cold, the flakes are very tiny and hard and glimmer like diamonds and are powdery. Also, it doesn't snow when it gets that cold. And yes, the penicillin would have been frozen.

And the deep freeze chasing our Sam like something out of a Stephen King novel. Is this a horror flick or a catastrophe movie? And the door, yes the door would keep out this cold. Let me tell you something. Once, on Christmas eve, my furnace stopped working. It was cold out, about -30° with a really high wind chill. It was bad. Within an hour, my house cooled down to needing jackets. You felt it right away. If we had to go all night without a furnace, the results would not have been too good. So no, a door does not keep out -30° cold, much less the deep cold in the movie. It just breaks the wind. And by the way, the car needs to be plugged in to start in the morning at those temperatures using a block warmer which keeps the oil from freezing.

As for gas lines freezing, that is true. Once, in Minnesota in the dead of winter, my car's gas line froze while driving on the interstate. This is common, and there are additives especially for this kind of occurrence.

On to the plot. Why the wolves. What in the heck did they add? They were very poorly rendered – animals and people are difficult to render and easy to spot as CGI because of irregular weight distribution leading to odd movements. The wolves were laughable and stupid, and provided no addition to the plot line whatsoever? So what if they escaped? And then they bit the rich kid's leg, but then what? And why? And the whole septic shock thing with the girl so they would have a sequence on the boat. Really.

This movie could have been a great "what-if". But it failed and that is simply too bad. I could have seen it playing in schools to teach the effects of global warming. Required viewing for everyone. But the plot and technical failures simply ruined it.

I give it a 7 for special effects and the first hour or so, but it really is more on the level of a 5 if not for the good intentions behind this film.

The Sea Is Watching (2002)

Vivid view of the seamier side of old Japan

[8/10 · 26 June 2005]

The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.

While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true – people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes – au contraire – but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.

Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the "honey – I'll give you a deal" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Oh Anakin! I have lost my will to live and take care of my children!

[6/10 · 5 June 2005]

I saw the original Star Wars when it was released and loved it. I mercifully slept through all the other ones when I took my kids. Today, my youngest finally persuaded me to see ROTS promising me I could once again sleep through it, but I really did want to see the story behind Darth Vader. I had the supreme fortune never having seen all the other ones, just the original and way back when. So, I thought it would be really interesting to see how I would react.

And I will say, love and hate. The love first: I loved the special effects. I thought that they were fun and reminiscent a little of the chase scenes in the original and following the same general action sequence. I can never get enough of really good special effects, especially in space. Hey, I was thrilled by the warp thing, so you can see I am easy to please.

And that's about it for love. Now the hate, that's something else. The acting – oh my gosh, the acting. Yes, I know it's basically an action film and therefore, acting comes secondary. But my gosh, was there really no way that the acting could have been improved? By the third time we watch Anakin and Padme together, my son was going: "here we go again". It was getting so tiresome, watching these two in such great love that Padme would die because she lost the will to live and take care of her children and Anakin would turn to the dark side to prevent Padme from dying. Uh, no, not believable at all. Insulting to our intelligence, really.

A saving grace would be the dissolution of Anakin's values. This could have been involved, complicated, complex and full of moralizing and analysis, and thereby could have been used as a great lesson for kids. But instead, we got a very silly and stupid reason for Anakin's turn to the dark side. My son summed it up with a comment that Anakin was very weak anyway and he was getting weaker with the other prequels so it wasn't so hard to believe he could be so easily convinced. In other words, he wasn't much of a man anyway so big deal. That would've made him a weak Darth Vader – so now I have to watch the original again to see this Darth Vader, whom I loved because he was so strong, in a new, weaker light. How could such a weakling become that huge, menacing Darth Vader?? Implausible. And if Anakin were really stronger, he would have had a much more complex descent into hell, especially if he was prompted more primarily by the pursuit of power, which he wasn't really – it seemed just an adjunct to his ridiculous excuse of dreams. I am so sorry that I was disappointed since that was what I stayed awake for in this movie.

The Chancellor was good but it was so obvious he was on the dark side. You have to wonder at how this movie is just for the masses which is fine but I think the masses are just a little brighter than that. There were also no funny parts – moments of mirth to lift the darkness, maybe a little sarcasm here and there.

