critical-escapist Reviews

Scent of a Woman (1992)

A pleasurable Thanksgiving weekend in New York

[9/10 · 11 August 2006]

The first time I watched Scent of a Woman, I was alone in my room and it was nearing around midnight. I had borrowed the DVD from the local library and had very low expectations for it and knew little of the film's plot other than what the DVD box had offered. I was still wide-awake so I popped the DVD into the player just to get some entertainment. Scent of a Woman would then become one of my personal favorites. For the next 2hrs and 37min I will be pleasantly surprised by this dramatic but also lightly comedic film that I felt sad when it ended.

Al Pacino, who is one of the prolific actors of his time breaks out of his usual gangster persona to play Lt. Col. Frank Slade, a blind man who meets his complete opposite and most unlikely friend. Prep school student Charlie Simms (a pre-Robin Chris O'Donnell), desperate for a job during the Thanksgiving weekends so he can earn enough money to spend Christmas back at his home in Oregon, is hired to "babysit" Frank while the family goes on a trip that Frank refused to go along with. Little did Charlie know, Frank already has already purchased tickets to New York where he will eventually enjoy himself with expensive restaurants, big hotels, and a beautiful woman. At the end of his trip, he plans to commit suicide because he simply cannot tolerate his blindness anymore.

There is a subplot involving Charlie's fiasco at his prep school. After witnessing a prank on the school headmaster's beloved car, Charlie is asked to spill the names of the members behind the prank in order to be bribed for a chance to enter Harvard University, or find himself in great trouble. The other student who also witnessed the prank is a rich-snob-type, George (a pre-Capote Philip Seymour Hoffman), who may have been behind the prank as well. We can think Charlie is ridiculously naive, but Frank takes note of Charlie's integrity and admires him for it, and for some reason, we should too. The subplot is a bit silly if you really think about it, but then again, without this subplot, one of the best speeches I have ever seen in film will never exist -- and that is the speech that earned Pacino his first Oscar, twenty years and seven nominations later.

What is so great about Pacino's performance is not just because he plays a blind man, but he makes a very unlikable character into an object of sympathy. We hate him because we can't stand him, but we like him because he respects Charlie's integrity like no one else does. In a way, Pacino IS the film because without his performance, this film wouldn't have the same greatness. And even the "Hoo-ah!" would sound different if it was performed by another actor -- and we won't want that to happen! Another strong point is that Pacino never makes O'Donnell into his walking shadow and this gives a chance for his co-star to shine as well. Maybe O'Donnell didn't deliver a performance as heartbreaking and wonderful as Pacino, but the two actors were able to produce perfect chemistry and their absurd friendship seemed truly believable.

There is a scene in this movie where Frank visits his family. We watch as everyone in the house looks at him with their unwelcoming eyes. Frank can sense it, but he tries to make the best of it since he still has his planned suicide in mind. He tries to have a Thanksgiving meal with his family, only to fall into an argument with his nephew (Bradley Whitford). That was the moment that I really sympathized Frank because it felt like he was someone who had finally come to terms with his blindness but regrets his past, but he isn't ready to be nice about it.

Even with its long runtime, the film manages to be very entertaining as the audience watches Frank dancing the tango with a young woman (Gabrielle Anwar, in one of the film's most memorable moments) to Frank driving the Ferrari at full-speed. Even in the most dramatic moments, I didn't find one boring second to this film. As Frank shouts to Charlie, "I'm in the dark, here!" I felt a strong chill going through me as if I finally understood Frank.

After seeing this film, you would be surprised that this film was directed by Martin Brest, the same guy who gave us -- you guessed it -- Gigli. He does such a superb job in this film even when the script (written by Bo Goldman, who adapted the 1974 Italian film, Profumo di donna) is attached with the standard Hollywood formula. What lead the audience overlook the formula was the marvelous character-driven plot and the lively, humorous, and quotable dialogue. The film is about friendship between two very different people who were able to help each other in their time of need. Scent of a Woman also contains one of the best feel-good endings ever (maybe because it actually felt good) as both men discovers a new purpose to life and a new will to live.

The Secret Garden (1993)

You know that boring adaptation of your favorite children's book? Bingo.

[9/10 · 23 April 2006]

The 1993 version of The Secret Garden is probably always hailed as the best version of the classic children's novel. The thing I loved about Frances Hodgson Burnett's classic was that it was her only book that she didn't write about a perfect little kid who had to struggle – The Secret Garden is about a imperfect, bratty little kid who had to struggle. But hey, I loved the book so that brings high expectations to the film – and I was disappointed.

For those illiterate people (I'm kidding) who do not know the story, the story beings with Mary Lennox (Kate Maberly), a spoiled little brat who lived in India with god-knows-how-many-servants who take care of her. Her parents do not care for her and instead they go to parties and enjoy themselves. One day a horrible earthquake hit India and many died, including Mary's parents.

Mary is sent to live with her uncle (John Lynch), a heartbroken widow. The house is like a mansion, watched closely by Mrs. Medlock (Maggie Smith). While Mary goes searching around, she finds a "secret" garden, a garden that her uncle has locked up many years ago after his wives' death. Mary meets Dickon (Andrew Knott), the brother of one of the servants, Martha (Laura Crossley) who happen to talk with animals and helps Mary with the garden. Mary also meets her cousin Colin the son of her uncle who is isolated and alone, fearing death may come (like a smaller 1900s version of Woody Allen's character in Hannah and her Sisters).

A huge problem of the film is that I find it impossible your average ten year old would enjoy the film. The film is slow and has a lot of moments where cute little kids run through corridors. The ending seems abrupt and kind of phony. Sometimes the dialogue even sound fake or just what adults think children would say to each other. In the book (excuse me for comparing film to book), Mary seems to really develop, while in the film, she just suddenly becomes a little angel. There are even moments in the book that Mary still seem a little bratty and probably haven't fully changed and in here, she just magically changes in the instant that she steps into the garden. Dickon, which I thought wasn't as likable in the movie as in the book (especially when he seems like he is harassing Mary in some scenes) – I enjoyed book Dickon a lot better.

