Travis's Reviews

Movie: The Guard (4.5/5 stars) (2011)

2012-01-22T11:12:00.000+13:00

One of my favourite movies of 2011, about an uppity Irish policeman, Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson), forced to deal with an FBI agent (Don Cheadle) arriving to investigate $500 M (Half a billion. Is that street value?) worth of smuggled drugs.

Gleeson is awesome in this movie - not that he isn't always awesome, but he's given some of the best lines ever and they are delivered with complete seriousness, for example: "I thought only black men were drug dealers. And Mexicans." and "Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, these men are armed and dangerous, and you being an FBI agent you're more used to shooting at unarmed women and children..."

The FBI agent could have been anyone, but Don Cheadle does a good job of being the fish out of water in a small, Irish town where people just don't want to speak English to him.

Hilarious comedy - worth watching. It's a real sleeper.

Movie: The Prince of Egypt (1.5/5 stars) (1998)

2012-01-05T18:20:00.000+13:00

The Prince of Egypt is the story of Moses, starting as a child in a basket floating down the Nile (because the Pharaoh was killing Hebrew babies to control the population), to a young prince of Egypt, having a bit of fun, playing practical jokes with his adopted brother Rameses and eventually discovering his history and then being chosen by God to lead his people out of Egypt.

Things I thought were done well: I liked the voices and the animations, as well as the visual choices for some of the miracles and plagues. This is nothing less than a star studded cast, Val Kilmer (Moses AND God - not quite sure what the message was with that), Michelle Pfeiffer (Tzipporah - Moses' wife), Sandra Bullock (Miriam), Ralph Fiennes (Rameses), Jeff Goldblum (Aaron) and Patrick Stewart (Seti) all do good jobs as their relative characters.

A few annoyances - they state at the beginning that they are faithful to the original story, however, leave Aaron out of the scene with the staff-to-snakes when Moses visits Ramases to free the Hebrews. I have no idea why. They also show Moses as regretful of the various plagues - sure, any normal man would be, but there is nothing of that in the original story.

The rest of the awfulness of the movie comes with the story itself. It's even more creepy/evil told as a children's story in cartoon form. It's obvious from the movie that God can pretty much do anything he wants to, but rather than free the slaves earlier, or even prevent the slavery from happening at all (I assume hundreds of years ago), he puts generations of Jews through torture for some reason before choosing Moses to free them. Also, he could free them in lots of ways that doesn't involve plagues like killing first born innocents, or drowning thousands of soldiers under the Red Sea who are just following orders of their king. No, no - none of that reasonable behaviour. Instead, he decides to really do some damage and kill people who haven't done anything wrong at all. It comes across as evil and more than a little petty and vindictive for a being who is essentially omnipotent. It's just a sorry, sorry story of an evil super being who doesn't care about people at all and doesn't mind a little pain and suffering.

Unpleasant movie to sit through and not worth the cool animations and the good voice acting to get there.

Movie: Drive (3/5 stars) (2011)

2011-12-03T18:50:00.001+13:00

Ryan Gosling plays an unnamed driver in this 80's throwback thriller.

I was amazed at how 80's it felt, with pink script for the starting credits and heavy, 80's style music. On top of that, there are lots of long, quiet shots with two people not saying much at all, which feels older.

There was lots good in the movie. I like Gosling and he had good supporting actors, especially Bryan Cranston as Shannon, and the lovely dimpled Carey Mulligan as Irene, the love interest (there is one kiss in the movie, which is quite amazing and on top of that, a brilliant scene). There isn't much range here though and Gosling is mostly stoic, with the odd smirk on his face when something he likes happens. Still - he's believable as the likeable, yet psychopathic and cool-headed stunt driver with plenty of mad skills. The story starts slowly, but by half way, the amount of tension is enormous and satisfying.

I found the soundtrack distracting and rather than background mood setting, it seemed to try and tell the story with the song lyrics for some reason.

So, a bit of a mixed bag, and 3 out of 5 from me.

Movie: Layer Cake (3.5/5 stars) (2004)

2011-09-23T22:05:00.001+12:00

Layer Cake is marginally a gangster movie, even though the gangsters in it don't think of themselves as gangsters - they are businessmen who happen to deal in cocaine etc...

Staring Daniel Craig as an unnamed protagonist (billed as XXXX in the credits) being pulled on all sides by many hostile forces, Layer Cake is a superbly crafted, cleverly written, somewhat sanitized view into the English underworld. Along with Craig is a solid list of supporting actors, all excellent in their roles. George Harris plays Morty, a likable and friendly gangster with a nasty temper who is XXXX's link to the criminal world. Colm Meany plays Gene, a long time toughie who is super-loyal to their drug-lord boss and Michael Gambon, playing Eddie Temple, an even higher-up, scary, gangster who pokes his fingers in to stir things up. Along with them is a long, long list of smaller roles, almost always funny and entertaining.

Music, directing, acting, writing are all finely polished here. There is little to fault the movie on and I found myself entertained the entire way though. I have a thing against drug movies, but even so, it is hard not to like this. The plot is constantly twisting and finely knotted at the end and one gentle tug unravels it all in front of your eyes for a satisfying climax. I am surprised I've never watched it before now and only got it through a friend's recommendation. Well worth your time.

Movie: Bridesmaids (4.5/5 stars) (2011)

2011-09-05T17:09:00.001+12:00

Kristen Wiig plays "Annie", a bride's best friend and her life just isn't going the way she wants it to. It opens with a sex scene which is completely crude, embarrassing and ridiculous, but hilarious as well, which sets the scene for the rest of the movie. The humour is very similar to what you see in "The 40 Year Old Virgin", which I found equally funny and worth watching, although be aware of the crude factor, which is high in both movies.

The big indicator that the movie was great was discussing it all the way back from the movie theater in the car and re-living some of the funniest scenes in the movie. I live 20 minutes away from this particular theatre (Lower Hutt btw) as well, so we aren't talking 5 minutes!

Both Rose Byrne and Chris O'Dowd are great in their supporting roles - consistently funny and great on the screen.

Well worth your time to watch - I enjoyed it from start to finish!

Poetry in Motion - SLAM-style poetry evening (5/5 stars)

2011-08-25T01:29:00.001+12:00

I got a random email the other day from a poet. Her name is Alina Seigfried, who goes by stage name of Ali Jacs.

She got my name from the New Zealand poetry society web page as a contact for the Cuba Street Garret writing space.

Ali was organizing and promoting Poetry in Motion, a performance poetry night with US guest poets Ken Arkind and Carrie Rudzinski, both slam poets extraordinaire. I didn't even know what slam poetry was until tonight, but I already love it. Look them up on youtube for a taste. No matter how good they seem, in-person is just so much better.

Before the guest poets went on, there were a few kiwi poets as well: Micah Timona Ferris, Ali Jacks (the host and organizer), Duncan Hope and the P-Town Poet's society out of Porirua. They were all funny or moving or cute or deep or a range of other awesomeness.

I ended up talking to almost all the performers in the personal atmosphere. This was one of the best things I've gone out to do all year - it makes me want to read, listen to and write poetry and you can't ask for more than that.

Firstly, let me say that I have great respect for people who can go up in front of a group of complete strangers and pour out their personal experiences and vulnerabilities in one of the scariest possible ways. I realized after tonight exactly why it is SO worth it.

And finally, I've always admired and been envious of oration skills. While all of the poets were good, Ken and Carrie really demonstrated how it's done, with power, eloquence and beauty, they left everyone in awe of their performances. Bravo!

Run, don't walk to any chance to see these guys perform!

Art Exhibit: Jenny Majeske at "The Frame Shop", Wellington CBD

2011-06-04T16:51:00.000+12:00

Last weekend I went to a Jenny Majeske art exhibition at “The Frame Shop” on Taranaki Street in the Wellington CBD.

The Kind One

I've seen Jenny's art previously, and have often discussed her “Girl with a cupcake on her shoulder” (the actual title is “Night of the Cupcake”) with friends and colleagues. The concept is so interesting and unusual that everyone is immediately curious about its intended meaning. When I ask Jen what the cupcake means, she answers with a question, “What do you think the cupcake means?” There don't seem to be any wrong answers, and Jen seems more than happy for people to interpret her work in a personal way.

I enjoyed two walks through the exhibition, first by myself and then with the artist. I find myself reacting sharply to each and every piece. Most often, I'm laughing out loud and curious. Less often, I'm simply confused or taken aback. With most exhibitions, I don't have have to ask questions, but these paintings aren't landscapes or portraits, and the meanings and symbols are packed tightly in skilfully constructed realistic abstracts.

What I mean by "realistic abstract" is that most of the time, objects in the paintings are realistic. They represent real things that you clearly recognizefor what they are. However, the pieces of the painting are arranged in abstract ways that you would never find in the world. Probably the most striking piece for me was of a little girl, 5 or 6 years old, laughing and looking out of the painting standing between two wolves growling and snapping at each other. The girl seems oblivious to the animals.

Other times, an objects in the painting are recognizable, but distorted or coloured differently from what you'd expect, placed in an ordinary setting. “Deer Park” shows a beautiful landscape with two deer near the centre of the painting. The deer are candy coloured, one pink and one powder blue and the deer have human heads. One of these deer people is missing the right antler and the other missing the left. The blue and pink could represent male and female (or not) and the incomplete nature of each could mean they need each other (or not).

Deer Park

Words I think best describe the exhibition are “intellectual” and “personal”. It's obviously the work of someone thoughtful, creative and skilled who isn't particularly worried about following a set of artist rules. The end result is well crafted pieces, each with multiple, strong messages and deep personal meaning to the artist. If you find yourself in the Wellington CBD, I highly recommend dropping by to take a look.

Movie: Limitless (3/5 stars) (2011)

2011-03-27T18:57:00.002+13:00

Limitless is a soft sci-fi/action/thriller movie starring Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morra, an aspiring writer who is, to be blunt, a complete loser. He happens across an old acquaintance who happens to be a drug dealer dealing in the perfect drug. NZT doesn't get you high, just focuses the mind, clears your thoughts and gives you all the motivation you need to get things done.

I've been following Bradley Cooper since his Alias days, and thought that he was perfect for this role - he looked like a loser and cleaned up into a believable winner with all the answers and the confidence and charisma to win anyone over. Along with Cooper, there were supporting roles by the lovely Abby Cornish playing Eddie's girlfriend and veteran Robert De Niro playing a rich and powerful boss. Both did solid jobs with their roles.

This is a fun movie, and covers one of my own fantasies... what would you do if you were the smartest person on earth ("A 4 digit IQ") and could figure out any problem? It appeals to me for that reason and the does a decent job at tackling that question - super-intelligence and the world being against you. However, it suffers from the lack of a real, challenging opponent for Cooper's character as well as a plot hole you could drive a truck through that I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

I now feel like re-watching Phenomenon with John Travoltra.

Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (4/5 stars) (2010)

2010-11-30T21:36:00.007+13:00

If there was a Harry Potter book that could have used some editing, #7, "The Deathly Hallows" was it. The last thing I wanted to hear was that they were splitting it into two movies. That was such a money grubbing move from JK Rowling and Warner Brothers. Hold on to the cash cow just a few months longer! We can make another $400M!

That gripe aside, I liked the movie. It has its flaws, patchy pacing issues (just like the book's 200 pages of Harry, Hemione and Ron in the forest hiding out and trying to figure things out), some questionable acting and some random departures from the book, however, it's HARRY POTTER!!

While there are pacing problems, 200 pages of the book translates into half an hour in the movie, during which, pretty interesting things happen and I'm entertained. I won't be lining up to see this again, but it was a good time at the movies.

To talk from a neutral position, my wife, who hasn't read the books, didn't mind the last book beingsplit in half - it was exactly like another book, which was fine.

If I were to rate this movie against the others , it was in the middle of the pack somewhere. I would say that it was the most like the book of all the movies and I liked it as much as I liked the book, maybe a little more, unlike "The Goblet of Fire", which was my favourite book and one of the least favourite movies, and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", my least favourite book (why does the rat stay with the Weasleys for TEN YEARS!!!), but one of my favourite movies - different stresses I guess.

Movie: The Road (3/5 stars) (2009)

2010-09-23T15:26:00.004+12:00

"The Road" stars Viggo Mortgenson as "man" and Kodi Smit-McPhee as "boy". There are no names at all in the movie. There was a "woman", played by Charlize Theron and lots of other parts like "bearded man", "thief" and "old man" etc...