I found the pacing slow, and in triplicate. Everything seemed to move in a sequence, to be repeated in a more evil or action way each time. For example, Anakin and Padme yapping, the Jedi talking, fighting. Then, once again. Then again. Even the fight scenes seem to happen in bursts of three, which gets tiring after a while because it isn't sustained. Eventually, the empty promises lower expectations and that's what I think finally happened.

I liked the film in general, but I wouldn't say it was the brainteaser of the century. But then, this is mostly for kids, so what should I be expecting I guess. 4 for special effects, 2 for story and acting.

The Terminal (2004)

Simple children's fable uselessly made into PG-13

[5/10 · 21 May 2005]

This movie is exactly what I expected. A foreign traveler is forced to stay in the airport while his passport/visa is sorted out. I heard of the story a long time ago and found it interesting even then. But, I suspect that the real story is stranger than fiction as usual, and finally am disappointed with the film for a number of reasons.

Tom Hanks is good in this film. He looks the part: a simple, fretful, not particularly stunning individual who cannot speak the language. But I wonder if there wasn't a bit of stereotyping that is somewhat passé here, which become tiresome rather quickly. In fact, all the characters seem to have been a product of generic outlining, without nuance or distinctly humanistic individualism.

For example, Amelia the Stewardess fit into most of our collective impressions of what a stewardess is all about. As in Catch me if you Can, the Stewardess is a pretty, young, somewhat vapid but adventuresome girl who is not a mother, a daughter or a wife. I wonder if Mr. Spielberg has something about stewardesses! But to be serious, Amelia was a not a disappointment as she acted the stewardess stereotype. And her final act had nothing to do with "sacrificing herself" for Viktor, but rather as an apology for hurting Viktor by returning to her married lover. And that's all, folks.

I loved the Indian Janitor. He was funny. One wonders how many times people throw up in the middle of floors judging by the number of "wet floor" signs appear in obscure, right-in-the-way places. From now on, I will look for the janitor watching! But some questions: so why did he walk out to get caught? He didn't know that security knew what he was all about – which brings me to a second question: why hadn't they deported him till now? The Indian came to America to escape what he had to face back home. It was cowardly, and he knew it, but lived with it and became wary and unfulfilled. Viktor retained his dignity and honesty but not admitting he feared his homeland in order to get out of the terminal, and this was inspiring to the Janitor, and he decided to do the right thing and head home. I don't believe he "sacrificed" himself in order to keep Viktor from being deported. And that says more about Viktor's character, and the janitor's for that matter, than the "sacrifice" idea.

The romance between the customs agent Torres and Luna is funny – first, her name – Torres, from Star Trek Voyager - and she is a "trekkie", as is he. So now we know that they are riding on a different cloud than us, and that "trekkie" thing is apparently pretty darn important. So love at first ring shouldn't be so strange – it's just that she doesn't "look" like a typical "trekkie" convention goer, I guess, and usually girls that stunning don't go for immigrant food handlers...but maybe that's just observation and experience talking. It certainly was optimistic! Viktor's ode to Amelia of the fountain was just plain weird. Why didn't it work? Because it represented how the relationship would never work, I suppose, or foreshadowed how he would never be able to make the relationship work, but it seemed like a big waste of film time – I didn't get much out of it, and frankly, it looked ugly.

And then, finally, Viktor's reason for coming to America – to get a signature for his dad. A lot of money for a poor country guy to fly to America for one hour or so to get a signature and fly home. Now that is the most unrealistic thing I have ever heard. If you are going to work all your life (which judging by Viktor's clothes and demeanor, it looks like he wasn't wealthy) for a ticket to America and then stay for an hour, that was just plain unbelievable. Perhaps it was supposed to smack of the chicness of Catch Me if You Can, but it failed and wasn't a surprise ending.