Directed by Agnieszka Holland, it visually looks stunning but the screenplay written by Caroline Thompson disappoints me because it lacked the book's heroic spirit. There are some scenes that seemed so sudden, like a coincidence. There are a few likable moments in the film where you just smile and mentally wink at the screen, but nothing more. Overall, the film seemed like a drag, seeming longer than it really is. The acting is not superb and sometimes even over-the-top. Maggie Smith is actually quite good here, showing that she hasn't really aged since (watch the Harry Potter movies).

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

We all know girls can fight, but Million Dollar Baby gives the one-two punch into that subject.

[9/10 · 23 April 2006]

One of the best films of recent years, Million Dollar Baby tells a simple story so heartbreaking and inspirational at the same time. Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) who trains boxers has been through tough times in his life and it has influenced him to become the man he is – rough, frustrated, and broken. One day he meets Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a determined woman in her thirties who wants to make herself a boxer and wants Frankie to train her. At first, Frankie is reluctant to train a girl, but when his old friend Eddie (Morgan Freeman) encourages Frankie to take on Maggie and train her, the two form an inevitable bond and a wonderful friendship.

The best thing about Million Dollar Baby is that it is simply told. Paul Haggis (by recent Crash fame) does a good job with the screenplay without making it sound too phony at times. The dialogue seemed real even with its solid simplicity. The characters are very well developed and I think one of the best things you can do to a character in film is to make the audience feel sympathy for him/her. In this case, the three characters of this film are introduced then we learn a little about them. Maggie is a local waitress who takes home customer leftovers and chew on them as dinner like a dog. Her family doesn't appreciate anything she does Frankie, who attends church for the past few decades goes there and doesn't really know what draws him there. Eddie, an ex-boxer, is blind in one eye and cleans the gym daily and reads newspapers frequently. We feel some sympathy for these characters and that is what makes the film work.

The performances are brilliant. Hilary Swank is amazing here. We see her eyes look at Frankie like a child as she eagerly learns how to box. In the boxing ring, her eyes are shining with determination and great strength, knowing that she has got her chance. Clint Eastwood (who also directed the film) is also good here too, making his character like some tough-guy but hey – we know the guy's got a soft-side too. Morgan Freeman is great, filling in his classic "supporting role" style.

The flaw of Million Dollar Baby comes in the last 40 minutes or so. The last 40 minutes seem to go by too slowly. Even though the heartbreaking ending was bound to come, I thought the emotional development in those last scenes seemed slow and sometimes bland. It shows again what we already know and already saw. It was pretty much for me, "Been there, done that." The last few seconds were quite powerful, but what came before that was too slow for me to handle.

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

I'm guessing this is for fans of Jane Austen's original novel only — or perhaps for those who want a good romance. Unfortunately, I'm none of the above.

[5/10 · 23 April 2006]

I should be honest that I am not crazy over British costume dramas or a huge fan of Jane Austen's classic novels. I think that also means that I would never go crazy over a film like this. Emma Thompson, who also adapted the novel to screen, plays Elinor Dashwood, the oldest sister and she represents "sense." Kate Winslet plays Marianne Dashwood, the younger sister who represents "sensibility." Their father has died and he must leave his fortune to the son of his first marriage. This causes complications between the family and the daughters' hopes of marriage.

Elinor begins a relationship with a rich man, Edward Ferrars (Hugh Grant). They are then separated because of Edward's wealthy family. Marianne, on the other hand, is in love with John Willoughby (Greg Wise). At the same time, wealthy Colonel Brandon (Alan Rickman) has eyes for Marianne, but she thinks Brandon is too old for her and prefers Willoughby instead.

The film sometimes has a few heartwarming and humorous moments, but overall I was quite bored of the film. The acting is pretty standard and the performances still deliver. Winslet's Marianne is who really shines in the cast. Director Ang Lee shows his versatility in her occupation perfectly – the guy can make a good Taiwanese film, a British costume drama, a film based on American suburbia, a Chinese martial arts film, an action film and even a gay cowboy movie. The film is simply told, maybe being a little too long (never read the book) and might be great for fans, but I actually got bored while watching the film. The ending is predictable but yet wraps the story nicely.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

This is definitely Woody Allen's best film of all the others I have seen — and that isn't a lot. But hey, it is better than Annie Hall (and I guess that is saying a lot).

[9/10 · 23 April 2006]

In my mind, Hannah and Her Sisters will always be Woody Allen's best work, but considering that I have only seen three of his films, it doesn't really matter what I say. The film is far more superior to Allen's claim-to-fame charmer, Annie Hall because of the multiple love triangles and the complicated emotions hidden beneath. While Annie Hall will always be a story about those two hopeless neurotics whose relationship was not meant to be, Hannah and Her Sisters is about fixing relationships and developing new ones that make the world a better place.

The film spans two years into the lives of three sisters in New York: Hannah (Mia Farrow), Lee (Barbara Hershey), and Holly (Dianne Weist) are sisters. Hannah, the perfect actress sister who keeps the family together as she prepares the Thanksgiving dinner is married to Elliot (Michael Caine) who is hopelessly in love with Lee, who is living with Frederick (Max von Sydow). Hannah was once married to Mickey Sachs (Woody Allen) is a television producer and hypochondriac who go to the doctor almost daily. Holly meets Mickey after difficulties of finding what she wants to do in her life, and despite their differences, they are quite similar.

One the things that made this film stand out was Michael Caine's character, Elliot. He is involved with his wife's sister, who is also quite fond of him, but probably doesn't have the same exact feelings as he does for him. Their relationship is unpredictable as Elliot finds out that he actually does admire his perfect wife Hannah very much. He knows he is in much more trouble as Lee decides to leave Frederick.

Dianne Weist is really good here as Holly. Despite being quite unlikable, her relationship with Mickey rings true. Their relationship almost reminds me of the relationship between Alvy Singer and Annie Hall – just that Holly isn't ditzy. I think what draws them together is that they don't know exactly what they want to do in life. As Holly changes professions, Mickey changes religions (one of the highlight moments for me in the film).