The movie is a post apocalyptic science fiction movie. I can only assume that it is set in the future, but it may have been set in the past - it's hard to tell. There is only devastation and barren waste everywhere in the movie.

The story is simple. A man and a boy are wandering the wasteland headed south for no reason except that they are looking for the ocean and hopefully something better than what they left behind. They meet some people and see some screwed up crap and you quickly get the idea that the world is not what we are used to. This isn't "The Book of Eli", where there is a quite thick veil of bullshit over the entire movie. This feels REAL.

Despite its simplicity, each scene is thick with detail and has real impact. The psychology of the situation is evident constantly and the concepts of "hunger", "loneliness", "happiness" and "friendly" are violently twisted into new meanings.

The movie does nothing to explain the apocalypse itself, i.e. what happened or why. It isn't part of the focus. We don't know if there was nuclear holocaust, a disease or aliens, we just know that we're here and it's dire.

In many ways brilliant, but at the same time, depressing and and unsatisfying. You go away impressed at the quality of the acting, directing and cinematography, but don't really know the point of it.

Movie: Salt (2/5 stars) (2010)

2010-09-14T00:06:00.003+12:00

Get ready for Jasina Bourne, except not as good as Jason.

This is a run-of-the-mill action/spy movie staring Angelina Jolie as Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent with a mysterious past. It was gimmicky action, with attempts at doing what no other movie had done, something that's become cliche in its attempt to avoid cliches. The worst was Salt using a taser to make someone press the gas pedal on a police car - it was just too ridiculous to keep a viewer watching without rolling their eyes.

I really have nothing more to say about this one. It's just not worth your time. I am glad that I saw it on cheap night, otherwise, I would have felt ripped off completely.

Movie: Inception (3.5/5 stars) (2010)

2010-09-07T15:20:00.005+12:00

On the way back from my recent holiday in Canada, schedules didn't work and I ended up with 2 days in Los Angeles. I watched Inception in Santa Monica at a crappy little theater called the Santa Monica 7. Pretty much any Wellington theater is better. The seats had almost no incline and we were hoping (against hope apparently) that no tall people would end up sitting in front of us.

Enough about the theater itself, on to the movie.

There is lots that is great about the movie. The concept, people stealing ideas in shared dreams, is immediately interesting to a science fiction fan. I liked the action scenes, the special effects (especially the weightless scene - very cool), and almost all the characters. My favorite scene has to be the kick, kick, kick sequence which I will say no more about.

Leonardo DiCaprio is consistently good. I know he gets labeled as a bad actor, since he is a teen heart throb and ends up in Hollywood blockbusters regularly, but he has starred in a string of good movies that are all worth watching (Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies, Blood Diamond, The Departed and The Aviator to go back only 6 years). His body of work is solid and I will watch anything he stars in.

Ellen Page , on the other hand, has a reputation of being a great up-and-comer. I love that she's from Halifax, where I lived more than 10 years, but I don't get the big fuss over her. She's good, but I find that she is a little off in most of her movies (there are LOTS) and I can't quite put my finger on it. Still - she's today's superstar and ended up in this movie.

All the other main actors do their job well. The directing is good - it tells the story clearly and simply (despite the many twists and turns and the levels of dreams).

The problem for me was the writing. I've written a lot of first drafts. I know what a first draft feels like and there is lots in this movie that feels like a first draft. It seems that Leonardo DiCaprio's character Cobb is the only person who knows everything about dreams and when something surprising happens, Leo throws out another gotcha that no one else knew about. These are just rough edges that could have been smoother, and it feels like the dream "physics" was just made up on the spot and never revised or made consistent. It's a slap in the face since it happens so often in the middle of the action and is no where near as clean as everything else in the movie.

It could have been The Matrix all over again. It tries to be, but fails. Too bad - I would have loved another Matrix.

Movie: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (3.5/5) (2009)

2010-06-17T19:36:00.004+12:00

If you haven't heard of this movie or the novel, then you've probably been living under a rock for the last two years. It's new to DVD, and we rented it last night.

I wasn't sure what to expect, since I'd never read the novel. I knew there was a female hacker with a dragon tattoo and that's about it. AND - just so you know, it's not a cute, little tattoo of Mushu from Disney's Mulan, it's a honking, huge, evil looking dragon tattoo that covers her whole back.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was simple and didn't try to over reach itself. There was no pretension, just a nice, simple mystery movie that was interesting the entire way through. The fact that it was in Swedish didn't hurt it at all, and I really loved comparing the Swedish to the English subtitles and noticing how similar many of the sounds were. There are several sentences that are identical ("Are you ok?") and lots of nearly identical words that added a positive dimension to the movie.

Mikael Blomkvist is hired by a rich businessman named Martin Vanger to solve a 40 year old murder. Vanger's favorite niece Harriet, who he loved like a daughter disappeared in 1966 and he wants to know what happened to her. He isn't really expecting results, but wants someone working on it who won't give up.

Mikael doesn't know it at first, but the title character Lisbeth Salander takes an interest in his case after hacking his computer for another job. Lisbeth is by far the most interesting character and comes from a dark and sordid background. She is 24 years old and still has a guardian assigned by the state for some reason. Eventually, Mikael and Lisbeth track various tenuous leads and get pulled into a mystery bigger than either imagined.

The movie taught me quite a lot about storytelling. Since I've been writing my own novels, I pay close attention to how movies and novels progress their stories. The main thing it taught me is that motivations for your villains is a nice to have, but not 100% necessary. You can just have them just being evil with almost no explanation - the success of the book and movie are proof of this. Another lesson that I've already learned from Taken with Liam Neeson - if you make the villains evil enough, your hero can do whatever they want to them and you will feel absolutely no sympathy.

Movie: Van Diemen's Land (4/5) (2009)

2010-06-01T15:57:00.007+12:00

The cinematographer did an absolutely amazing job. The last time that I was THAT amazed at a movie's visuals was Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) where every frame was like a 17th century painting.

In Van Diemen's Land a group of Irish, English and Scottish criminals engineer an escape from Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania (formerly known as Van Dieman's Land), an end-of-the-road place for men whose punishment is a lifetime of slavery. Their escape goes wrong and they end up running into the forest to escape British soldiers.

The camp fire scenes were amazingly lit - like worn paintings of faces in amber and black. The lighting techniques were repetitive, either a camp fire scene, a long, scenery shot or men walking in the forest, but so, so realistic. I was regularly in awe of the look and feel.

The movie had impact, a realism that is rare in film. The dirt under the fingernails, in the ears, on the skin, teeth and clothing looked right. At no point were you ever pulled from the movie - it surrounds you with the hunger and anxiety of the characters. The brutality is ultra-real and as far from being romanticized as is possible.

The story is simple. A story of escape and survival in the wilds, about desperate measures in harsh circumstances.

The character of Alexander Pearce narrates in Irish Gaelic, and the film makers decide to turn him him into an eloquent poet, a literary genius and philosopher, rather than just a common, murderous thug. It was the right choice to make Pearce narrate in something other than English and make his English rather poor as it heightens the tension and make Pearce even that much more of an outsider.

This is a brilliant but disturbing film that is amazing to watch. I want film makers to watch and learn from this film.

Movie: The Vintner's Luck (2/5 stars) (2009)

2010-05-31T17:01:00.003+12:00

How would your life be different if an angel took interest in you and your passions, your desires?

Not that different apparently, except maybe you'd get involved in a gay relationship with said angel.

There were bits of brilliance, but overall, this movie is a lot of failure and very little success.

Things they did well:
- casting, the angel is creepy and androgynous, Sobran is a convincing, passionate wine maker, and many of the supporting roles are well done.
- some of the reveals about the angel were interesting
- ah... nothing else I can think of...

Things they did badly:
- While I'm a fan of Keisha Castle Hughes, I thought she was one of the weaker casts and was out of place the entire time
- The sex scenes were incredibly random. Rather than have a conversation, Sobran would just flip over, climb on top and pump away - not very sexy at all
- I kept expecting the angel's wings to just fall off
- The "sex scene" between Sobran and the angle was just dumb
- there is always the feeling that if the camera panned just 1 cm to the right or left, you would see some stage hand picking his nose. It felt quite shallow and fragile the entire time.

The most telling sign that this movie was dull? I kept wandering off to the kitchen for something to eat or drink without bothering to pause it. I sat through all of "Sunshine" with Ralph Fiennes. Believe me, I have patience.

I feel bad for Elizabeth Knox, the Wellington writer who wrote the original novel. She can't have been happy with this effort.

TV Show: Lost (3/5 stars) (2004)

2010-05-29T12:58:00.003+12:00

I have been a fan of lost since the beginning and I saw final episode this week. Lost has been there for so long, you know all the characters and they become like friends you look forward to running into each week. They won't be there any more.

At the same time, there is probably no way for the writers to successfully wrap up such a complex mess of mysteries and layers, backstabbing and lofty, noble enigmatic goals. I can vouch for that - they just didn't succeed. I'm sure there is a writer sitting back saying, "There. All done. All the mysteries explained.", but he would be wrong. They pretty much did not explain anything.

First of all - what the hell was the island? If you can't answer that, you've failed miserably. Does it exist in the real world? Can everyday, ordinary people actually get there? What was the smoke monster? What is the light at the centre of the island? Who was Jacob's mother? Where did she come from?

Too many loose threads for a successful ending. There is a bit of closure, in that you know where everyone is at the end and they are all happy and there's a warm, fuzzy feeling, but seriously, if you think that even a single mystery of the last six seasons was answered, then you are delusional.

Overall - fail. I'm sure the studio made a ton of cash on it though.

TV series: V (2/5) 2009

2010-05-25T09:46:00.006+12:00

Everyone remembers the original "V" with the lizard aliens and eating the guinea pigs with their gaping mouths etc.. etc...

The new series isn't a re-telling of the original. That's good, since you get a new experience out of it.

My overall impressions:

- I like the actors, both V and human are well played and well directed. Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliette from "Lost") plays Erica Evans, an FBI agent, Morena Baccarin (Inara from "Serenity"/"Firefly", and Adria from "Stargate SG-1") plays Anna, the alien leader. In many ways, the rest of the story is incidental and the story is one of mother against mother.

- The story is pretty interesting, i.e. forming a resistance against an overwhelming enemy

- The special effects, specifically the background shots on the mothership are really bad - laughably so. Very obviously fake

- For a resistance cell led by an FBI agent and a former special ops guy, they are incredibly incompetent, made worse by the incompetence of the aliens to let them get away with it. They are regularly meeting in public places, saying each others names over their cell phones also in public places, including the FBI office!, getting caught on camera and the list goes on. I would be scared letting these people head a resistance. Fortunately, it's all fiction and I'm sure it will work out in the end.

While I'm hopeful that the series will get better, I'm not holding my breath and I think season one was, at best, a mediocre start.

Movie: Iron Man 2 (3/5 stars) 2010

2010-05-21T14:23:00.003+12:00

Robert Downey Jr. again plays playboy billionaire Tony Stark with the usual host of problems - what to do with his billions, the government wants to steal his stuff (the way-cool iron man suit), too many HOT chicks (Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow - both smoldering in this movie), the technology that is keeping him alive is killing him and some crazy Russian physics genius (Mickey Rourke) wants him dead to name a few.

I was quite worried at the beginning of this movie, with completely over the top death scene of the crazy Russian's dad, including the skyward scream (do they really do that any more?), but it slowly settled in and I enjoyed snappy dialog and a few laughs while watching super-tech (the iron man suit inside the attache case was probably the coolest) on display in the best do-it-yourself way.

The special effects were slick and well applied. It was certainly a guy movie (says my wife who actually loves guy movies), but then, lots of people are going just for that.

Not as good as the first - just more of the same really, but fun enough for a cheap night.

Movie: The Passion of the Christ (2/5 stars) 2004

2009-12-26T23:57:00.005+13:00

I finally got around to seeing this movie after wanting to for a while.

The draw for me was that all the dialog was in Aramaic, the language of first century Palestine and what Jesus was believed to have spoken. As Aramaic is a dead language, there are no more native speakers and insisting that it all be done in that language is a huge undertaking.

That being said, the actors speaking the language seemed quite rough and not polished at all, especially James Caviezel as Jesus. This isn't that big a surprise, since it's a dead language that few can speak, but if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right.

I found Monica Bellucci as Magdalen completely off putting, since in a world of ugliness, you have this hot babe hanging around. Strangely enough, Gibson decides to make Magdalen the "woman taken in adultery" as well, which I don't understand at all.

In the end, it's Mel Gibson's imagination going wild on all the many, many possible ways that a man can suffer while be prosecuted by the Romans in the first century.