This wasn't a film that really caught the real story behind the strangeness of a scenario where a man is caught between countries. It didn't catch it and exploit the ludicrousness of the situation, or the comical take on it either. The film seemed to straddle between children's fable and simplistic entertainment. From the simple no-goodness of the security chief to the simple sweetness of the big security guy, this was not a film that would tickle anyone's intellectual funny bone, and frankly, I don't think it was intended as such. If the few swear/sexual words uttered by the inglorious Amelia and the drug smuggling scene were cut out, this could have been a good teaching movie for kids.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

Gorgeous, beautiful, chick and guy flick

[9/10 · 15 May 2005]

This is a visually stunning, well-acted and well-filmed movie. It is safe for all to see and appreciate, which makes it a joy to share the experience.

The colours, the set up, the choreography, the visuals, even the story were well-integrated and very well thought out. It seemed that nothing, nothing was left to chance, was left in in the hopes that no one would notice. Only once tiny scene bothered me -the part where Jin and Mei were caught in the Bamboo forest and the bad guys were throwing their bamboo spears around them and creating that cage. They stood there and shook, but their movements didn't seem to quiet coordinate with the actual sticks - almost too much movement,maybe a little fake. That was the only thing though that I noticed, and although it did burst the illusion a bit, I rapidly returned into the story and got lost once again.

The costumes, oh my gosh, and the Peony palace. I was so depressed right after viewing the film because I want to go there now! 9 out of 10 - really great entertainment!

Vanity Fair (2004)

Elle Woods redecorating Sir Pitt's place...with a little Moulin Rouge dance thrown in for good measure

[5/10 · 15 May 2005]

First, let's get the nice stuff out of the way. The costumes, the sets, the Indian influence, the cinematography, all nice stuff. Now...

I spent the first 1/2 hour trying to guess at the actually plot, you know, what is the situation? What are we trying to get to? What is the story? I grabbed a bottle of wine and settled down to what I realized was going to be a "telling" with no real storyline. This is not Valmont or Dangerous Liaisons. Or even Desiree.

I tried to see Reese Witherspoon with different eyes. Between the wine and the suspension of disbelief, it worked a little, until she gave the Elle Woods smile and bright eyes when Sir Pitt saw what she had done with his castle. Oh my! I even dreamt that stupid face Elle Woods face and screamed. It took a while to get over that and try to buy into the film again, and I met with some success when she gave some interesting looks that were obviously in the right character. So Reese is capable, just not consistent, and obviously true to her Elle Woods character. I would love this film to get redone, even with Reese and all the other characters intact, but just a refilming to see if we can't weed out the plot issues and character presentation flaws of the portrayal of Becky. I bet the second time around, Reese would do great.

For every possibly bad Becky act came a legitimate explanation for her "bad behaviour". I think what best illustrates this problem is every time someone says that she is awful, destroys things in her path, I couldn't find anything in her or what she did that backed those statements up. This was very, very disconcerting. I kept feeling as if I fell asleep and missed something! And that dance, that dance. Oh Reese, ow. Shades of Moulin Rouge anyone? Most of the movie I spent looking for her pregnancy and how they were covering it up. I hate when stars are pregnant when making a movie that concentrates on the costumes and such. I feel ripped off - much like in Chicago when Catherine Zeta-Jones was pregnant, and frankly, she didn't look great in Chicago at all. She looked overweight and paunchy, not like she looks now. That isn't fair to the movie goers. I want escapism, not to be reminded of the very real condition of the stars. Almost like the stars supersede the characters. No integrity in that.

At first, I thought of Gone with the Wind set in the 1800's, and I was angry because I thought this was a blatant copy. Then I realized that Vanity Fair came first and I now I am disappointed in Margaret Mitchell as it seems like she almost plagiarized Vanity Fair to come up with GWTW.

I am very very disappointed with the film. Is there nothing original out there anymore? Is everything done to death - even the needless dance scene from Moulin Rouge? Did the director simply subconsciously do the same shots, or was it a conscious act? Did the Director not realize that Reese was giving the innocent Elle Woods face without even trying to allow Reese to show some evilness in the smile - just some flicker of ulterior motive? I give the film a 5 for prettiness, but that's it.

Sideways (2004)

"Dumb and Dumber" meets "Very Bad Things"

[5/10 · 14 May 2005]

Sideways hit me as a very plausible plot: a best man treating his best friend to a weeklong jaunt before his wedding. This happens often in movies and in real life. It is what happens during these outings and like "Very Bad Things", not always are these outings as fun as they were expected. But that doesn't excuse unbelievably transparent and formulaic scenes trying to appear as something they are not.