Overall, Hannah and Her Sisters is a likable and almost feels like a novel, with black screens with quotations and chapter introductions. I liked how Allen makes a film seems different by creating that sort of tidbits. The film ends happily on the last Thanksgiving, as everything begins to sort out and everyone seems to finally find a place in the world.

The Graduate (1967)

Mrs. Robinson can seduce Benjamin Braddock but the film can seduce audiences.

[9/10 · 14 April 2006]

The Graduate is a charming, lovable, feel-good movie that gives you a hint in the first scene that you are going to like this movie. The film opens with a Simon & Garfunkel song in the credits as young Benjamin Braddock (or should I say young Dustin Hoffman) finally arrives home after receiving a bachelor's degree from college. He is obviously the family's golden boy and as his family throws him a party but Benjamin is not interested in any of it. He wants to be alone, think about his future a bit – well, maybe for months probably. But the main thing is that he has no interest in his own college experiences and he just wants to be alone for a while.

Mrs. Robinson (Ann Bancroft), a middle-age wife of Benjamin's business partner seems quite interested in Benjamin. Benjamin is then seduced by Mrs. Robinson but complications arise when Benjamin's parents and Mrs. Robinson's husband wants Benjamin and the Robinson's daughter, Elaine (Katharine Ross) to go on a date together after she comes home from Berkeley. The two go out to a date together after Benjamin promises Mrs. Robinson that he would not do such a thing, but the sad thing is that Benjamin falls in love with Elaine.

You know what? I love this movie. I really, really do. I love the music from Simon & Garfunkel (who can hate the song, "Mrs. Robinson?") and I love the weird satirical comedy that is inserted into The Graduate. Mike Nichols (who is probably better-known for his more recent film, Closer) does a great job in directing this film and little did he know that this film would still be "hip" to the average teenager 33 years later. I think one of my favorite scenes is Benjamin's birthday where he dives underwater (with his scuba diving costume that his father bought him) in his family pool just to sense the quietness of life just for a moment.

Even though The Graduate may be a flawed masterpiece (Elaine's sudden approval of Benjamin, the ending, etc.) I don't think I would really want to pick out the "flaws" because I feel that I am in no right to do so. The Graduate is so entertaining and likable that the flaws just slowly fade into a distance. I have never read the novel, but there is absolutely no doubt that Calder Willingham is an excellent screenwriter, mixing both comedy and wit together perfectly (same goes to Woody Allen, but well, Allen isn't even associated with this movie).

The acting is brilliant here. There is not one second that I didn't believe that Ann Bancroft wasn't Mrs. Robinson and Dustin Hoffman wasn't Benjamin Braddock. The beauty of the acting is that we like the characters even though they are not even that likable. The great thing about Hoffman's performance is that it was the start of an excellent career, and him putting that nervousness into Benjamin is what the film needed. Even though Katharine Ross had little worthy dialogue, she was good here as well as Elaine, who is maybe more confused than Benjamin.

This is what I would like to call a true classic – great acting, great music, and a great story. After seeing The Graduate, I felt glad that I saw the movie because this is not the typical "affair" movie that you see popping up from every corner.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Weekends of deer hunting turn into days of the Vietnam War.

[9/10 · 13 April 2006]

Shocking, fascinating, and controversial, The Deer Hunter is a great film with jaw-dropping images of war and the way of life of a few friends of Pennsylvania. The film is quite lengthy, with three significant parts. The first part shows how normal these people are – working at the local factory, attending a wedding, drinking at the local bar and enjoying weekend deer-hunting trips. Michael (Robert De Niro) is the apparent "big brother" of the bunch who keeps things under control. When Michael, Nick (Christopher Walken), and Steven (John Savage) get drafted to war, they are shown of war's circumstances and how it affects people's lives dramatically. When they return, nothing seems to be the same: Michael is somewhat alone, returning to Linda (Meryl Streep), Nick's girlfriend, and Steven is in a hospital, almost abandoning his wife, Angela (Rutanya Alda).

One of the most unforgettable images of this film is when the friends are captured and must play Russian roulette against each other. I have never seen anything more horrific than the stares they gave each other, what they said to each other, and the screams. That one scene is much more terrifying than the rip-off scene we get from scary movies. It is not only jaw dropping, but it defines the struggle of soldiers in the Vietnam War (as far as film-making is concerned).

The performances are fantastic. One thing that I absolutely love about films from the 70's is that you an get De Niro, Streep, Walken, Savage, and John Cazale on one screen and make sure they are not making some holiday movie crap – they are still trying to achieve their names as actors, and they are fantastic at it. There are rarely any actors like that now (so who's the next superstar? Orlando Bloom? I doubt it). There is perfect chemistry between the actors. Christopher Walken, in his Oscar-winning performance is brilliant in here: The scene in the Vietnam hospital where he is trying to keep from crying in just one great scene. Meryl Streep (in her first Oscar-nominated performance out of her record 13-nominations and 2-wins) is also incredible as Linda, who is torn between her boyfriend who doesn't seem to be coming home and Michael, her boyfriend's best buddy.

The director, Michael Cimino makes The Deer Hunter like a history lesson without making it too melodramatic (which is the word people often use when they don't like it). It has a great story and every scene seems to count – even the later Russian roulette scenes with the characters we do not know the names of. I have not seen a better cast than The Deer Hunter, which even improves the film. Even though the ending is a little unsatisfying, what happens is heartbreaking and memorable, as they sing "God Bless Americans" like true Americans who appreciate the country even in such a terrible time.

Walk the Line (2005)

A feel-good, entertaining, and likable biopic that chronicles the life of the late Johnny Cash.

[8/10 · 9 April 2006]

Walk the Line is an entertaining and likable film in the tradition of good biopics for the awards season. This time, it is about the late country singer, Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix). The film chronicles the man in black who grew up in a flawed household. His brother died when he was young and his father was an alcoholic. Later, he joined the Air Force and then got married to a woman named Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin). He becomes a salesman but his mind was always on music, because well – that was what he was raised on. The music he wrote about during the Air Force gave his success in an audition for a record company. The music was far from the gospel music he was raised on but was inspired by prisoners and inmates, based on a film he watched about Folsom Prison. On tour, he meets the flighty June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) whom he falls in love with even though they are both married to other people.