A few criticisms:
- there is NO way that any human could take that beating (being flayed for five or ten minutes straight, being beaten several times, kicked, punched, caned, crown of thorns etc.. etc...) AND still carry the cross or even stand.

- once you are unwilling to believe that it's even possible (very early in), all that is left is Gibson's sadism, and that's not enough to sustain the movie.

- it becomes all about how many ways you can show blood spurting, covering surfaces, dripping, oozing, flowing and anything else that blood can do, and nothing about the message of Christ himself or even the meaning of his suffering.

- all of Christ's quotes in the movie seem completely senseless and out of context, since you can't put everything in, they are isolated bits of "wisdom" that everyone nods at as if it is something meaningful, but you are left scratching your head wondering what the hell he even said and what he meant.

- There isn't really one, cohesive narrative, and pieces of various gospels are taken with no real preference for one over another. The entire movie only makes sense because most of the watchers have a general idea what the story of Jesus is in the first place. Pontius Pilot's innocence and unwillingness to cooperate is really played up and the desire to have Jesus crucified is really strong in the Jewish population. In that way, it becomes far more antisemitic than say the earliest gospel, Mark (chronologically speaking) and more like the last Gospel, John. The later gospels are far more antisemitic as Christianity stopped being exclusively Jewish and started including members of the pagan population.

There are a few token scenes where some Jewish guy feels bad for Jesus and walks out saying it's out of control, or asking a Roman soldier to leave the man alone.

All and all a thoroughly unpleasant movie to sit through. I just kept wanting it to end.

My stars are all for the setting, language, look and feel and not for the main point.

Movie: Yes Man (4/5 stars) 2008

2009-01-12T11:18:00.003+13:00

Freaking hilarious. I liked this movie from beginning to end and laughed all the way though.

Jim Carrey plays Carl, a "no man" not living his life, sitting around sulking since he got divorced 3 years before. The plot contrives to get Carl to a seminar "Yes - the new No" and his new life begins.

I can't really describe all the funny scenes without giving things away - just enjoy. Well worth your time.

I know some people are saying they don't like Jim Carrey and they won't watch it. It isn't that the movie NEEDED Jim Carrey to be good - he was quite NOT like the Jim Carrey from "Liar Liar" or "Ace Ventura". So, if you don't know if you like Jim Carrey, this would be a gentle introduction.

The worst part about the movie was Rhys Darby's character. Not that I dislike Rhys Darby - he is hilarious, but the entire character seems like a bit of an add-on with little thought to how he integrated into the rest.

Still - well worth watching.

Movie: Iron Man (4/5 stars) 2008

2008-05-23T09:43:00.005+12:00

I have been a fan of Iron Man since I was 12. I have wanted a suit like this almost since I can remember. This is Marvel's latest installment of super hero movies and follows (and beats in my opinion), the recent Spiderman and Fantastic Four movies.

Despite my huge expectations, the movie did nothing but impress me. Iron Man is the superhero for techies, geeks and petrol heads as well as anyone who likes some cool, slick action and a little bit of high rolling, over the top super-rich extravagance.

Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark, billionaire playboy (yes, yes, Batman is also a billionaire playboy - see the youtube clips below) and does an excellent job. He pulls off the smug, confident and dismissive genius really well and has an excellent supporting cast with Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges playing characters to anyone familiar with the comic.

The armor with all its shiny, sharp edges lends itself perfectly to CG and it is beautiful to see. I also like the 3D "ink jet" printer that prints out the armor, as well as the weapons consoles, the flight sequences and pretty much the rest of the movie. Also, inclusion of Black Sabbath's "Iron Man" theme at the end of the movie and in all the trailers is a massive bonus.

Since Iron Man and Batman are both opening this summer movie season in the US, some forward thinking movie maker wanna-be created these youtube shorts that were highly entertaining:

Iron Man and Batman
Iron Man and Batman part 2

book "Sex in a Tent" by Michelle Waitzman 2007 (4/5 stars)

2008-04-29T01:25:00.002+12:00

I just reviewed this book on Amazon, and am including my review here:

This book isn't just about sex but certainly doesn't shy away from it either. It's far more about getting a reluctant partner out camping and hiking and then how to improve the odds of having romantic interludes. After that, it tells you how to plan a trip, how to get along while you out there, how to keep clean, how to have romantic dinners and then tells you all the lovely ways of making sex possible that are only available outdoors.

The book is well written, witty and has great stories. Some stories were simply beautiful and brought a tear to my eye and some were laugh out loud funny. I especially liked "Nice Ways to Say You Stink" and the entire chapter on having sex in a canoe. There is one especially sexy story about toasting marshmallows on an open fire that I had to read twice. The illustrations by Ann Miya were a hoot and added a lot of ambiance to the book.

On top of this, there are useful information sections with recipes, romantic locations and an extensive list of on line resources.

My only real gripe is in the layout, where a large aside, taking up a page or two, can go right in the middle of a sentence. It can interrupt the flow, but is a minor point in the middle of a book with so much to offer.

This is a must for couples who like camping and hiking, but even more so for a member of a couple whose partner is resistant to the idea of camping. It suits any level, from hard core to car campers only. I can't recommend it enough for people who just want a little more spice in their life and are wondering how.

Royal Bank banking (1/5 stars)

2008-04-22T00:56:00.005+12:00

I have been a Royal Bank member since 1986 when I needed a place to put my cash when I first arrived in university. At the time, it used to be a nice place, you go in and talk to someone and they help you out.

I remember thinking how great cash machines and cash cards were, and they didn't cost anything extra.

It didn't take long for the banks to realize that they could gouge you for a little bit more on each and every transaction, or at least ensure that you were spending a minimum of $10 every month for your transactions.

No bank I have ever been to has been anything but think that I should be gloriously happy they will work with me at all. As an institution, any bank is a money grubbing slime-ball who wants to tear away every cent they can, since 1 cent taken from every individual adds up to millions per year. AND, of course, they don't do 1 cent, they do $2 or $1.10. It always sounds so reasonable when they say, "It's just a small fee."

Every single one of their services used to cost more than it does now, since there was a person doing it. Now, it is almost all automated and they charge just a little bit more for every bit you look at or transfer or save. The charges just creep up too.

I had an account sitting in Canada that was happy to do nothing, there was something like $50 in it. I didn't pay any attention to it, since I've been living in New Zealand for the last 6.5 years but I looked at it and it was in negative numbers, since they've been deducting $2/month from it for the couple of years.

I'm sure they sent me the memo, and they think it's all justified.

I HATE banks. They used to be better and now they are simply worse in every possible way and make BILLIONS every year. That's just BILLIONS of reasons to hate them I think. How much of that is in service charges?

Even 10 years ago when I checked, service charges amounted to 7% of the Royal Bank's total profit. That was 70 million dollars. I guess it's easy to find another way to hide a fee from a bunch of poor morons who don't watch their accounts like a hawk or blow their bank manager to reduce fees.

Book: "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson 1954 (5/5 stars)

2008-03-31T00:21:00.002+13:00

An absolutely fabulous book. It makes the recent movie attempt seem like a complete insult to the vision of this original masterpiece.

Richard Matheson is well known in science fiction and horror circles, but doesn't seem to pop up that often in discussions of classic science fiction. I have no idea why not.

He has the distinction of having a higher percentage of his novels being turned into movies than any other science fiction writer and you've heard of his work if not him. "I Am Legend" alone has been made into a movie three times, in 1964 as "The Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price, 1971 as "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston and just recently in 2007 as "I Am Legend" with Will Smith.

Other movies that were based on his novel include:

Duel, Steven Spielberg's first movie.
What Dreams May Come
Stir of Echoes
and the up and coming The Incredible Shrinking Man

"I Am Legend" isn't just some vampire novel. It re-invented vampire novels and spawned a long string of books and movies for decades to come. A heart wrenching novel of loneliness and pathos that truly does take you through a roller coaster of emotions and gets into the head of someone who is slowly going insane.

I loved the book from the first page to the last and despite being copied again and again by author after author, has not, to my knowledge, ever been equaled by any other vampire novel.

Movie: "I Am Legend" (3.5/5 stars) 2007

2008-03-31T00:16:00.003+13:00

A good, solid action movie about he end of the world where a cure for cancer turns the population into a bunch of sunlight hating vampires.

Enter Robert Neville (played by Will Smith), a doctor working on a cure, all alone in Manhattan, hunting vampires by day, holed up in his house by night.

It successfully gives you a sense of loneliness and what it does to you, and idea what a completely lonely man does with his time and has some really cool action scenes.

In the end, a little too Hollywood for me though.

Book: "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman (5/5 stars)

2007-09-20T22:25:00.000+12:00

Richard E. Friedman does so many things right in this book. His analysis is convincing, his translations are powerful and accurate, he keeps his postulations small and he gives all the details on the difficulties and possible problems in separating the various authors.

I'm not a religious person, but recognize the historical, social, cultural and religious impact of the bible.

The premise, and it has been known for more than 150 years, is that the first five books of the Bible, previously attributed to Moses, were actually written by several authors. Not only that, but by recognizing the stylistic differences and the different perspectives, it is possible to almost completely unravel the passages by different authors. With more analysis, it's possible to tell which were written first, and where and when these authors lives. In some cases, Richard Friedman actually names the author or editor of the piece. While nothing can be 100%, he gives good reasons for his conclusions.

I loved the book and enjoyed almost everything about it. Some of his passage translations were impacting and have become my new favorites.

My biggest criticism was with the footnote numberings. Really, I had almost nothing bad to say about the entire book.

I can highly recommend this to anyone who has even a passing interest in the history of the Bible. A reveal to be sure.

My favorite biblical quote from Friedman, a re-translation of Deuteronomy 31

"16 When you are lying with your fathers, this people will rise and will whore after alien gods of the land onto which they are coming, and they will leave me and break my covenant which I have made with them.

17 And my anger will burn against them in that day, and I shall leave them, and I shall hide my face from them, and they will be devoured, and many evils and troubles will find them.
And they will say in that day, 'It is not because our God is not among us that these evils have found us?'

18 But I shall hide my face on that day because of all the wrong that they have done, for they turned to other gods."

Movie: Little Children (4/5 stars) 2006

2007-09-05T21:49:00.000+12:00

We just got this out on DVD. I had no expectations at all with it.

I loved the movie and thought that it was an absolutely excellent film with strong characters with believable motives and actions.

Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson and Jennifer Connelly star in an intense movie about what lonely and controlled people do when their life just isn't going the right way.

The movie built up so much, that I was actually nervous about how it might go, how these characters who I really cared about and had a vested interest in might be hurt or humiliated. It was torture in the last few minutes.

Any movie that can do that to me deserves my praise. A simply excellent movie.

movie: "Pan's Labyrinth" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

2007-07-21T23:51:00.000+12:00

A gorgeous movie, it is subtitled throughout in Spanish. I read the subtitles as quickly as possible so I could get back to the stunning visuals.

A fairy tale set in a horrific location at the end of WWII, we see a little girl, Ofelia (played by Ivana Baquero) struggling with two challenges. One is her new life; her mother has married a man (Sergi López) after her father's death, and she tries to understand her new life and this new man. The 2nd, is the magic world of faeries and the underworld. She meets a magical faun in the labyrinth near her new home who tells her she's a missing princess from the underworld and has to prove herself so she can return.

Ofilia's magical quests and the violent, war-time setting resonate making each all the more real.

Guillermo del Toro, the director, is a genius who achieves his vision with incredible clarity.

With recent movies adding to world mediocrity, this one stands out as a bright, shining star. I can't recommend it enough.

movie: "The Last King of Scotland" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

2007-07-06T00:28:00.001+12:00

An amazing movie from beginning to end. I love, love, loved this movie.

The only SLIGHT detriment to the movie is that is felt real, but it ended up being fiction. In the end, I thought if they could make it feel that real, I could hardly fault the writers.

Forest Whitaker and James McAvoy pull off excellent performances and the movie kept my interest though every second.

Run to the rental store for this - it is awesome.

Movie: "The Fantastic Four - The Rise of the Silver Surfer" (1.5 stars) 2007

2007-07-06T00:07:00.000+12:00

I love comics, and there have been a few good adaptation for the screen - this was NOT one of them.

I thought the first Fantastic Four movie was ok, and this had it's moments, but the ending was SO, SO, SO bad, that it completely ruined the rest of the movie.