In terms of the believability: Miles seems intelligent and informed about what he likes, but it is obvious he is very mild-mannered, afraid and depressed. I think we all know someone like him. His friend, Jack, is a selfish, self-centered, instant gratification type of guy who knows he is attractive and charismatic which when coupled with a general lack of intelligence and a good dose of boorishness is a dangerous thing.

Maya is great. She is patient; she genuinely likes Miles in that female caring for a broken child sort of way, and could grow to actually love him. Miles is lovable - he seems innocent and incapable of actually hurting someone maliciously. That being said, Miles' behaviour stealing from his mom/running away from her on her birthday seems incongruous and I personally cannot understand why that scene was included. There is a deleted scene of Miles hitting a dog that linked to the stealing behaviour, but to include one and not the other seemed to not create whatever kind of case the director had in mind (Miles had a dark side? Would he become Darth Miles later? Or was it to show that we all have an ugly side to us – what a revelation.) Stephanie is interesting. I am not a Sandra Oh fan – I find her smug at all times and cannot shake it. Her letting Jack get close to her daughter in all of 24 hours was bizarre but happens all the time as women look for surrogate fathers. And Jack did treat the daughter amazingly lovingly, which is the "good" side of Jack (developing inversely to Miles' retreat from the "bad" side in terms of the pacing of the movie). But he mislead her, and she embarrasses all single moms by the way she was taken in. She must protect her daughter first and she didn't, but sadly this happens all the time too. Her hitting him is not justified – she could have been arrested, and then what would have happened to Sienna? Stephanie is selfish and her and Jack were a good couple as they put sex before anything and everything else and recognized in each other the snakes that they both were.

The scene with the waitress and the husband – no, it didn't seem that there was any point except to serve as a catalyst for Jack's "turnaround" if he indeed had one. But then, it was interesting to note how that waitress was the one dowdy character in the film and it was assumed by Jack that it would be "grateful" sex, but that she was the only one married (while all the other good looking people were divorced). It was also an added twist that there house was a wreck as the husband was gross and they both seemed to use her cheating as input to their sex lives. She just didn't seem that way, did she? But then, so what?!

And that brings me to my conclusion – so what. This movie had nothing of real consequence to say, nothing to learn, nothing to really feel strongly about, nothing new. Had this film been made in the '70's, then perhaps it would have been more groundbreaking as these kinds of friendships and trips and lazy events were just budding. The director even comments on how he wanted to have a '70's feel to the movie. Too bad he didn't make it then. Apart from the texture of the film which I enjoyed and some of the frames, generally, the film said absolutely nothing we didn't already know, and it even fails as a "Dumb and Dumber" for the divorced, 40's set. I felt like the director had watched "Very Bad Things" a thousand times and wanted to make a similar movie but set it in something really out there, like a wine-tasting tour. Apart from the wine influence, the rest of the film is mundane, predictable, and frankly, insulting to our intelligence. Nothing smart here. It seems like the director made a supposedly sophisticated movie for the masses that the masses would "get" and feel great about "getting". Does he think that we are that dumb? In the Special stuff DVD, he seemed as smug and "holier-than-thou" as Sandra Oh – Oh yeah, they're married. That explains it.

The Fountainhead (1949)

Remember the split of Capt Kirk?

[8/10 · 24 February 2005]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is as true in this movie as Roark's integrity. I think the screenplay was as close to the book as can be, thanks to her commitment. I had understand that at the end, she was not happy with the movie, that she knew that Gary Cooper didn't get it, that she wanted to distance herself from the movie. I believe the directing was awful, even more so than GC. Dominique had only one face throughout the movie, albeit fairly well-drawn. But the movie to me became more of a love story than anything else. It seemed to shine a spotlight and take on the life of the one weakness of the Fountainhead, the silly overly-dramatic romantic proclamations. It takes effort to get past the love story to the real meat of the movie (and Ayn Rand's effort) which is the dialogue and actions, and thus the message.