This film is easy to follow, understand, and adore. Even though the characters are flawed, they are likable. For me, likable characters technically make for a likable film and that is what Walk the Line is. Even though there are scenes where it shows the darker sides of Cash through his time in jail cells and drug taking, the film honors him Hollywood style rather than really make him seem like a bad person. His mistakes seem minor to the film's whole and even June, who Cash falls in love with during his tour with her while being married, seems sensible (I swear, if this was any other film I would say, "You've a family at home!). Walk the Line seems to imply that these are lovebirds that met each other at the wrong place and the wrong time and they belong together – and eventually they did get together. The film is almost more about their relationship than Cash's life, but that is really okay because every face of this film is likable – from the obvious Elvis impostor (who plays Elvis) to scenes that probably should be brutal – we seem to be enjoying ourselves.

The performances in this film are pretty good. Phoenix has always been a great actor (see Gladiator) and he portrays the later singer well. Even though I don't find Witherspoon that deserving of an Oscar, she was good here too, not failing to meet expectations. There is also Goodwin, who turns in a respectful performance as Cash's first wife, Vivian. But something didn't really click for me with the performances – they seem to be following too much of the script's likable-factor because sometimes the characters seem like they are from some fantasy land from the middle of nowhere. (Yes, I complain that the characters from The Last Picture Show are too shallow and now I'm complaining that the characters in Walk the Line are too likable.) The showy thing about this film is that Phoenix and Witherspoon have great chemistry with each other, and in this story, that is almost all that matters.

Nonetheless, it is a likable, entertaining, enjoyable, delightful and good film. Phoenix and Witherspoon both sing quite well considering they are both not professional singers. I have a great fondness for this film even though at times it seem like a very tacky biopic that probably borrowed some ideas from 2004's Ray. I think I liked Walk the Line more than I liked Brokeback Mountain (in other words, I would of rather seen Walk the Line receive a Best Picture Oscar nomination rather than Brokeback Mountain). Good film, good cast, good music – what more can I say?

Annie Hall (1977)

lovable film — but of course, "love" is too weak a word for what I feel. I luff this film.

[7/10 · 8 April 2006]

Annie Hall happens to be one of those strange little films that can tell its story in a jagged way but audiences will still feel satisfied and most importantly, know what's going on. Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is a neurotic Jewish comedian who is short on romance. He chronicles his relationship with a ditzy and fairly neurotic girlfriend, Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). The film starts in the middle of their relationship, showing how similar Alvy and Annie are and at the same time how different they are. Alvy loves New York, as Annie wants something more, seeing that she wants a singing career.

Allen, who co-written and directed the film, uses film like it was never used before. His character, Alvy, often talks to the camera, imagines a scene that may include animation, text on the screen that show what the characters are thinking, split screens, walking through a certain scene from the past and not really having the thoughts go in a certain coherent fashion. But that is when his originality shines. He is able to mix all his ideas plus constant dialogue. I don't really remember a scene where there is a huge moment where the characters aren't interacting to each other or muttering because this is something that film really needs today. I think there are too many films where the characters just give so-called meaningful glares at each other – talking is what people do and Allen emphasizes that into his script perfectly.

The performances are a great breath of fresh air. Woody Allen, who is very much underrated as an actor is really good here. His character has the most lines and he really transforms into this character. If Allen is really like this, I don't know. One of my favorite actresses, Diane Keaton, is what we are missing from actresses today. She has versatility that is really hard to find and she shows how her resume can span from The Godfather to Annie Hall. Personally, I think Keaton has more versatility than Johnny Depp. So why did Star Wars lost Best Picture in 1978? Because Annie Hall simply had better performances, a greater insight of late-1970s relationships, and made every single scene quite memorable if not meaningful.

One thing people must know is that I absolutely hate romantic-comedies. Watching a romantic comedy to me is like burning myself alive in the fire. But I rather enjoyed this story – it was nice, sweet, and surprisingly likable. I like how it was not told in the traditional form of how other films usually have done it. I like the addition to the split screens, the animation sequence, the "talking to the camera," etc. Even though this film has those "wtf?" moments, I still happened to like it very much (yes, I loave it). Those are the tiny delights that are rare in today's film-making society.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

One of those films that the majority can enjoy and not completely hate.

[8/10 · 8 April 2006]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is an entertaining film for both kids and adults – something we rarely find in a world of either Brokeback Mountain or Daddy Day Care. In this lovely adaptation from the classic novel from C.S. Lewis, director Andrew Adamson takes the book into a new level if not better. Other than being a well-told story, some of the scenes look breathtaking and adds more eye candy to the solid-traditional novel. In other words, Adamson is able to do the impossible: Make the film better than the book.

Narnia is quite a popular story and I don't think there is any reason for me to really explain it in a coherent fashion. It is simply about four children (Anna Popplewell, William Moseley, Skandar Keynes, Georgie Henley) who lives in a time of WWII and moves to the home a professor – and they happen to discover the world of Narnia through a wardrobe in the professor's home when the youngest child Lucy (Henley) was trying to find a place to hide during a game of hide-and-seek. As beautiful Narnia seem to be with its snowflakes on the ground, we find out that it is not all it seems to be. Narnia has been having its winter for about 100 years when the White Witch (Tilda Swinton) took over. The Witch happens to be looking for four children who are going to arrive in Narnia and fight alongside Aslan, the "lion king" to make more sense (voiced by Liam Neeson). The Witch wants to trap the children, as the children tries to escape from her with help from the creatures in the woods.

The film has its sparks, with a good cast and nice entertaining bits here and there. The four children in the film actually seem like relatives so that is a huge plus right there. Tilda Swinton, whom I have never really seen in anything else before is absolutely fabulous here: She plays a villain that strikes with just a stare with her cold, blank eyes. There are also some good supporting players, including James McAvoy's Mr. Tumnus, the Faun that saves Lucy from harm of the White Witch. There is also Jim Broadbent as the professor that we actually come to love in the little scenes he is in.