And what is it with Jessica Alba in this movie? For one of the hottest women on the planet, she was just weird looking. Maybe it's the bad fake blond hair, or maybe it was the strange blue contact lenses, but when you have a beautiful girl in your movie, why make her up until she looks fake? It was off-putting.

Still - Jessica Alba's looks aside, the movie's climax was stupidity incarnate! The only stars that I have are for the rest of the movie - the funny bits and a few of the special effects. Still - nothing great.

SPOILER WARNING

Please read no further if you haven't seen this movie and want to watch it. I am about to give away the ending and it would be bad if you don't want to know!

In the end, the Silver Surfer stands up to his master Galactus and takes him out in some giant cosmic explosion (that doesn't destroy the earth that is right next to it!).

If the Silver Surfer is so noble and is willing to sacrifice himself to destroy his master, why didn't he do it before he destroyed so many other planets? I think they mentioned that 8 other planets had been destroyed before he got to earth. That's just dumb! Stupid!

That by itself if dumb, however, it gets even dumber when you know more about the original stories. Of course, the Silver Surfer is noble and pure, and he has tried to stand up to his master before. However, since Galactus has given the surfer his power, he can easily take it away. He can't lose to the surfer. This just doubled up the dumbness from the already dumb ending.

Movie: "The Squid and the Whale" (4/5 stars) 2005

2007-07-05T21:02:00.000+12:00

Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Owen Kline, Jesse Eisenberg, Anna Paquin and William Baldwin star in "The Squid and the Whale" , a quirky story about a dysfunctional family and their love interests in the throws of an unfriendly divorce.

Hyper realistic with solid performances and fantastic dialog all the way around , we see Bernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels' character) as a washed up writer teaching at a local college who becomes jealous when his wife Joan (Laura Linney) sells a novel while he struggles.

While well meaning, these parents are so far from capable of insulating their kids from the divorce that the two children (Owen Kline and Jesse Eisenberg) are completely unable to cope. They act out in the most inappropriate, but still understandable ways.

I have to say, Bernard Berkman (Bernard is the perfect name, as it's repeated often and is almost a character of its own) is one of the superbly written characters in cinema history, as the pseudo-intellectual who is just not that smart. He so wants to be, but just can't reach the top shelf and judges everyone but himself. His son Walt (played by Jesse Eisenberg) is following in his footsteps, but barely even managing to mimic his father.

A real sleeper of a movie that I enjoyed tremendously.

movie: "Intimate Strangers" (3/5 stars) 2004

2007-07-05T20:19:00.000+12:00

A good foreign film (Confidences trop intimes) about a woman with marital problems wandering into an accountant's office, assuming he's a psychologist and telling him her deepest, darkest secrets.

The movie is full of amusing bits, confrontations, awkward moments and real drama, especially when she realizes that he's an accountant and still continued the sessions.

I enjoyed it and realized part way through that I had no clue how it was going to unfold. This is far from the standard Hollywood pic I see and I'm grateful for that.

While the originality was abundant, the movie was quite slow paced and I wasn't really satisfied with the ending. Still, a lovely little quirky movie that was honest and believable.

Movie: "Enduring Love" (3/5 stars)

2007-07-05T19:53:00.001+12:00

Our new Bond boy (Daniel Craig) plays a philosopher in this unusual drama about an intense experience and how personalized everyone's experience is as they walk away from it.

Four strangers are brought together when a hot air balloon goes awry, and while trying to save the occupant, one of them falls to his death.

The survivors wonder if they did the right thing, "who let go first" and lots of second guessing. At the same time, Daniel Craig's character has a new stalker, one of the other survivors believes that something has passed between them, but won't tell him what. "You know!", he says.

This movie is interesting, and completely unpredictable, but in the end, doesn't really know if it's a drama or a thriller. I liked it, but not much.

Book: "Ysabel" by Guy Gavriel Kay (4.5/5 stars)

2007-07-04T23:47:00.000+12:00

The first urban fantasy by Guy Gavriel Kay. I'm a huge fan and this is his latest novel.

Usually, he writes historical fantasy novels set in fictional cultures. He will base them on Viking, Italian, Roman, Spanish, French etc. This time, however, it's set in modern Provence in the South of France with iPods and cell phones.

The main character is Ned, a precocious fifteen year old, who was superbly written and completely believable. He is a smart-assed, wise cracking, practical joke playing kid who wanders into an ancient story, a fight between two men, one Roman and one Celtic who died 2500 years ago.

This is brilliant fantasy. Guy Gavriel Kay is one of the best there is and you cannot miss this if you've liked anything he's done.

Book: "Odd John" by Olaf Stapledon (4.5/5 stars)

2007-07-04T23:38:00.000+12:00

One of my very favorite science-fiction novels when I was in university, I decided to re-read it and see if it still held up.

I have to say, for being written in 1935, it does not feel old at all and language wise is modern. There were few hints that it was written over seventy years ago.

All the things that I remembered from way back were still there and as intriguing as ever. I loved it as much as I did the last time I read it.

The only thing I noticed, and I know I'll forget it like I did last time, were the two or three places where the author indulged and went into details of his own philosophy on politics, psychology, religion etc. The author used the main character, a more evolved human, as the speaker, going on about how wrong various sectors of society were about their position. I forgive him, Olaf Stapledon was a philosopher and had a position. It didn't hurt the novel much at all.

Simple, classic science-fiction executed to perfection. A great novel.

Movie: "A History of Violence" (1/5 stars) 2005

2007-05-27T16:57:00.001+12:00

This is another David Cronenberg movie. I don't like Cronenberg and never have. I'm usually pretty patriotic, but his being Canadian just embarrasses me. He's done some of the worst movies ever and people bow to him as some kind of master director.

I had no idea that this was a Cronenberg movie while watching, so my negative reactions were unbiased, and I don't think this movie is overly Cronenbergish.

The biggest negative to me was how overly simple the scenes and dialog were. They go out of their way at the beginning to show how happy and well adjusted the family is. Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello play Tom and Edie Stall, the perfect normal American couple in the mid-west, living the normal life with two well adjusted kids.

I've seen all of the actors elsewhere and they've always been pretty good, but the quality of the writing (especially the dialog) and directing was so low that there was no way they could come off looking competent. It was painful to watch it, especially at the very beginning.

Small spoiler: There was a sex scene between Maria Bello and Viggo Mortensen where they get violent and then just have sex on the stairs. It made me laugh out loud and shake my head it was so bizarre. They are always so tender at the beginning that this comes out of left field. It was like the lesbian scene in Crash.

Oh! Another thing - there were a few scenes where two men are facing each other... the moment is tense and the actors just look like they are going to kiss - all the body language is there. Both myself and Una noticed it independently.

All in all, a poor quality, let down of a movie. One of the worst I've seen in a while.

This is made worse considering that it's so highly rated, both on imdb and elsewhere.

movie: "Blood Diamond" (3.5/5 stars) 2006

2007-05-27T16:38:00.000+12:00

Finally rented this DVD after missing it at the theater.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Danny Archer, a diamond smuggler and mercenary in Sierra Leone during the civil war in the late 90's. The movie goes a long way towards educating the audience about conflict diamonds and how they are being used to fund both sides of the civil war.

The 2nd disk has some excellent documentaries as well and is worth watching.

Leo took a lot of criticism for his accent, which I thought was pretty good. I'm hardly an expert on accents, but certainly hear my fair share here in New Zealand. One thing I thought was exceptional was his action sequences. He handled a gun and was decisive in his scenes that made him believable as a talented ex-military man surviving in a harsh environment.

Something else I loved about the movie was how noble his actions were despite his selfish motivations. It was like he was forced into doing something good, and ended up transforming his character because of it.

He was also backed by solid performances by Djimon Hounsou playing a local fisherman fighting for his family and Jennifer Connelly playing an American reporter looking for a story that would actually make a difference.

Excellent movie that is well worth watching.

Review: "25 best sci-fi movies and TV" (3/5 stars)

2007-05-08T17:40:00.000+12:00

This is the first review that I'm reviewing.

Sci-fi central lists what they consider the 25 best sci-fi movies and tv in the last 25 years.

It's an ok list. To make it easy to read, I've condensed it down to this text:

25. V (1983)
24. Galaxy Quest (1999)
23. "Doctor Who original"/"new Doctor Who" (1963-Present)
22. "Quantum Leap" (1989-1993)
21. "Futurama" (1999-2003)
20. "Star Wars: Clone Wars" (2003-2005)
19. Starship Troopers (1997)
18. "Heroes" (2006-Present)
17. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
16. Total Recall (1990)
15. "Firefly"/Serenity (2002/2005)
14. Children of Men (2006)
13. The Terminator / Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1984 /1991)
12. Back to the Future (1985)
11. "Lost" (2004-Present)
10. The Thing (1982)
9. Aliens (1986)
8. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1987-1994)
7. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
6. Brazil (1985)
5. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
4. "The X Files" (1993-2002)
3. Blade Runner (1982)
2. "Battlestar Galactica" (2003-Present)
1. The Matrix (1999)

I think they got it right with The Matrix at the top, and the new "Battlestar Galactica" at #2. Both very much the best. That's why I ended up with a 3 star rating on this review.

I find that I have strong reactions to this list. While it is OK, there are some significant lame inclusions. Items on the list I disagree with:

#'s 23. DOCTOR WHO 22. QUANTUM LEAP 21. FUTURAMA (1999-2003) 19. STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997) 17. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) 16. TOTAL RECALL (1990) 14. CHILDREN OF MEN (2006) 8. STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION (1987-1994) 6. BRAZIL (1985)

"Doctor Who" is only popular because there are millions of people in the UK who grew up with it and accept its many flaws, primarily in the lack of budget and production value. In the end, even the newest stuff is pretty silly. The reviewer at sci-fi central said, "special effects and budget don't matter" - sorry, I don't agree.

"Quantum Leap" was the opposite of subtle and is like killing insects with a sledge hammer. Remember when killing insects with a sledge hammer - it usually doesn't work very well and misses the mark almost all the time.

"Futurama" just has such stupid characters that I could never get into it. While I appreciate that stupidity still exists in the future, I can't believe that anyone is as stupid as Frye. This is the opposite of intelligent humour.

"Starship Troopers" is a poor representation of a fantastic book. It just wasn't good enough.

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" - was more about the druggie technicians partying at the victim/customer's house all night as they erase memories. I couldn't imagine such an important technology falling into the hands of such witless people. Completely unbelievable and silly.

"Total Recall" while mostly good, can't get away from the Hollywood cliche of the couple kissing at the end, even after they just got SHOT OUT INTO HARD VACUUM AND HAD THEIR EYES BOIL AWAY! Too damn stupid to make this list.

"Children of Men" The story lets down what was an awesome premise and set of actors. I also loved the directing and sets, backdrop etc... but the movie was boring. I don't get its inclusion here.

Why exclude "Star Trek The Next Generation"? Star Trek represents the worst of what is wrong with sci-fi on TV. Its anti-imagination theme is what you get when you have a committee deciding on all the major directions and taking no chances. There was no continuity from episode to episode and what worked in one was deliberately ignored in the next. I don't know why - probably because it's easier to write. I want it hard to write and still done well.

"Brazil" was just weird. There is a scene where the renegade plummer is caught up in flying paper (bureaucratic red-tape?) and eventually just disappears when the paper blows away. I don't get how that's sci-fi. I guess it's set in the future, but so was Immortel (ad vitam) but the doesn't make it science fiction.

Of course, I've removed 9 items from the list and have to put something in their place. How about:

1 "Samurai Jack"
2 "Babylon 5" (you have to forgive the first season, which is hard to watch)
3 The Incredibles
4 Twelve Monkeys
5 "Stargate SG-1"
6. "Earth 2" (lasted less than 1 season - don't know why)
7. Jurassic Park
8 Contact
9 Treasure Planet (based on Treasure Island - animated film)

All of these are better than the ones I would like to remove and all fit within the last 25 years. NOTE: since I used imdb as a source, like them, all TV shows are in quotes and all movies aren't.

Movie: Spiderman 3 (1.5/5 stars) 2007

2007-05-05T23:38:00.000+12:00

The worst of the Spiderman movies for me.

They emphasized the nerdy nature of Peter Parker, when they didn't really before. They showed how little the relationship between Mary Jane and Peter had grown or changed. They emphasized the lame soppy speeches from Aunt May. The CG was SO overused, it was turned into a cartoon. The attempt at making the Sandman a sympathetic character was so weak as to be laughable... every time he had the opportunity to kill Spiderman, he took it without hesitating, yet he was so sorry he'd killed Uncle Ben. Please!