But, with all that said, the book is long and difficult whereas the movie compresses in a lighter, more easily digestible way Rand's philosophy and therefore is an excellent introduction to her writing. She was brilliant, just brilliant, and her fears of "collectiveness" and altruism are such a great motivating force for the striving for greatness. No one should ever aspire to be average and mediocre and children should learn this early so that horrible things like WWII and communism will have some challenge from strong, smart individuals.

Casablanca celebrated the hero in man really and I am not entirely sure that was a secondary story to the love story. We need to start celebrating man and mankind again. To become responsible for our own actions and not blame them on God or luck or fate. I cannot see Rand ever buying a lottery ticket, or relying on others to define her values. If children can learn early on that it is very important not to settle, not to cater to the lowest common denominator, in spite of the teachers who teach to the average and expect no more, these children will have the strength to say "no" when the time comes, and will not look for social acceptance to validate their own existence. We as parents can only look out for them for a little bit - the best we can do for them is instill in them a healthy self-esteem and ego.

I am always reminded of Ayn Rand is the Star Trek episode when Capt Kirk is split in two by the transporter. One half is his ego, the other half is not. His ego is winning. His weak half gets weaker, and he says he needs his alter, his ego, to be strong and be able to make decisions. I use that episode often to illustrate that ego is not bad and it is necessary in order to take responsibility and create values for oneself. I would love to know whether the writer of that episode read Ayn Rand...

The World According to Garp (1982)

A great movie, well paced and human - reminiscent of Ayn Rand influences

[8/10 · 6 February 2005]

After so many years, I finally saw the movie and was moved. I haven't yet read the book, but will now to fill in the pieces like why Pooh hates Garp.

The movie discusses, albeit appropriately cursorily, the difference between feminism and extreme cult behaviour using feminism as the excuse, and the irony is that Jenny had a boy, not a girl. Robin Williams was terrific as the suffering Garp, dealing with complex issues such as the surrounding the unique circumstances surrounding his birth which he seems to ignore while focusing on the idea of a dad. Garp was a man of unrealized dreams that he blamed both on his dad and his mom – his dream of flying and his dream of popular writing. Both his parents apparently achieved their dreams, much to Garp's quiet chagrin.

But Garp did achieve a marriage and to his college sweetheart no less. But even that was faulted, and almost ended up in destruction. What is particularly vexing in this relationship is how he could have forgiven her for the circumstances surrounding Walter's death, and even more perplexing, how she could have forgiven herself? And strictly in respect to the movie, was Helen supposed to be blandly and badly acted by an actress with absolutely no character, no personality, no charisma, and very ordinary in the attractiveness department? I watched, I looked at different angles, I concentrated – but Helen was not a person that lit up the screen in any way, and there was no chemistry between her and anyone. I am hoping that was deliberate, and upon the reading the book I shall find out. If it wasn't deliberate casting, then this would be the one truly disappointing factor in the whole movie.

Glenn Close and John Lithgow were tremendous. Glenn Close was strong and stood up straight and proud – she reminded me of an Ayn Rand heroine except that she was a bit of a do-gooder in the end. That said, was she really? Why did she open up her house to these women? Was she simply lonely and had all this money and nothing to do with it? Did she feel guilty about stealing her son's literary limelight? She didn't write the book because she wanted to help women. But then, what was her motivation for writing the book? Why did she write it when she knew it would compete with her son? She is not well-explained in the movie, but ultimately her comment at the end that she "didn't want to be the granny in the house" seemed to underline her "selfishness" which is not unhealthy at all (she does not live vicariously through others or through the controlling of others – she lives for herself and is true to herself). I do believe that Jenny was modeled after an Ayn Rand heroine. Three cheers!!! I am going to read more John Irving books to see if he has other Ayn Rand influences of if this was just a fluke. With that said, one comment I will make is that Ayn Rand never really deals with children and she had none of her own I believe, so her philosophy doesn't always extend well to parents and this may be John Irving's attempt (unintentional or not) at that which I do appreciate. By the way, a character of Ayn Rand's epic "Atlas Shrugged" is named Galt – it may be interested to reread and note any similarities between Garp and Galt.

Definitely a movie to see, especially single moms and sons which have very special issues associated with the missing role model "dad".