There are a few problems I had with this film. Even though CGI isn't at tops right now, Aslan's fur looked so artificially fake to me that I thought I was going to prefer that dragon from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. There is also the corny dialogue that you won't notice unless you're older than the age of twelve – but that is another matter. There is also Edmund (Keynes), which I swear is the "other" version of Fredo in The Godfather: Part II, only nobody kills him and he turns out okay in the end.

Many knew Lewis was a Christian, and in a society where we have to say "Happy Holidays" in schools, I was glad to see that the film kept the Christian allegories that Lewis intended for his original novel. (You see, Aslan is Jesus.) I try to wonder if younger children in our society that are not raised in such a culture of religion (I have friends who don't even know what I'm referring to when I talk about a man putting bunch of animals in a ark) would really understand this story. There are a few scenes where some of the creatures in Narnia ask, "Are you the son of Adam?" "Are you the daughter of Eve?" But still, this tiny problem would not turn away audiences – I assure you that kids will still enjoy it because it still maintains its kid-friendly action-entertainment.

I really liked this movie – it was entertaining, it was nice, it was a film that I think I can watch with anyone in the world, it had nice performances (kudos to Swinton), and it was better than the book, something that is rarely achieved in cinema. This film also makes for really good eye-candy, with the lovely snow from Narnia, the sleigh of Santa Claus even made Santa to a knight in shiny armor, and everything from the makeup to the costumes – it was all really well done. Adamson surprised me with all the success of Narnia, considering the only films on his director resume are the Shrek franchise. Overall, this is a good film, despite the corniness of some of scenes, but after all, Narnia is aimed at children and people who absolutely loved the book. I am none of those, but I still recommend families check it out for family movie night — there is a huge chance you might enjoy it.

Casablanca (1942)

Play it Sam, play Casablanca

[10/10 · 1 April 2006]

Casablanca is one of those films that have been mentioned so often that I have became extremely curious about it. I had extremely high expectations for this film – maybe because this film deserves such high expectations from younger audiences. Casablanca is about Rick (Humphrey Bogart), a nightclub owner who is a lonely man and has a life filled with one-night stands and glasses of wine. He does not want to be attached to anything personally or politically, but he has receive hold of two transit letters. Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), who is a Czech nationalist writer and his wife, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) has come to Rick's in search of exit visas because on their way to America, they must arrive at Casablanca first, and visas are hard to come by. Surprisingly, Rick and Ilsa were former lovers who met in Paris, and Ilsa was also the only woman Rick has ever loved. Their relationship ended when Rick flees the city from German armies and the plan was that they leave together. When Ilsa did not come to the train station, Rick left without Ilsa and hasn't seen her since. Rick is both angry and frustrated when he sees Ilsa, but he finds out that he still really loves her and might be also willing to help her and her husband.

One of the great things about Casablanca is that it has a great story, rich in detail and is nicely done. This is why it is often cited as one of the Best Films Ever Made. Not only that is flourishes with romance but, it transforms into a worthy epic that moves quickly along the plot. As we watch the film, we find that Rick and Ilsa still love each other very much and are perfect for each other, but the two searches for the right thing to do, which is probably the hardest thing for both of them to do. They must leave each other because that is what is best for them.

The problem in this film is that everything happens quickly. (Yes, I complain about Lost in Translation being too slow but now I'm complaining that Casablanca is too quick – how the heck can people please me?) This is one of the films that I wished that just went a little longer and maybe – just maybe – I would be pleased. I also wished the plot delve deeper into the characters because apparently, the flashback scene of Rick and Ilsa wasn't enough for me. I wished the story explored the characters a bit more, but of course, I think Ingrid Bergman's drop of tear coming from the edge of her eyes is quite enough for the film.

The performances are really good. I don't think any modern movie stars can really compete with Bogart and Bergman. They are fantastic together. There is also Henreid, who has terrific scenes in the film. Conrad Veidt, who plays Strasser whose only goal is to capture Laszlo and is far more than the typical Nazi villain. Claude Rains plays Louis, who has always secured his and Rick's friendship ("Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."). There is of course, Dooley Wilson, who played Sam and I think one of my favorite songs of all time has to be "As Time Goes By." I really enjoyed this film. I don't love it as much as I thought I would, but I really enjoyed it. Casablanca is often compared to Gone with the Wind and unfortunately, I think I still like Gone with the Wind a lot better. Casablanca is gorgeous for a black-and-white film. (But face it, all black-and-white films are gorgeous.) The ending closes with some promise of a world of less regrets, but more memories. It is nice to know that Rick and Ilsa will always have Paris and Casablanca.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

A beautiful love story that spins out both romance and tragedy.

[9/10 · 24 March 2006]

This is the way you do romantic epics, okay? One thing I absolutely loved about Gone with the Wind is that it doesn't start slow. It gets right into the center of Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) and portrays her as a selfish, spoiled brat. She loves the well-mannered, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), a man she cannot have and he will be soon marrying the naive Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). She meets Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) who is far from who Ashley is — he is no gentleman at all but he loves Scarlett, only Scarlett does not have the same love for him as she does for Ashley. Every character in this film is memorable, even Mammy (Hattie McDaniel), the black woman who is loyal the O'Hara household. Even though the DVD edition of the film is roughly 3hrs and 58mins long, time goes fast when you're actually watching a good movie. This is what romances are all about: It doesn't matter if you don't have explicit love scenes, all that matters are characters that are true to the story itself.