For a huge Spiderman fan, this is a disappointment. I would say that unless you are a big fan yourself, you can certainly wait until the DVD release.

Funny, this was THE most expensive movie of all time to make, on the order of $300 Million. While watching the movie, I kept seeing things that could have been removed, made the movie cheaper and not affected the story at all.

By far the best scenes in the movie were centered around J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) who was at his humorous best!

Book: "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem (2/5 stars)

2007-05-02T23:09:00.000+12:00

This 1961 novel is listed in "100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels".

Stansilaw Lem is the most read science-fiction writer outside of the English language. Previously, I've read "The Cyberiad", a brilliant collection of short stories translated from Polish by Michael Kandel.

"Solaris" doesn't really live up to the expectations I had on it after reading about it in "100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels", or from my experience with "The Cyberiad".

Maybe it's because it was translated by a different translator (from French no less, which means 2 translations), or maybe it's the nature of the novel itself, which is heavy and dark.

And yes, there is a movie based on this book with George Clooney in it!

The book follows Kelvin to the base on the planet Solaris. Kelvin is a scientist who dedicated his life to studying the planet and the possibly sentient living ocean that covers most of the surface. However, the novel is very much Lem's exploration of the alienness of alien life, and there are many questions that just remain unanswered. He goes on for pages and pages about previous expeditions and the complex shapes and structures created by the living ocean.

Much of the book is spent following Kelvin as he explores the base's vast library of books by other scientists and researchers who study Solaris as well. Lem puts on display the various fads and trends of his fictional universe. I think he's somehow intending to mirror the real world's tendency to do the same with science, but the parallel is lost on me.

I'm willing to accept that book is a classic and has some redeeming qualities, but it's mostly a curiosity for me, and not a particularly good one.

movie: "Eragon" (2/5 stars) 2006

2007-04-29T16:47:00.000+12:00

Eragon is a kid's fantasy movie based on the popular book by Christopher Paolini.

I thought that the movie was ok, but affected strongly by a large number of continuity errors. The person responsible for continuity was either fired, or incompetent. Is it day time or dark outside? Is it raining or sunny? Does that dragon armor have eye holes or not? Was it REALLY 4 days ride in the opposite direction?

All of your questions will be disappointingly answered in this weak fantasy movie that does nothing for the genre and will end up in the cheap bin shortly beside "Ladyhawke" and "Dungeons and Dragons", which is too bad, since it could have been really good.

Notable guest appearances include Jeremy Irons as the mentor, Robert Carlyle as the very scary evil wizard (best character), the overacting John Malkovich as the unfortunately named Galbatorix (they said the name far too often - his dragon looks cool though) and the voice of Rachel Weisz as Saphira, the good dragon. None of these actors help the movie past a 2 star rating though.

I feel bad about it, since it is a rich genre with lots of potential, as Peter Jackson showed with Lord of the Rings.

Movie: "Pathfinder" (1.5/5) 2007

2007-04-29T00:22:00.000+12:00

Saw this at the theater today.

Below average film that could have been so much better.

Premise: Viking ship crashes in North America 500 years before Columbus. A Viking boy is the only survivour and is taken in by the natives.

Jump ahead 15 years, and the boy has grown into Karl Urban, kiwi mega-hunk. Now, the Vikings have returned and they aren't there for tea and crumpets. Urban has no problem carrying the role. He's got loads of presence, and I see lots of leading roles for him in the future.

The main problem is that the direction is muddled and hard to follow. Not enough time was spent on the action sequences and choreography, so there are only quick flashes of sequences that are blurry and indistinct.

Of course, the direction is just one of the strange decisions from the film makers.

- The colour scheme is bordering on black and white, but with bright colour every once in a while; the scenes with colour weren't important or significant, and the choices seemed somewhat random (maybe trying to ride on the success of films like "Sin City"?).
- There were all kinds of strange anachronisms, like stairs in a native village (believe me - never happened - it's like finding a samurai sword there)
- Rituals were thrown in from lots of different Indian tribes that had nothing to do with the one they were dealing with in the movie, and even some Indian rituals and practices given to the Vikings - very odd.

While a film like Apocalypto put significant effort into being historically accurate, it felt very much like they didn't want to bother in Pathfinder. It comes through strongly in look and feel.

Movie: "Casino Royale" (4/5 Stars) 2006

2007-04-29T00:12:00.000+12:00

Best Bond film ever. Nothing silly, no missles being launched from cars, ejection seats, evil genius hideouts and so on. High on action, well executed, fun to watch (often painful looking) - what other Bond films should be.

If you like Bond movies, I don't know if you'll like this, it's significantly different from the last 4 or 5, which were, in my opinion, Hollywood fluff and written by committee.

If you don't like Bond, but like other action movies, then give this a go - it's high octane spy action.

I'm still not crazy for Daniel Craig - he's a good Bond, but has this silly little pout he does - as far as Bond girls - Eva Green is exotic ou la la! I've been a fan since I saw "Kingdom of Heaven".

Book: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" by Richard Feynman (5/5 stars)

2007-04-26T10:12:00.000+12:00

This is a brilliant book, full of cool science and cool stories, some exceptionally funny.

Feynman looks at not only science and what science is, but at religion and the supernatural. He also looks at "cargo cult science" and how it goes through the motions of science but isn't science at all.

I was thoroughly entertained by each and every story, and recommend it to anyone who is curious at all about the natural world.

I recently read "Six Easy Pieces", another of Feynman's books, but it didn't capture Feynman's voice the way this one ones. I reviewed that book here.

If you are interested in this book, I highly recommend Feynman's 1979 lectures at Auckland University. They are well worth watching if you are even remotely interested. They are apparently one of the few freely available videos of his lectures.

Hi statement that "science is irrelevant" in the modern world held me for an entire chapter while he waited to explain it. It is too sad, but is true anyway. Today's modern world isn't a scientific one at all. It would be better if it was.

Feynman's attitude towards the world, one of accepting the unknown and having doubt about everything is one that deeply affects me and I strongly agree with. The NEED to know everything is just silly and we should be accepting of the unknown. Too many people feel the need to fill in the unknown with silly things that aren't necessary - that's where astrology comes from and who need that?

Review of recent movies - April, 2007

2007-04-21T16:59:00.000+12:00

I've gotten a little behind on my movie reviews - I've seen a few in the last 2 months and have not kept up:

Recent good movies (4+ stars):
300 (****1/2) - reviewed here.

Recent Ok movies (3-4 stars)
Monster House (***) - funny animated movie about the neighbour's animated house.
Ice Age II (***1/2) - better than the first - lots of funny bits
The Departed (***) - could have been better without 1 scene
The Illusionist (***) - good in many ways, but the ending was too easy, and was baby fed to the audience
Children of Men (***) - great concept, good actors and sets - pacing and story let it down
Rozencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead (***) - had some hilarious pieces (the question game), but is dependent on how well you know Hamlet - great if you do
Wedding Crashers (***1/2) - much funnier than expected. Liked it all the way through - a character in a suicidal mood was reading a book called "Don't Jump"
Naked State (***1/2) - ended up being an excellent documentary about an artist taking photos of large groups of naked people - the photos are amazing.
The Dark (***) - Had all the stereotypical creepy stuff - pretty well done
The Most Fertile Man in Ireland (***) - Some amusement - only ok though

Recent Bad movies (less than 3 stars):
Babel (**) - Acting, directing, production value, writing, all awesome, but the scenes don't belong all in the same movie. It was distracting. AND, there was a strobe scene that went on FOREVER!
Half Light (**) - dull Demi Moore comeback movie. Not worth it.
The Wicker Man (**) - Nicolas Cage in a somewhat unpredictable, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller
Beowulf & Grendle (*) - complete pants! Despite liking Gerard Butler, nothing saves this completely lame adaptation of the classic epic.
I Love Your Work (*1/2) - Weirdness. Giovanni Ribisi plays a superstar actor caught in a decadent life, however, you're never sure what is actually happening, as the flashbacks and side scenes blend together with a confused main character imagining his life differently and his past... I don't recommend it.

Book: "Stone" by Adam Roberts (2/5 stars)

2007-04-12T23:26:00.000+12:00

I found a link to this novel on Amazon.com in someone's listmania as one of the great sci-fi books.

The concept is this - we start in a prison where the one murderer among the future's trillions of humans is kept. Someone breaks him out to carry out some terrible deed.

Sounds interesting doesn't it? It is - a little anyway. There are bits and pieces here and there that are pretty good, but mainly, the author takes us on tours of various planets, where you get to see wonderfully alien, but beautiful landscapes.

Somewhere along the way, in the middle of a description of one of these strange planets, it hit me that it was all made up. Somehow the author failed to trap me in the story and I could picture him making up all of these planets, maybe even thinking how clever he'd made this or that, and I never got back to it.

At that point, it became like reading a Lonely Planet Guide to some made up place and I didn't really see the value of it. The reviews of the novel on Amazon go on and on about how it's original and a great read, but I just saw it as a travelogue. It did almost nothing for me.

Movie: "300" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

2007-04-12T15:10:00.000+12:00

A !MANLY! romp of a movie with a wall of indestructible Spartans meeting an army of a million Persians bent on capturing all of Greece.

I thought that the initial trailer looked bloody awful and camp, but the campy scenes from the trailer actually fit nicely into the context of the movie. I ended up loving the movie - thought that it was a brilliant display of style and action with an excellent cast and some very exotic Persian excesses even as they march an army of a million people forward into Greece.

Things I loved:
cinematography, directing, cast, action sequences, comic book feel, the Persian army, tough lines from various Spartans

Things I didn't like:
The voice over at the beginning, the lame special effect of the oracle floating in mid-air (a total of 5 minutes of the movie)

I have to say, 20 or 30 Spartans turning around in sync with their shields and spears all ready was very cool.

I know there is probably a mile of critics who will pick on the inaccuracies of the historical content and the actual Battle of Thermopylae but I know it's based on a comic, and the comic took great liberties so I can ignore that problem and just sit back and enjoy.

It isn't for everyone, and I think that there will be many polarized critics either loving it or hating it. I am firmly in the "love it" camp and will certainly be seeing it again, probably in the theatre.

Book: "Six Easy Pieces" by Richard Feynman (2 of 5 stars)

2007-04-07T23:55:00.000+12:00

I made the mistake of viewing a set of lectures from Auckland University when Feynman was there in 1979 at the same time I was reading this book.

The books is good, but the lectures are SO MUCH BETTER.

This book is based on The Feynman Lectures, classic books in the field of educating young physicists. Being much, much shorter, lots is left out, like equations and any mathematics. This is fine for a pop culture science book and I didn't mind, but found Feynman's voice doesn't shine through here. Also, the editor of this book decided to keep several pieces of text that say "I cover this in more detail in the next chapter" or "we continue with this in more detail", when there is obviously nothing more coming. This happened on the 2nd to last page and then the book just ended. It felt somewhat poorly put together.

Still, I consider it a gentle introduction to everything about science and how a few simple ideas can be used to derive all the rest. If you need to cover all of science in a book that is only 150 pages long, this is about as good as you can get, certainly content-wise.

If you read and like this book, I highly recommend listening to Feynman's 1979 lectures in Auckland as well as reading James Gleick excellent biography of him, "Genius".

Book: "The World Gates" by Holly Lisle (2 our of 5 stars)

2007-04-07T23:27:00.000+12:00

I just read Holly Lisle's "The World Gates", 3 books called "Memory of Fire", "The Wreck of Heaven" and "Gods, Old and Dark" about two woman named Loren and Molly (sounds like Holly, is probably meant to be the author in some shape or form).

Molly and Loren are sisters and each independently discover that there are magical gates leading from earth going to other worlds, upworld, downworld and side worlds etc... In the downworld, humans have magical abilities and are considered gods there. Consequently, beings from our upworld have magical abilities on earth and are considered gods here (Zeus, Thor, Ra etc... were all originally from upworld somewhere).

The premise is good, lots of potential for interesting story lines, cool fantasy and so on. Lisle seems to write about interesting things and most of the books content is interesting to read. Having read many of the author's writing tips, and listened to her podcast "On Writing", I assumed that she'd be a cut above the rest, since she obviously cares about her writing, world building and characters a great deal.

Despite this, what I read was a completely average, pulp, fantasy novel with underdeveloped villains (to the point of ineffectiveness) and annoying, unsympathetic main characters whose troubles are bashed over the reader's head again and again. Writing was passable, but often awkward in places and in need of more editing.