Bullets Over Broadway (1994)

Potentially hilarious, but only with Woody on-screen

[8 August 2004]

I love Woody Allen. But his talent is really an on-screen thing for me, although of course his writing is so creative and lucid. With that being said, this movie had all the opportunity to be hilarious, but failed because Woody was missing.

There is nothing to read into this movie; everything is laid out right there for the audience and it is therefore pure entertainment. This is what Woody wanted, as I understand it, and he achieves just that. The script, the story line, the lines themselves, the colour, the characters, the "bad play" feel were all there. But the one connecting character, the writer, just couldn't make it really work.

John Cusak was the disappointment. But can you blame him really? These were Woody lines, Woody gestures, Woody self-discussions. John just isn't Woody, and the part just wasn't John. The characters complained repeatedly that they were not comfortable in their lines - that's exactly how John Cusak came across to me. And how could he be? There is only one Woody. Maybe Woody needed to write the part away from the type of character he is so someone else can fill the role because his type is so pervasive and reliant on his particular delivery. I felt sorry for Cusak, and I was sorry it wasn't Woody. I spent the whole movie imagining it was Woody in that role, and it became really funny only then.

I think we all hate bad, overacted plays, and this movie played like a camera is mounted and we are watching a bad play with bad actors being rehearsed. Lots of intentional yelling, grandiose gestures, overdone acting, but with Woody in the writer's role, it would have been particularly hilarious because he would provide the one sane side (which is saying alot) to the whole thing. John Cusak tried, but couldn't pull off that unique reaction that says "who are these people and what am I doing here and oy if my mother only knew where I was" the way Woody can (like in the scene when Cusak first meets the mob boss and Olive - can't you just see Woody in that role?). The whole situation with gangsters, falling in love with a grande dame and taking writing tips from a killer seemed almost acceptable with John Cusak in the role, yet would be absolutely and completely preposterous with a very Jewish and nebbish Woody. Maybe you gotta be Jewish to be able to appreciate the whole displaced bit...

Instead of saying "Hilarious!" on the back cover of the DVD, it should have said "Potentially Hilarious!" because it had the potential of being the one of Woody's best if Woody was there. But as it stands, oy vaiz meer.

The In-Laws (I) (2003)

What an unexpectedly fun movie!

[9/10 · 6 June 2004]

POSSIBLE SPOILER!!!

I love this film! From the opening scenes with the revised Live and Let Die to the song playing when they go for a "soak", this was fun fun fun!

Michael Douglas sheds his "serious" side and glides between his adventurer with a sense of humour to a shot reminiscent of his soliloquy in "Wall Street". This is the Michael Douglas I love. His hair was always perfect, his clothes dashing, his dialogue easy and believable.

The pace was perfect, never hitting a mid-movie slowdown. Characters were introduced at the right time, and never a superfluous character was brought in - each character had a piece in the pie and added to its flavour. We hated the girl CIA agent along with Albert Brooks, which shows she did a good job. And the daughter, the son, both wives, all so well played. Even the girlfriend was good and added yet another little piece of set up for that wonderful shot of groom's head bobbing and bride's look during KC and the Sunshine Band's song.

Everything about this movie seemed effortless and fun, and that's exactly what you want. When you watch a ballet, you don't want to see how hard the dancing really is, with dancers huffing and puffing and making painful faces every time they execute a difficult move. They make it look easy, and that's what makes us enjoy it so much.

This movie was the same way - not at all hard to watch, and with only one editing error that I could catch. But truly a contender for a scene stealer was JP - he was a joy to watch! He has the best lines in the movie, starting with his reference to his self-improvement with Deepak Chokra to his wife and his feelings about golf. I have watched this movie three times these last two days (primarily because it's been playing on pay TV), and I enjoy every second.

The only part I actually didn't care for that much and seemed to be the expected, big blow apart finale was the sub sequence. But, given what JP did to Angela on the boat, I can live with the second last scene with the water.

This isn't a movie to think about, just a movie to have real fun with. It is too bad that we had that stupid "orgasm" and "great great great sex" comments during the party because essentially this could have been almost a smart G movie that the whole family could have enjoyed together and we have precious little of those. (So many movies are marred by the one F word or one stupid sex scene that adds really nothing substantial and ruins a movie that would be great for the family otherwise. Do family movies have to be relegated to Shrek and Garfield type movies? What about the 12 year olds among us?)