What is wrong with the actresses today? Why can't they be more like … Vivien Leigh? I think one of the best female performances I have seen so far has to be Vivien Leigh's portrayal of the selfish, beautiful, spoiled, and rather manipulative Scarlett O'Hara. This is what Hollywood lacks today: Amazing actresses who are able to carry a film role all by themselves and be permanently remembered by it. This is what makes Leigh's performance so amazing because every time someone mentions her name, they would instantly think of the film. Even though this was Leigh's time to shine, the other performances weren't too bad: Clark Gable was absolutely charming as Rhett Butler and makes you believe him if he was drunk or pretending that he is drunk. There is another very underrated performance here that I would like to mention, and that is of Olivia de Havilland as Melanie. This is one very likable character and I keep hoping that Scarlett would accept her at the end, and fortunately she did, but I don't want to spoil too much of that for those who hasn't seen this classic. There is also Leslie Howard as Ashley, who was not as amazing as his co-stars but was able to muster up Ashley's blank expressions towards Scarlett and perfects moments of uncertainty. Hattie McDaniels also made Mammy — who could of had been quite a simple character — memorable.

Most beautiful movie ever made? Everything from the cinematography to the costume design was just breathtaking. With an estimated budget of $3,900,000 (at the time, that was a big movie). Compared to the films we have today, where Peter Jackson uses about one thousand green screens, it is even more of a wonder to watch. Gone with the Wind is still a true masterpiece and it is still truly unforgettable. If only our tech-systems can improve plots by just typing in the screenplay … Final thoughts.

I adored this film and everything about it. I have little to complain — even though this film is over 65 years old, there is nothing to hate about a true classic that can make you remember it for it. The final scenes in the film are just priceless and I don't think any other film can succeed the ending that Gone with the Wind provided for its story. I think I really like films that end with regret and tragedy, I think it's probably my favorite genre of ending. This is also probably my favorite romance because of the ending, and for those who know me: I dread romances — but not this one! Well, I might improve my tastes and look for happier movies, but I'll think about it tomorrow. "After all… tomorrow is another day."

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

The classic of the divorce genre, but fails to meet my expectations.

[5/10 · 23 March 2006]

Kramer vs. Kramer, the film that became an instant film-classic in the genre of family divorces strikes a chord with me. I have experienced the circumstances of divorce is my life and I was really hoping that the film would give divorce some justice. The story is quite simple in this matter: Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is a man who puts his career before his family. One day his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) leaves him and also leaves her child Billy (Justin Henry) behind. Ted must now learn to be a father to his young son Billy and handle the responsibilities of fatherhood. What happens later in the film is that we start to understand the character of Joanna when she comes back to claim Billy and she takes the problem to court where things should be well, settled, right? The film offered light comedic moments from the first few minutes, but as we get more into the film itself, the comedy just lost its touch. Writer/Director Robert Benton could of had added more development in the film as well as more small snippets of comedic moments.

The performances makes the film much, much better.

The story lacks dimensions. Throughout the story, I felt that the plot was too simple even though I guess we do lack simplicity in the cinema. The dialogue seemed flat and at some point as if Hoffman was just talking to the wall. But what makes the performances so great? Hoffman and Streep nearly saves the movie and we look at these two actors and think that nobody else can claim this role. They look at everything with honesty and intelligence and we are convinced that these characters are approaching hazardous areas and lines they wish they didn't have to cross. As for Justin Henry, who plays Hoffman's son — he is quite good here too. (But my favorite child-actor performance still has to be Haley Joel Osment's in the The Sixth Sense.) Jane Alexander, who plays the single mother downstairs has perfect chemistry with Hoffman and we do believe that these two are friends having a everyday conversation. But I don't know how much you can trust me with my review: I haven't even read the book.

The best ending ever? (spoilers) I having a mixed reaction to this film, unsure of how I feel about it. But I do have a definite answer to the ending because I loved it. I would try to not to spoil this for people who hasn't seen the film, and for those who have, it would be nice to know if you agree/disagree with me. The scene I am talking about is the very last scene in the lobby, where Ted and Joanna are talking to each other. Joanna is in tears, saying how she was taking her child from his home and Ted tries to comfort her. She wants to have a word with Billy so she enters the elevator to go upstairs and she tries to neaten herself up and asks Ted, "How do I look?" And he answers by simply saying, "You look terrific." The elevator closes between them and the film ends. Is this the best ending ever? Well, I thought so! The documentary found in the DVD … I would like to put in some comments about the documentary, "Finding the Truth: The Making of Kramer vs. Kramer." I really enjoyed the documentary and learning more about the film. I think the interviews with Hoffman were the most interesting. He is really hilarious to listen to and how he thought Henry looked like a "sitcom kid" is actually a worthy comment. Plus, we hear about how the signature moments in the film is all due to Hoffman's behalf: From the ice cream scene, to the shattered glass scene, and to the court scene where we see Ted nodding his head when Joanna was asked if she was a "good mother." It was also nice to know the ending to this film was Hoffman and Streep talking to each other as well, Hoffman and Streep.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

The 70's vs. the 90's: Different time, different motion picture

[9/10 · 7 February 2006]

Before I saw The Godfather: Part III, I read many negative reviews (except for Roger Ebert's) about it and I had my mind set on watching a horrid movie because I was such a fan of the first two. But I was surprised: It wasn't as bad as everyone said it was and just because it wasn't good as the first two (The Godfather was made in the 1972 and The Godfather: Part II was made in 1974) this last installment of the "trilogy" serves the whole saga some justice because it gives a nice deliverable ending to two cinematic masterpieces.

The film begins with a haunting memory of the Tahoe estate. Then cuts into Michael being honored by his church and mirroring a celebration of the first two parts. (but held indoors!)

When Anthony (D'Ambrosio) tells Michael he wants no part in the family business and wants to pursue a life in music, Michael reluctantly agrees.

But then pops the alternative: Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) comes in with the support of his own of Connie, Michael's sister (Talia Shire) to meet Michael. He is the illegitimate son of Sonny, Michael's brother and he tells Michael that Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna) has been bad-mouthing him behind his back. Vincent, like his father, has a temper and is prone to doing things without thinking. He wants to join Michael and leaves Zasa so Michael takes Vincent in, reluctantly.

The main plot in the film is actually quite confusing and I don't know if I'll fully explain it in the correct terms: Michael wants to buy a company called Immobiliare, which is controlled by the Vatican. Don Altobello, who becomes furious that his mafia would not be included into the deal because of Michael's hunger of being legitimate - he wants to keep the company as legitimate as possible because that has been his ultimate Americanized dream.