Whenever it comes down to a battle between good and evil, somehow, the bad guys never know how to use magic as well as the good guys do... no reason, just the way that it works. Some of these bad guys are ancient gods, with ten thousand years of experience crushing pissants like the main characters, yet in the end, while it looks hard, it ends up being so damn easy that it's not worth reading. There was one scene in the middle novel where "A group of dark gods..." were "pinned down" by fire from good guys. The dumbness of the phrase completely pulled me from the story and left me shaking my head. There are many scenes like this.

I will only read more work by this author on recommendations from friends. I think I'll stop reading her writing tips and listening to the podcasts too.

Town, pesdestrian friendliness: Taupo/Rotorua, NZ (1/5 stars)

2007-03-05T21:15:00.000+13:00

I haven't reviewed a town before, let alone two at once.

I'm a fan of Taupo and Rotorua, the thermal activity, the views, the lake front walks - all very lovely/scary/amazing.

Now, my review isn't actually of the towns, it's of the pedestrian friendliness. Both Rotorua and Taupo are certainly NOT! pedestrian friendly.

I don't know if you live in New Zealand, but the 2nd most amazing thing about Taupo, after the fact that it's built on the edge of a massive volcanic crater is that there isn't a single crosswalk all the way along the main drag. Not one! Who planned this?

Whoever planned the town must have done one of three things:
1) said - "There will never be enough people or traffic to warrant crosswalks!"
2) felt sure that they'd mentioned it to their assistant
3) doesn't walk, so doesn't need crosswalks

I don't spend as much time in Rotorua, but did this weekend - same thing. Crosswalks conspicuously absent.

Tell me if you've noticed this.

movie: "An Inconvenient Truth" (5/5) 2006

2007-02-24T00:28:00.000+13:00

I've been incredibly slow with this blog entry and have had it in "draft" for weeks. Time to finish it while I'm procrastinating on my Kiwiwriters Easter Writing Challenge.

Al Gore has been an environmental proponent for decades. This isn't a recent phenomenon for him. He's done what he calls his slideshow at least a thousand times.

During and after the movie I was both appalled and worried. I know many people who will avoid this movie simply because it is scary and who wants to watch a movie to be scared of the big bad outside world, after all, movies are about escape. Right?

Please, please, please don't do that with this movie. This is information everyone must know. If this helps you change one thing about your life that means you are more of an activist, then we are one step closer to solving the problems.

All the technology we need to solve this issue is available now, but governments are slow to react and legislate its use now, things are changing faster than predicted and everyone can contribute to the solution.

I beg you to take a look at this movie and listen to what Al Gore has to say. It's worth listening to!

book: "Way of the Cheetah" by Lynn Viehl (4/5 stars)

2007-02-23T23:58:00.000+13:00

This is a book about writing. It is about how to be a more productive writer. She compares each of her strategies to the life and hunting strategies of a cheetah, sometimes to comic effect (imagine a cheetah being patted on the head by its cheetah friends that think his hunting is a nice little 'hobby')

I loved the book and even though it's only 72 pages, I though it was well worth the $9.95 I spent on line for it. The shortness is part of the appeal, and I finished it in about an hour and got lots out of it. It's an e-book, so you get it right away in pdf format (zipped) from Holly Lisle's writing resource page.

Lynn Viehl is the author of 36 novels in 5 different genres and writes over a million words per year. She is well worth listening to if you are interested in success as a writer. She also finds the time to share information on her popular and almost daily Paperback writer blog - I'm not sure where she finds the time.

Highlights for me included:
1. Strategies for upping your word count
2. Her own change of habit and how it helped her become more productive
3. That is ok to write for money
4. Her editing strategies and that she edits daily (a no-no in [[Nanowrimo]])
5. The constant and consistent cheetah analogy (it just works)

If you are interested in writing and have no clue how you could ever finish a novel or short story, and wonder where you'd ever find the time - this book answers all of those questions. If you are a writer by profession and want to be more productive, this is a must read.

Movie: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1/5 stars) 1964

2007-02-11T18:15:00.000+13:00

This is one of those movies you always plan to see but never do.

I see why now. It just was not my thing, i.e. well made, well written cinema.

I don't quite see why it's the classic that is #19 on imdb's top 250 list. It's next to good movies, there are good movies before and after it, but I don't think it is a good movie.

I think everyone thinking back remembers the few good lines in the movie, specifically, "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"... I can't remember any of the other ones, although I vaguely remember that there were more.

Peter Sellers and George C. Scott are good, but are sitting in the middle of something even they can't save. Sorry, but I have to give a thumbs down to a 'classic'. I think the pressure is always why this movie consistently ranks high on people's lists - they think they may have missed something and come out looking stupid. Fair enough... I suppose I could give it a 1.5/5 - nah!

Movie: Apocalypto (4/5 stars) 2006

2007-01-30T20:00:00.000+13:00

I almost always start with mentioning the actors who were in a movie. With this film, 99% of everyone in it only have Apocalypto as a credit, so mentioning actors isn't much use.

The film focuses on Jaguar's Paw, a Mayan native living in the jungles of Central America around 1500 or so. His tribe is attacked and mostly captured and brought to a city nearby.

I don't know how accurate this portrays Mayan civilization, but taken as an action movie, there is little to fault it.

This is a high adrenalin movie and as with most Mel Gibson movies, there is no shying away from the brutal life of the time.

I liked it and recommended it to lots of my friends. It is worth the price of the ticket and a real roller coaster ride of a movie.

Book: "Axiomatic" by Greg Egan (5/5 stars)

2007-01-25T21:25:00.000+13:00

This is a book of short stories by Greg Egan, one of the most successful Australian sci-fi writers of all time.

I'm already a fan, having read "Luminous", another book of short stories, as well as "Permutation City" and "Quarantine". I also have "Diaspora" on my shelf, but I haven't read it yet. Shortly. Shortly.

I thought that "Luminous" was great - there were at least three or four really good short stories in there, including "Reasons to be Cheerful", probably my favorite ever short story, and "Mitochondrial Eve", a close second.

Because "Axiomatic" is older, I expected it to be less polished and less interesting. I was completely wrong. Almost every story was amazing in some way.

I highly recommend this for intellectual sci-fi fans. Don't miss Egan, we aren't going to see anything this good for a long, long time.

Movie: Thank You For Smoking (4/5 stars) 2005

2007-01-22T18:39:00.000+13:00

I'm so much an anti-smoker that I'm almost prejudiced, and that made me really concerned when we rented this DVD.

Two things about the movie:

1. There is no smoking at all in the movie (except in the extra scenes, not in the main movie)
2. It is one of THE most clever movies I have ever seen

It is a comedy parody of the big tobacco industry and how they promote themselves. It follows Nick Naylor, a tobacco lobbyist going from interview to interview, from TV talk show to Hollywood to reporters promoting big tobacco and finding a way to sell more cigarettes. He's a smooth talker with interesting ways of looking at his morals and a more interesting way of "winning" arguments. He has to balance his flexible morals against raising his son Joey (played by Cameron Bright).

This movie taught me a lot about debating and not a lot about big tobacco (which is good). I thought it was intelligent and well written with the right mix of smart ass and ridiculous, with all the right people getting what is coming to them.

My favorite scene (excuse the approximate dialog):
Nick: say we're debating ice cream. Chocolate versus Vanilla. You're taking chocolate, what do you say?
Joey: Chocolate, it's the best, it's all I eat. What do you say?
Nick: I say, "It's not about the chocolate or the vanilla, it's about the right to choose, that's the most important thing!"
Joey: But you haven't answered which is better, Chocolate or vanilla.
Nick: People don't have to see that I'm right, but that you're wrong.
Joey: But you haven't convinced me.
Nick: I don't have to convince you, I have to convince them (pointing at the people around them)

They then flash to Nick and Joey on a ferris wheel eating vanilla ice cream.

Great movie.

Movie: The World's Fastest Indian (4.5/5 stars) 2005

2007-01-22T17:28:00.000+13:00

Starring Sir Anthony Hopkins as Burt Munro, a speed freak forever tinkering with his 1920 Indian motorcycle seeing how much speed he can squeeze out of it. In the movie, he realizes his dream and takes the machine across the pacific to the Bonneville Salt Flats in the late 1960's to set a land speed record.

I loved this movie from start to finish, all of Burt's small quirks, his forever saying, "What?" because he was hard of hearing, his laid-back attitude and how easy it was for him to make friends (which he did absolutely everywhere), his encounters in LA, his naive nature... it's all golden.

Having lived in New Zealand for over five years now, it's hard to think of a movie that has captured the unusual kiwi attitude the way this one has. it just feels kiwi, and that's a good thing to be making and showing the world.

The only reason that I docked 0.5 stars from this movie is because of Hopkin's kiwi accent, which was not very good. It IS a tough accent to get right though, and didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie much at all.

This isn't just a movie for New Zealanders though, it's as much a movie about one lone man against the world and the small town man going out and succeeding. It has such universal appeal that I can recommend it to anyone.

Movie: Lost in LaMancha (3/5 stars) 2002

2007-01-22T17:15:00.000+13:00

For those who don't know, "Lost in LaMancha" is about Terry Gilliam's failed attempt at making a Don Quixote movie. We get to see behind the scenes as Gilliam attempts to produce and film (6 days total) his movie.

There are two main ideas that popped into my head when I watched this movie: 1) I would really, really like to see the movie that Terry Gilliam is trying to make, and 2) I've never seen anything like this before.

While I'm sure that there are many movies that fail to get made, I've never, ever seen the making of one. Especially one that is so likely to succeed. Terry Gilliam is a well know film maker and director with a string of successes behind him, he's got funding (a little tighter than he'd like), a huge stars in Johnny Depp and Jean Rochefort (a perfect Don Quixote) and so many other things that should make this an A list movie with hundreds of millions in earnings.

Still, little things go wrong at first, followed by big things. It's amazing to see as coincidence after coincidence, mishap after mishap hit the movie and ruin what looks so so good.

There are a few bits and pieces of finished material on the DVD. The production quality is fantastic and it feels good. I really hope that he finishes this movie some time - I'll line up for it.

I learned a lot about what goes on during the making of a movie, mainly that even on a well run movie, things are pretty chaotic and hard to rein in. The amount of management needed is tremendous, and there are a lot of ways any movie can fail. I learned a lot about Gilliam himself - since he was involved in Monty Python, I'd assumed that he was English, but no, he's an American living in England.

If you are interested in how movies are made and what all the obstacles are, then this is the movie for you. Enjoy.

movie: Intimacy (1 out of 5 stars) 2001

2007-01-22T16:08:00.000+13:00

Starring Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox, two actors I've never even heard of before. I read the DVD cover and saw that it was a movie about two people who were having a strange sexual relationship where she just shows up and has sex every Wednesday. They don't know each other, but somehow are taking comfort in their surreal relationship. That is, until he follows her home one Wednesday and starts to learn who she is.

This sounds pretty unusual and interesting - it got rented after all.

But I was never ready for the strangeness. You never quite learn how they meet, or why they are having sex (he is uglier than any lead I've seen in a while), the side bits with his friends is completely random and does nothing to carry the story forward.

The sex itself is positively shocking and is practically pornography. It was explicit and hard to watch, and decidedly not sexy at all. I'm sure some of the scenes must have gotten this movie an X rating.

In the end, I didn't learn a thing from this movie, including much about the movie itself. Weird and not interesting. It's an easy recommendation from me that you just pass on this one.

movie: Attila the Hun (2 out of 5 stars) 2001

2007-01-22T15:18:00.000+13:00

Starring Gerard Butler as Attila and Powers Boothe as the loyal Roman general trying to hold Rome together in the face of many barbarian groups on their borders.

We knew when we rented this that it was going to be B movie quality and we weren't surprised. Gerard Butler, a solid action star in several A list movies couldn't quite keeps his Scottish Accent in rein, and of course, Powers Boothe didn't even try to disguise his American one. This was just amusing more than damning, but the first thing that I noticed.

At times, an interesting, semi-historical view on one of the great barbarian leaders, and at others, a barely passable high-school production. No matter your take on the movie, you almost have to be interested in history and be willing to ignore the movie's many flaws. I have to say that it will be hard to do, since many of them are so obvious and amusing.

There was this one bit where Attila and his right hand man are running after being routed in a battle and they just run for maybe 100 metres and fall to the ground to rest on the side of a small hill. It looked so much like two guys coming off a game of touch football or rugby that I couldn't help but shake my head.