I will wait for the sanitized version to come out on regular TV so my children can watch it and enjoy the comic timing and physical humour that is so great in this film.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Video game in motion

[1/10 · 6 June 2004]

I just can't write enough to comment on how disappointing this movie was. I can barely stay awake through it, and that is unusual for me to say the least. The movie plays like a video game, going from one level to another, fighting each and every time we hit a new level. I was not intrigued one bit by this unsuccessfully disguised action flick, unlike the first Matrix which I thought was terrific and thought provoking.

That's not to say the action wasn't really amazing - it was. It was ballet in motion, and it is very interesting to see in slow mo how a hit is taken, how flips are completed, etc. But, the acting is stiff, the story very elementary and unworthy of the first movie, and to be perfectly frank, I didn't think that Carrie Ann Moss looked particularly good as she did in the first film. In fact, everyone looked older, more tired, and some actually looked a little unsure of themselves in their parts, as if following the directions and not owning the part. Bad actors or bad direction, inadequate preparation or bad casting? Probably a combo of prep time and casting in most cases, and maybe there was so much concentration on the physicality of the film that the quiet, character building parts were forgotten.

I hate to genderize this Matrix, but the first one to me appealed to all techno-geeks, gen x and y'ers, regardless of gender. This one, as an almost pure action flick, seemed to me to be very male oriented in a sense. That's just too bad, as the first held so much hope and currency.

I can say this for the movie - it can put me to sleep faster than the sound of light rain!

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Exceptional acting, VERY important movie

[30 May 2004]

John Nash the man had more to hide than the move projected, but that's forgivable because it's a movie and it has a time limit. The descent into the hell that Nash lived with is well articulated, providing a sense of the disorientation that people with mental illness must feel. The movie looks good and gives a sense of time and movement, very much in line with a mathematics subject.

But the amazing grace of this whole project is Russell Crowe. He was spectacular as Nash; vivid, intense, and true. His inability to meet the eyes of others particularly at the beginning was very realistic, as was the inability to carry on appropriate social interactions. One can see high-functioning autism in these actions (Asperger's Syndrome), and personally were very rewarding to watch as I recognized and felt vindicated in observing these behaviors in such an intelligent man. While AS doesn't normally lead to schizophrenia, many geniuses tend to have autistic behaviour patterns or social skills issues which supports the age-old presumption that genius and eccentricity go hand in hand. And many with AS are incredibly brilliant and very highly focused which makes them strong intellectuals. In general, Nash's behaviour was portrayed as eccentric at best and Crowe's treatment of the eccentricity and eventual schizophrenia was remarkable.

Some lines were very illuminating such as when 'Nash' says that he shuns books and teachers because he wants to be original in his thought. This is not as uncommon an approach as one would think for talented individuals; the fear of adopting another's thought or attitude can be stifling to a creative, original process. Unfortunately, that was almost all I learned intellectually from the film aside from Nash's approach to out think his disease.

I love Ron Howard for doing this film, and Russell Crowe made Nash seem almost too sexy for his shirt, but I loved every minute of it. It needs to be viewed more than once as there is much to notice: his writing on glass (transparency), his infinity signs, his web, his patterns, his thinking in pictures which is very Asperger's/autistic, even his relationship with Alicia which once again supports the lack of social skills. What we 'normal' folk take for granted, those with socialization issues grapple with daily and they should be respected as humans and not made fun of. Children with socialization issues are mercilessly teased and ridiculed and hence hurt as Nash was as a child. All of us need to teach our children to recognize and respect those lacking in social skills. This is a great great movie to sensitize ourselves to all those with social skills issues not necessarily as profound as schizophrenia but apparent, and to teach our children to recognize and respect other children with socialization issues.

Seven Years in Tibet (1997)

Could have been better but worth seeing

[29 May 2004]

I love Brad Pitt in many films like 12 Monkeys and Fight Club, but here he is not in his best form. His accent is just lousy and really unnecessary - in fact, I believe it hindered his performance which should have been much better than what was delivered. He is a particularly intelligent actor relishing obscure roles, but this role either did not require enough strangeness for him to really shine, or he just couldn't deliver the nuances of the changes in his character at that time.