There are a few "subplots", including the rather disturbing but at the same time I must admit as rather sweet incest romance between Mary (Coppola) and Vincent (Garcia). When Mary approaches Vincent and he tells her to "Love somebody else" just breaks my heart for some reason.

Another one that I thought was fantastically written was probably the dialog between Michael (Pacino) and Kay (Keaton). Why? Even though it seemed misplaced (since it was written in later) I thought it would of had been terrific in another film. But too bad, it's already in this film: When Kay comes to Sicily for their son's debut in an opera and Michael is there to finish off the Vatican deal, he shows her around the city and those moments are priceless. These are great actors doing great dialog and the scene where Michael and Kay are both in that room and he tells her he still loves her and she starts breaking down - I think I was going to cry as well. But after thinking about it a while: What happened to the abortion in Part II? (Goodness, he started yelling her and then later slapped her ...) Did it just disappear out of Michael's mind or is this a very different film? And yes, it is a very different film - with flaws that we can just forget and move on with our lives.

The man is suffering – he even has a diabetic stroke in the course of the film. But this is a man who has done evilness.

The acting isn't all as bad people say it is. I want to start off with Sofia Coppola who has received two Razzies for her performance - if it wasn't for those bad reviews I would never had noticed that her acting sucked. My mind just paid attention to her acting - and other than how her voice sounded so unnatural and strange, she wasn't as bad as people say she was. And there's Andy Garcia, who beat out quite a number of people for the role of Vincent and even though he wasn't really deserving of his Oscar-nom, he did quite well adjusting to his character when his character had no development whatsoever (I mean, he became Don in just uh - 2 weeks?). There is Talia Shire, who is probably one of the best gems in the film. She is malicious and as sweet as poison and that's why I loved her here. Keaton turns in a mustered-up performance of a Oscar-winner (Annie Hall). And for all the love/hate comments for Al Pacino - he's on top of his game and you know what? He may be the best thing in the whole entire film. The silent scream scene in unforgettable.

So my critique of the film? I think this is *the* film I would be willing to watch again if I was to choose between the three. Why? Because this is my favorite film even though it wasn't the best film (Part II is the best if you asked me). This film is a nostalgic surprise (with one too many flashbacks from the first two) and Francis Ford Coppola (who has admitted he made the film for financial reasons) does a fantastic job. I thought the shots looked more "modern" because sixteen years is a lot of time to improvise on skills of film-making which makes a very different motion picture. I think Part III felt more like a Hollywood blockbuster/wannabe Oscar bait. But all in all, it's a very entertaining film (yeah, it may be confusing but still enjoyable).

The Godfather: Part III is also surprisingly funny ("When I'm dead, I'm gonna be really smart"). I didn't expect that coming!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Entertaining and simplistic, even thought it doesn't capture Rowling's original glimmer to the original fourth book.

[9/10 · 23 November 2005]

This film is the "darker" one, with the PG13 rating. Some fans consider this a treat and thinks of it as a better movie or something just because a ten year old can't get in alone. But I should just start off my review with negative feelings such as: I enjoyed the first film with the sugarcoating that was exactly like the book. That's how it would always feel like from here on. I'm not saying this is a good or bad movie, yet - but I just want to make my point so people won't come and destroy me in the middle of the review.

The beginning with Voldemort and the World Cup is really rushed. It seemed as if ten scenes were cut out and we are automatically presented with the Dark Mark, a sign of Voldemort's. The audience is told that "he is back." I think this film is really only for the people who read the book. I am sure if this film was presented to someone who never read it, they would be confuzzled in question marks. Nothing is explained in this film. It seems as if everything was just "rushed into." Nothing gets any development - not emotionally, physically, or even in CGI terms.

Then we get to Hogwarts - the "excitement" is about to begin. Anyway, we find out about the Triwizard Tournament and how Hogwarts is hosting it and how two other schools are also participating. Because of some great magical force, someone enters Harry Potter into the dangerous competition, even though he is below age limit and is not allowed and the whole thing would be too dangerous for him. The sad part is that we know everything is going to be just okay and he's going to come back victorious. Just the scene makes the situation just too predictable. Harry is joined by three other competitors - Viktor Krum, Fleur Delacour, and Cedric Diggory. (sorry for any spelling errors - I'm typing this quite fast as the moment) The four is joined in three tasks that are all really dangerous and some might not even survive.

The film runs through its twist and turns and of raging hormones and puberty. Yeah. You heard me. Harry Potter is going through puberty. (Yeah, that makes me laugh, too) The Yule Ball is quite interesting, though, but that is also rushed, like some blocks of cement or something. The romance in this film didn't really work out well for me. I thought it was kind of pointless in a way because it was sort of crammed into the whole plot with the Triwizard Tournament. A scene in the Yule Ball I would like to mention is when the students starts partying like they are in some 80's teen flick. That felt rather ... strange. The whole idea just didn't fit in well. But it was really - interesting.

Anyway, the movie goes on and on. There are some parts where it shouldn't be rushed but they rushed it. There are some parts that should be over ASAP, but it doesn't work that way. It just took forever.

Near the end, Voldemort rises from the caulderon. Do you know what's missing? THE SPEECH! He doesn't give a speech. He rises, and he talks to the Death Eaters (aka, the KKK - at least they looked like them - only with Halloween masks) a bit and then suddenly he feels like attacking Harry. If you haven't seen the film yet and is eager to see how Voldemort looks in full-form instead of the trailer one that shows him as something that looks like a ball of wax, think: Ralph Fiennes with AIDS and a bad nose job.

Now, the performances. I really liked Brendan Gleeson and Miranda Richardson in their roles. They were excellent comic relief and they really kind of "saved" the film in a way. The trio is okay, though. Not spectacular or anything, but okay. I really though Emma Watson is going to become the better performer, but now she kind of just levels with Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, which kind of disappoints me because since Sorcerer's Stone, she kind of was the leader of the pack and was really good at it, but now she just kind of "floats" in the role and is slowly fading. Whenever I see Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, I feel that I really miss Richard Harris. I thought Harris made a better Dumbledore. The supporting cast is still great, with Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman, which really makes the film shine. Ralph Fiennes makes a "believable" Voldemort. Not a great one, but acceptable, I guess - but dude, you can do better than that! I wished he had more screen time, really.