Movie: The Prestige (3/5 stars), 2006

2007-01-21T15:30:00.001+13:00

This movie looked really cool in the previews. Up front, I will say: The movie isn't as good as the previews make it out to be.

That being said, the movie has Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Cane, Scarlett Johansson and more, so you know the acting is good - no issues. The problem, and my overall issue with the movie is one of sympathy. Both main characters have such large egos and become so twisted and unlikable that I don't care what happens to them in the end.

Other than the sympathy aspect, which counts for a lot, the rest of the movie is very cool. Set at the turn of the 20th century, it follows the lives of two illusionists with an intense rivalry based a woman (of course). The sets and costume, as well as "backstage at the magic show" material was excellent and believable.

I thought that the movie could have been better without the sci-fi bit. Still, I'm a huge fan of Nikola Tesla (the inventor of AC power - I'm an electrical engineer by the way :-) ) and seeing him suffering injustices at the hands of Thomas Edison tells people who he was, maybe enough enough to look him up. This is a good thing since his part in history is vastly underplayed. I thought David Bowie did him justice.

Unfortunately, the "secret" at the end is much too transparent and obvious as to make it ineffectual. As I said, it would have been better left out.

Movie: Little Fish (3/5 stars) 2005

2007-01-21T15:22:00.000+13:00

This is an amazing movie in so many ways. About a recovering drug addict (Blanchett) trying to have a go at a successful life.

The biggest deal about this movie is how utterly believable the cast and acting are. They are so absolutely spot on that I was amazed all the way through.

It took the extra features on the DVD to convince me, as I didn't really enjoy the film, but after seeing the extra features, re-examined my thoughts on the movie and realized how convincing everything was.

The reason that I didn't like it certainly had nothing to do with the acting, directing and writing, which were beyond reproach, but that the movie has so much about drug culture in it. Drug movies always turn me off, since it's so far from my current life that I never understand it. I say "drug movie", but realize that it isn't about drugs, so much as about the people around drugs. Still, there is a fair share of dealing, doing and being strung out on drugs throughout to turn me off.

Movie: Ghost World (3/5 stars) 2001

2007-01-21T15:11:00.000+13:00

This is a quirky, enjoyable film with lots of good in it.

Thora Birch, Scarlett Johansson and Steve Buscemi are all fantastic in this - the acting is excellent and completely believable.

Enid (Birch) and Rebecca (Johansson) get to the end of highschool and slowly grow apart as Rebecca wants to start her life, and Enid still feels the need to rebel against the norm and does things because they are different. This slowly grates on their friendship and makes their time together more and more of Rebecca rolling her eyes at Enid's antics and becoming embarrassed to be her.

Enid meets Seymore (Buscemi) through a cruel practical joke, but gradually realizes that he's a little off and represents off-beat and off-norm, so gradually gets closer until real life and age differences intrude on their unusual friendship.

This is an unusual movie, but has enough solid laughs for me to like it quite a lot. Still, there were significant weaknesses, mostly with the writing that made me resist a higher rating.

Movie: Johnny Mnemonic (1/5 stars) 1995

2007-01-21T14:48:00.000+13:00

I watched this years ago, and my wife was really asking me not to get it again at the video store. I remembered it as good, so got it anyway.

She was so, SO right!

I can't tell you all the things wrong with this. Firstly, Johnny, the courier who carries data in his head, in 2020 has 80 Gigs of storage capacity, and gets a memory double which brings him to 160 Gigs. Considering how easy it is to figure out the data storage in the future (it's following a simple curve), you'd think a courier who gave up his childhood memories would have something bigger than what we can get for $100 at the computer store in 2007 - it's silly. I heard that the short story was even sillier, and the movie "improved" it somewhat.

Still, I knew all of that before I saw the movie. It's such a large target that I had to mention it. If I were the film maker, I would have invented a new word for storage size and just made it sounds REALLY big and impressive, and not dated the film so badly.

This is the least of the film transgressions. The acting, directing, storyline etc... are all sub-standard. It's really, really hard to watch Keanu Reeves at this point in his career. He was truly flat and cardboard actor. AND the man can't look at the camera, he's looking everywhere else. I know he still has that problem, but it's even worse here and his eyes wander everywhere. As bad as people make him out to be now, this was much worse - hard to watch.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just a Keanu basher, I like lots of his stuff, "Speed", "The Matrix" (even #2), "Constantine" and several more. If you are thinking of taking a trip down memory lane and getting a 90's movie, steer clear of this one - it tells you how bad some of the mainstream films were in that time.

Book: "Freakanomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (3/5 stars)

2007-01-12T00:48:00.000+13:00

In many ways, a brilliant book. If the 2nd half was as good as the first half, I'd have given it a 5 star rating.

Steven Levitt knows how to look at data, and better than that, he knows how to find interesting results in the data that anyone can access. He asks the right questions, he finds the best way to get the answers that he wants, and fortunately for the rest of us, the facts he finds interesting are interesting for the rest of us.

His big revelation was the effect abortion was having on the crime rate, but there are lots of other things that he looked at that were immensely cool and interesting. How do you know if sumo wrestlers are cheating? We've got all this data to look at, what would a sumo wrestler cheating look like? How about teachers cheating on standardized exams? How about real estate agents selling their own houses? How are crack organizations like McDonald's franchises?

Levitt knows exactly how to look at his data sideways, and how to eliminate irrelevant factors that might confuse anyone else. It really is a remarkable display of setting up an experiment, even if it is with events that have already happened.

Unfortunately, by the middle of the book, it felt like Levitt had hit a limit and didn't have anything quite so interesting to say. Sure it was pretty cool - but not nearly as mind blowing as the first half. After the 1/2 way point, he simply took lots of data and did correlation analysis of the results and how one variable was related to another (do the names people get affect their success in life for example). Still - the ultimate causes to the effects remained unknown, and we're left with Levitt's speculation. As insightful as his speculation is, it's still just speculation.

Still - well worth your time, especially for the first half. A truly original book.

Book: "Coraline" by Neil Gaiman (3.5/5 stars)

2007-01-12T00:29:00.001+13:00

A creepy children's fantasy novel about a precocious girl who finds a door that opens into an alternate bizarro world, where all the people she knows exist in parody, including her mother, father and neighbors.

Fresh and enjoyable, the novel/novelette is paced well, has a great main character and cast of quirky, fun, side characters and their strange and disturbing other-selves that made this an easy, quick read that I can recommend to almost anyone.

Despite being a children's story, it's worth a read for any fan of fantasy, or even just interesting fiction.

If you've read "Neverwhere" or "American Gods" and want more of Gaiman's work, you won't go wrong with this. Unfortunately, you'll be done in no time and probably wanting more.

The reason that I don't give it more stars is that it is so short, and I'd love it to be a full novel, rather than just a side project for Gaiman. I didn't think he gave it the attention it deserved. Still, it's well worth your time.

Book: "A Talent For War" by Jack McDevitt (2/5 stars)

2007-01-12T00:13:00.000+13:00

"A Talent for War" is a science fiction novel, almost, but not quite a space opera.

200 years before the events of this novel, there was a great war with an alien race colloquially known as "the mutes", and the hero, the human hero, is Christopher Sim. He's the household name, the subject of novelizations, of operas, of plays, and speculative histories. Everyone in this world knows him and the basic roll he played in the war.

McDevitt mentions more than one of these novels and operas. He goes into great detail about stories done about each and every character in the war, the lieutenants, the Benedict Arnold, the love interest, the side stories and so on. While I realize that it's necessary to show just how ingrained the roll of Christopher Sim is in this fictional society, it just isn't that interesting. The main story is, but the many, many sidelines in a novel just 300 pages long don't hold my interest. I found myself counting the pages and struggling to get back to the novel when I'd put it down. I almost gave it up a couple of times, but managed to finish.

I won't be reading any more McDevitt without a solid recommendation from someone I trust.

Book: "The Code Book" by Simon Singh (5/5 stars)

2007-01-10T23:40:00.000+13:00

This is a history of code making and code breaking from its inception (Caesar shift cypher) to modern public key encryption and beyond (he has a section on quantum cryptography at the end).

The stories are amazing, more than interesting, and Singh has an exceptional talent in making complex concepts simple to understand.

Not only does Singh tell interesting stories, but exactly when you want it, there is a photo of the machine he's talking about, or the person making the amazing discovery or cracking a difficult code.

My absolute favorite stories in this book of exceptions stories are the story of Rejewski breaking enigma, and of Clifford Cocks inventing public key encryption.

I highly recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in code making and code breaking.

Movie: Shop Girl (3/5 stars) 2005

2006-12-24T00:26:00.000+13:00

Claire Danes, Steve Martin and Jason Schwartzman star in this quirky love story.

It isn't just that he like her, she likes someone else story, oh no. It couldn't be that simple.

She likes him, he kinda likes her and so does this other guy.

I have to say, I was expecting something completely different. From the previews I've seen, and this is a while ago, I was fully expecting two guys, one rich and successful and one poor, to be fighting over this girl.

That isn't the movie at all.

The movie is quite slow, and it starts as something quite painful to watch, as Jason Schwartzman's character comes onto the scene and asks Claire Danes's character out. He is out of focus, moving in five directions at once, not getting anywhere. It's like watching slow motion boxing, where you know it's even more painful for the people involved than for those watching.

A solid effort, and the first time that I've seen Steve Martin in a serious roll that I can remember. He was actually believable and I wouldn't have expected it.

Movie: We Don't Live Here Any More, 2004 (3.5/5)

2006-12-19T19:45:00.000+13:00

The movie boldly starts with a man making a pass at his best friend's wife and her accepting.

We then move into the story of two dysfunctional families where one wife loves her husband and the other doesn't, where one husband loves his best friend's wife and one husband doesn't really love anyone.

Strangely enough, there is a common theme of the struggling writer in my movies lately, and this is no exception. Peter Krause's character Hank is struggling with his writing and teaching a writing class where he tells his students, "all of you write as well as I do, which is really depressing."

The cons of this movie: it is slow moving and an ultra-realistic view of husbands, wives and their families struggling to live life (after all - who wants real life in their movies! )

The pros of the movie: there is tremendous power in each moment of the movie. There is tension and build up, and I was genuinely curious to know what was going to happen to these characters. Also, it's an ultra-realistic view of husbands, wives and their families struggling to live life (after all - we all want some real life in our movies!).

It is better than the average movie, but because of the slowness of the movie, I rate it 3.5 out of 5.

Book: Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman (4/5 stars)

2006-12-19T18:37:00.000+13:00

This started as a low budget BBC movie and the script got turned into this book.

It's all about the London below, the underworld, where magic is common and people who live there are all but invisible to the people living above.

I love the story and the characters, especially Richard Meyhew. Richard is from the above world and completely over his head when he rescues Door, a princess from London below who desperately needs his help.

If you are trying to pick between the movie and the book, I would pick the book, since the BBC movie REALLY shows its budget.

This is probably my favorite Neil Gaiman book, and there are a few good ones, including "American Gods" and "Anansi Boys", both of which I enjoyed. Of course, his comics are even better, and if you can get a graphic novel version of his Sandman series, do so, you won't regret it.

Movie: Inside Man (3/5 stars)

2006-12-17T20:08:00.001+13:00

This is one of those "the villain is smarter than everyone else" movies. Denzel Washington plays a detective, while Clive Owen plays a very smart bank robber.

Thrown into the mix are Jodie Foster playing an ultra-competant someone who does "special jobs" for big bucks and Christopher Plummer playing an ultra-rich mogul with a big secret he wants to stay secret.

A day into this bank robbery, Denzel Washington realizes that something is up and starts to take unusual measures to see if he's right. Owen's character is always in control and knows exactly what he's doing the entire time.

While the movie is clever, and there is lots interesting going on, in the end, I found that there were mixed messages, and criminals end up being glorified a little too much for my tastes. Also, the movie makers try to put a moral message in the movie with Christopher Plumber's character, but they never really get to it.

Still, worth watching, and quite fun. It gives you a few ideas on how you might rob a bank too, just in case you were interested. The big message for bank robbers - you have to be really, really smart, smarter than any of the cops. And, for God's sake, do your research, and you'll come out just fine.

Movie: Mission Impossible 3 (MI3) (4/5 stars)

2006-12-17T18:14:00.000+13:00

I didn't want to rent this one and I deliberately avoided it in the theater, since I didn't like the first two. They were full of plot holes and stupid ideas that were constantly jolting me out of any kind of suspension of disbelief that I might have had going into them.