The movie is beautiful in and of itself, although overly long and tedious. While pretty to look at, it offered very little emotionally. It basically told the story of the Tibetans, albeit through Pitt's character's eyes, but it did concentrate, and that unabashedly, on Pitt's character's transformation. That said, I definitely could identify with the character, and felt enlightened and encouraged by the transformation itself.

Without a doubt, the actors portraying the Dalai Lama stood out and were absolutely believable. Great casting for that role. I would give this movie a 6.5 because the film lacked the power and impact that this kind of film could have had, but it is important enough to see, especially for foreign relations neophytes.

Very Bad Things (1998)

A good try at a modern day "Brothers Karamazov", but intellectually disappoints

[11 May 2004]

I saw this film again in the middle of the night last night while trying to fall asleep. Needless to say, this is a noisy film,full of yelling and hysterics and certainly not a good film to lull one to bed.

First, I thought the scene where they are fooling around in the hotel room overly long, silly and noisy. Perhaps I have too much faith in mankind to believe that grown, professional men, at least one of which is a father, could suddenly behave in such a gross way. However, the inclusion of the hooker was believable. The way in which she died was not so believable as the hook didn't look so sharp and therefore would require much force to penetrate the cranium, but I can suspend belief and imagine a sharper, though much less likely on the back of a hotel door, hook. I couldn't suspend my belief enough however to believe that the effect of so much drugs could so quickly be nullified when the security guard showed up and the following activities.

Where things got very interesting was Christian Slater's role as a classic and dangerous psychopath. The point where the psychopath turns from acceptable to unacceptable behaviour is particularly interesting, and Christian Slater managed the change almost too well; given his other roles and the look in his eye in each, I almost wonder whether he himself has psychopathic tendencies or some other moral wasteland within his brain. While his character is abhorrent, he is such an almost perfect study that it is worth the time alone to watch the movie.

Cameron Diaz wins me over then loses me with garbage like Charlie's Angels and any other of her butt-wiggling movies. In this one, like in Being John Malkovich, her part is hilarious as the male vision of the prima donna bride. Her one-track mind as she gets closer to her wedding surely resonates with many women who marry for the wedding and forget about the man (possibly a reason for so many divorces), and one surely does not suspect the ending but are extremely gratified by it - and reminiscent of a Coen movie which elevated this movie somewhat.

I am unsure as to how I felt about Jeanne Tripplehorn. She is so pretty, yet so nauseating as a common house frau - I may have preferred someone more dowdy and believable but perhaps this is the exact effect the director wanted. I will want to see the movie again to study that character.

I certainly get Daniel Stern's jump in front of his minivan which is so Tarantino. People are so weird - if this was an amazing car or something, we almost would agree that we would try to stop someone from smashing our beloved toy by jumping in front. But this is a minivan - yuck - but it is what the minivan represents to him that is so symbolic. The crash was the end of his placid, family life,and he knew it. The fact that he died really didn't do anything but physically push the point home. I think I may have rather seen him complete his descent into insanity after the crash.

The story itself is not so unbelievable - especially with the involvement of many weak individuals under the influence of a pyschopath and a bride. The only thing I really didn't like was the cheap Jew reference - really unnecessary as I am not sure that knowing that some of them were Jews (or all of them except for Christian's character) made any difference whatsoever (except perhaps some commentary of the "Christian's" influence over the Jews or some such thing). Perhaps there was some hidden message from the Director that I am just not getting. I did take note that the movie had an Asian hooker, a Black security guard, a Christian psychopath, a WASP bride, and a bunch of Jewish bumbleheads totally out of their element. Haven't quite got all that together yet, but while I get the Jewish 'out of element' comedy, the Asian hooker and Black security guard didn't seem to me to enhance the comedic side of this black comedy.

I believe that in the hands of the Coen brothers I think this modern take on the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky could have been a real descent into hell and a future requirement when studying ethics or psychology. It is unfortunate that the blood bath took precedence to pander to the mass expectations or for quick and easy acting and filming. I hope that one day it is remade without all the hysterics and swearing, perhaps limiting the deaths of the guys themselves and instead exploring the mental intricacies that were so promising at the beginning of the movie and at the end of the movie!