As before, Tom Cruise plays Ethan Hunt, the agent who goes out and takes on impossible missions (thus the title). In this movie, he's retired, and one of the students he has trained is in trouble and he rushes off to rescue her.

This is just a good, solid action movie. I liked it far more than I expected to.

It's worth your time, especially if you were avoiding it like I was. Lots of fun.

Movie: The Shining (4/5 stars)

2006-12-17T17:39:00.000+13:00

The classic Jack Nicholson horror movie based on Steven King's popular novel. Believe me, I've received a few strange looks that someone as movie-philic as myself has never seen this 1980 movie until 2006. I know, I know, and everyone under the sun has probably reviewed it too, and in fact, most people reading this have probably seen it.

Anyway - that aside, I loved the movie and thought that it was well worth my time. Fresh off my novel frenzy with Nanowrimo 2006, a friend of mine thought that it would be a great movie to see on a movie night, since it's about a novelist who goes insane ("All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.")

I paid close attention to this one for bits on how to build character, how to pace, dialog, climax and so on. It's got few weaknesses. Oh... a massive bonus to this is the re-make of the trailer on youtube/ebaumsworld, where the preview is done as a family movie, with appropriate music mixed in and just the right scenes shown for just the right amount of time. It was funny before I'd even seen the movie, doubly so after I'd seen it.

If you haven't seen this, waste no time when you are next at the movie rental place, grab a copy and watch it!

Book: Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson (4/5 Stars)

2006-12-17T00:32:00.000+13:00

I love this book. It is about the history and strangeness of English. From English names to English words, statistics of how many people speak English worldwide and so on.

A few things I took away from this book and quote quite often - 1) English is strange 2) adding s isn't the only way to make a word plural (i.e. brethren and children) 3) people never pronounce the "t" in soften, even though people do with often 4) more people are learning English in China than speak English in the United States

And so on and so on. This is a real winner and I highly recommend it. It is quirky and looks at the subject from a sideways position giving many interesting and insightful views. If you've ever been interested in why English is the way it is, and why we say deer and not deers, sheep and not sheeps, spoke not speaked etc.. etc... then look no further.

Movie: {Proof} (3/5 stars)

2006-12-16T16:05:00.000+13:00

Proof is about a mathematical proof. For a movie about math, you thought that there would be more lucid math discussions, but seeing as this is a hollywood movie and they have to give this to a broad audience, I guess I get why they left it out.

Gwyneth Paltrow plays the daughter of a world famous mathematician (yes, these people do exist) Anthony Hopkins. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the love interest and math student who hangs around (he plays Hal - that's important).

I liked almost everything about this movie - the acting was good (although I've seen Paltrow much better - Hopkins is his normal self), the writing, directing, dialog and the math nerd band playing "i" were brilliant. However, the one thing that I didn't like really took a toll on the movie. The editing was horrible and you never quite know if you are in the present or one of the many pasts involved in the story line.

The flashbacks have the same look and feel as the present, so it was never obvious until a couple of minutes into the scene where you were. This throws off my ability to immerse myself into the movie and I kept getting pulled back into my living room. It was annoying and detracted seriously.

Still, I feel it was ultimately worth watching and was enjoyable overall. There were some really funny scenes in this movie and it was a shade short of a comedy. I don't think it will change your life however, so if you're looking for a movie with real impact, look elsewhere.

movie: "The Secret" (5/5 stars)

2006-12-14T15:01:00.000+13:00

If you've ever seen "What the Bleep", this is a similar, but better movie. There is a quite cheesy opening about some women finding a note from her daughter, and some monks in the middle ages stealing away with a secret that the rich, Illuminati types don't want out in the world.

The movie shows a lot of people discussing the secret, which is given early in the movie, interspersed with shorts of people behaving a certain way, or having certain things happen to them.

Basically, the "secret" is the law of attraction, which says that what you think about is the kind of thing that attracts itself to you. There are some metaphysicians, philosophers, quantum physicists, reverends etc.. who are talking about this phenomenon as if it is a real phenomenon, a law that has to be explained by quantum physics and deep science. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant... as the people in the movie say, you don't have to understand how electricity works to use it - you cook things, and turn on lights all the time and it just works.

Apparently, the law of attraction is the same and is always at work. While I'm sure there is a logical explanation for all of these people's experiences, and it can all be explained away logically, statistically, scientifically, I say that it doesn't really matter.

The fact is that it's better to think about things that you want to have, things that make you feel good and would be good for your life, than it is to go around thinking about how bad everything is. Every psychologist, positive thinker, mother, father, person... would most likely feel that this is true, and it is.

The movie quotes Mother Theresa who said, "I'll never attend an anti-war rally, but if you're having a peace rally, please invite me along.", and Joseph Campbell who says, "Follow your bliss." The bottom line, think about, immerse yourself, really feel the things that you really want - it will make you happy, and thinking about these things will get you going in the direction you want to go in. If you attend an anti-war rally, all that will do is promote war, not matter how prominent the "anti" is at the front of the posters. Thoughts attract.

This is a great movie and I think everyone should see it and watch it regularly to get a kick in the seat of the pants about aligning your thinking in the direction you want it in. I will be getting a copy, and I don't buy movies. This one is worth having.

Book: "No Plot? No Problem!" byt Chris Baty - (4/5 stars)

2006-12-12T18:09:00.000+13:00

I love this book. It's written by the founder of Nanowrimo, and is more about completing 50,000 words in one month than anything about writing a novel, i.e. voice, point of view, characterization etc...

Still, that being said, from having done the 1 month novel, I realize that just sitting down and writing has more to do with writing than any of those other things, and in the end, that makes this a fantastic book for writers.

I love the humor of this book - Baty is a real wit, which makes it fun to read. He has tons of ideas from various nanowrimo participants, many of whom have written published novels, as well as great section on how to edit your novel, and something from publishers etc.

You have to know going in that it isn't really about the mechanics of writing, and when you do, you will find it exactly what you need to get that novel finished.

My only regret with this is that I bought it after starting Nanowrimo and only had the time to read it once I was finished my 50,000 word 1st draft. When reading it after, I felt that my novel could have been a lot better if I'd read this first.

store: OPSM (1/5 stars)

2006-12-07T16:53:00.000+13:00

OPSM is a New Zealand optometrist type store. I have bought glasses there in the past. The one that I'm talking about is at the Coastlands shopping mall in Paraparaumu, about 40 minutes outside of Wellington.

I bought some sunglasses at OPSM a while ago (they were Fish brand sunglasses, specifically the Cod model). They were getting a little loose when I was putting them on, so I brought them back, hoping they could fix them. "Sure, no problem.", the manager said. He put some kind of glue into the screw hole, and that was to fix the screw solidly. He also gave me advice on how to handle them, "They last longer if you take them on and off with two hands rather than one.", he said, being very helpful and friendly.

About 1/2 an hour later, I was walking along, still at the same mall, and the glasses literally fell off my face. The "glue" ate through the plastic like acid. I appeared at the OPSM store a few minutes later with the glasses in pieces in my hands. The manger who'd "helped" me, saw me and pushed some poor woman, a new worker, towards me to handle his screw up.

Since the service had been so friendly before, I was confident that they would take care of this without any issues. Unfortunately, the girl who was now helping me, didn't actually know what to do about this, and kept going back to the manager who had "helped" me, and kept coming back with advice. In the end, they searched all of New Zealand OPSM stores, and not a single one had the same pair of glasses. They wanted to give me another pair, preferably more expensive, but I didn't like any of them (these are a $70 dollar pair by the way).

In the end, I got my money back and used it to buy contact lenses for Una.

The story doesn't end there! The Fish sunglasses behind me, I bought a new pair of sunglasses at some some shoe outlet store for $20. I lost one of the screws holding one of the arms on and guess where I ended up to see if they could fix them? That's right, the same OPSM.

That poor woman who'd had me as a disgruntled customer was there again. There was no manger this time. I ask her if they have a screw that will fit the sunglasses and she's pretty sure, and goes into the back room. Sure enough, they have the right sized screw, and she'll fix it in right now for no cost. Sweet!

She plays with it for a minute while I look around the shop. "Oh no.", I hear over my shoulder. She comes over to me, and she's screwed the screw in too tightly, and broken the lens! There go another pair of sunglasses.

I made the mistake of telling them that it was only a $20 pair, so they send me $20 in the mail a week or so later. I forgot to charge for the gas to drive down to the place where I'd gotten them in the first place and the hassle.

Anyway - I've only been into that shop twice, and twice I've come away with a broken pair of sunglasses. Not recommended.

Book: How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy by Orson Scott Card (2/5 stars)

2006-12-04T12:02:00.000+13:00

I read this during the November Nanowrimo month while trying to write my own novel. I didn't incorporate a single bit of this book into my novel.

This is quite an exciting title for would be writers of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Card is one of the greats with what I consider two real masterpieces of science fiction ("Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead") and three masterpieces of Fantasy (The first three books of the "Alvin Maker" series), I thought that he'd have a lot to say.

Not really. He points us a lot towards another book he's written called "Characters and Viewpoints" as well as other books in that series. In that way, quite a lot of the content of this turns out to be an advertisement for other books about writing. That also means that he's deliberately left out quite a lot that a writer would find useful and are left with quite a small amount of information.

There was this strange thing about how science fiction readers take metaphors literally and that we have to worry about this while writing. There is also a lot about hyper-drive and space travel in general and how it should work in your story (Warp drive is bad since it's Star Trek speak and will get laughs from readers). There is a lot about the price of magic as well, as all magic should have a cost.

The two best parts in the book are 1) the author lists - who are the writers to pay attention to - all worth a read and 2) What to do after you've written something. How to deal with agents and publishers etc... Note - these have nothing to do with the title "How to write...", but actually add to the value of the book.

Quite a poor attempt for such an esteemed author. I would have liked to see better.

Book: Wild Seed by Octavia Butler (3/5 stars)

2006-12-04T10:26:00.000+13:00

I heard about this book from Orson Scott Card's book "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy". It is being held up as a shining example of good writing. I read it in the middle of Nanowrimo month in November.

I have to agree with Card, the writing is very well done. There is a lot implied in each sentence and you can infer much about each character by their actions. I don't know if Butler does this on purpose, or has gradually internalized the process, but the more I look at it, the more impressive it is. She is a real master of point of view and implying important points without actually saying it directly.

We see an immortal man, Doro, who has been around for more than three thousand years who wanders the planet breeding a new race. Through this book, we get to see many of the results of the breeding program. We see ordinary, we see extraordinary, we see strange and even stranger.

Doro, our immortal, finds another immortal, a woman. They have several disagreements over the morals of the breeding program and how Doro treats his seed. This tension builds over the century and a half of the story. I found the characters well developed and deep.

That being said, if you were to graph the excitement versus time on this book, it would remain mostly flat. It is a subtle book in more than language, and I found it interesting, but mostly dull.

I'm still glad I read it, since it taught me that great books are more than just nice language and even an excellent premise. There is something more that I have yet to identify.

Movie: "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" 2003 1/5 stars

2006-11-29T12:23:00.000+13:00

I like Clive Owen and Jonathan Rhys Meyers - they almost always pull out good performances. This is no different - they were both interesting and well portrayed characters.

The thing that killed this movie is the plot. When you get to the end, there are these huge, massive, gaping (I need another word for big!) plot holes, even entire threads of the story just dropped on the floor.

Until the very end of the movie, I thought it was going to be possible to salvage it into being an ok movie, but no, it didn't happen. It felt seriously like they ran out of budget and just dropped it. I'm pretty sure I wasn't missing any subtle bits of this one, it just stops.

I wouldn't bother with this movie, despite the ok first 95% of it.

Movie: "The Lake House" 2006 3/5 stars

2006-11-29T12:14:00.000+13:00

I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie. I haven't seen Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock together since "Speed", and wasn't sure what to expect. This certainly isn't "Speed", but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The premise is that there is a mailbox that can move stuff through time, and Keanu and Sandra are actually living 2 years apart and writing letters back and forth. They gradually fall in love.

Once you get past the premise and put it behind you, I find that the story is lovely. It's unabashedly romantic and I enjoyed it. Sure it's a chick flick, but a chick flick done well is still a good movie.

There is real chemistry between the two leads and I found myself saying, "Hey - that's the best acting I've ever seen Keanu do!".

I found myself enjoying the bits and pieces of architecture talk about lighting, settings and what the building is trying to say. I'm not an architect, so didn't notice anything fishy about the discussions and found myself more interested in architecture after that.

If you are in the mood for a romantic story, this is a good movie for you.

I rate it three out of five stars.