As much complaints I have about this film, I thought it kept me entertained. Mike Newell isn't the kind of director that lets emotions run through or lets everything go. The scenes felt tight and awkward at times and their real smiles seems fake and at times, the actors seem clueless. I'm not thrilled about his HP directorial debut and I'm not looking forward for him to make another Potter film. This film is OK. Just so. It had good performances that kept me going and the classic British humor that made me chuckle. It was enjoyable and fun and I don't really have anything to say. I just have to remind myself not to sweat the small stuff because this is really not that bad of a film. And I'm sure the PG13 rating doesn't stop little kids all over the world from watching this film.

And what happened to Hermione's SPEW? My rating: B (85%) - yeah. out of 100% (8/10 for IMDb because on IMDb I rate movies on how entertained I was, not by the quality)

A Room with a View (1985)

Blends itself easily from costume drama to romantic comedy

[7/10 · 8 October 2005]

I borrowed this film from my local library because I was to make caps for my Helena Bonham Carter fan site (which is run at the lowest budget possible).

Anyway, A Room with a View, another E.M. Foster adaptation looks into choices and decisions, much like Howards End, which also starred Helena Bonham Carter, and was an E.M. Foster adaptation, and also was a Merchant Ivory production. This film is a very standard costume drama, mixed with romantic comedy. I'm not the hugest fan of both, but I watched it anyway because of Helena because she is one of my favorite actresses and she steals almost every single scene in this film.

Carter stars as Lucy Honeychurch, a young woman who goes to Florence as a tourist guided by her proper Aunt Charlotte. There she meets the Emersons, who offers the two women a "room with a view" because their rooms had a view and Lucy's and Charlotte's did not. The situations concludes in a romance between Lucy and George Emerson – that saddest part is that I wasn't that interested in the two because I thought George was quite annoying (not because of Julian Sand's performance, though). When Lucy goes back home, she finds a more "proper" suitor, Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis) who is as we call "self obsessed." Cecil is educated and loves books and loves himself even more. I wouldn't call this a love triangle though. Cecil doesn't really care for Lucy, as we all know, but he is welcomed into the family with open arms. George comes into view and he tires to break the engagement somehow. As well know, he will break the engagement because Cecil is too much of a brat for any of us to really love.

The only thing I liked about this film was Daniel Day-Lewis who is very funny as Cecil. I think he must be the funniest character in the film. He is so self-obsessed and conceited that you just have to like him. I never thought of Lewis as a comedic actor, but here he proves he can be whatever actor he likes. Maggie Smith is also very good as Charlotte – somewhat funny and misunderstood in a way, but you kind of like her. Mr. Emerson, played by Denholm Elliot is also pretty good and believable as the father trying to teach his son the tactics of the world. Julian Sands, as I said – I thought George was rather annoying. I wished they would have had made Rupert Graves as George and Julian Sands as Freddy Honeychurch. Graves and Carter show much more chemistry in the scenes where they are together as brother and sister because those scenes are extremely sweet. Not to mention Judy Dench was pretty funny as the writer at Florence.

This is pretty sweet for a costume drama. When I think costume drama, I usually think Howards End or some Shakespearean adaptation, but this film is somewhat witty. I'm afraid to say I was a bit bored at some point. The film starts out really slowly and it feels as if the beginning would never end. In the middle, they kind of suck you into the story then you think, "Ah, I get it." The cast assemble is really good, and the costumes and stage design is good as well. James Ivory does his special "This is a Merchant Ivory Production" touch onto the film. This film runs like a prose almost and the dialogue is extremely engaging. I wished the film interested me all the way through, though. But other than that, this is an acceptable film that anyone can watch and enjoy (well, it depends what you mean by everyone)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Filled with delight and excitement with constant wonders to be opened and is easily transformed from words to motion

[9/10 · 29 September 2005]

When I first went into the cinema to see a film, I was originally going to see K-PAX since I was a huge Kevin Spacey fan. Turns out that the film is going to run late because it's opening weekend for the newest Harry Potter film. Being a semi-Harry Potter fan at the time, I didn't mind, I wanted to see a film at the moment, so I thought, "Why not?" My other choice was probably the Disney/Pixar film Monsters Inc, but I was happy that I invested my eight bucks on this film, because it is worth it - or at least more than Monsters Inc - but that's a different story.

I have read the original material by JK Rowling back in the late 1990s so I do know what's going on. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone starts in sort of a weary tone, with a death of a infant's parents, sent to his aunt and uncle. A few minutes later, I was shocked how enjoyable the film is. I had a form a delight rushing through my sleeves. That was when I decided that I would rather watch this than the seriously-toned K-PAX.

As the film arrives at its main location, Hogwarts, director Chris Columbus (whoa - from Home Alone to fabulous set designs) puts magic into the school as much as Rowling's novel has done. The school is beautiful and is exactly how fans may imagined it. The school is glamorous and it's just wonderful. It has breathtaking scenes.

There is a very attractive all-star UK cast, such as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, etc. I was surprised how they got all those actors to participate in this film. But not to mention, the child actors were all right as well, almost the way we have imagined them - in looks, I mean. Daniel Radcliffe makes a semi-believable Harry, or it looks like he's doing an impression of Harry, but that's all right because his acting is sort of a minimal part of the film. If Radcliffe's acting was getting on my nerves, I can easily stare into the background of castles and wonderful costumes. Rupert Grint is a pretty natural actor, as plucky Ron Weasley. You kind of like him, because he is normal and you can relate to such a person. Most of all, I loved the portrayal of Hermione Granger, played by Emma Watson. As Richard Roeper puts it, she reminds you of Holly Hunter in James L. Brooks memorable classic, Broadcast News. Without Watson in the cast, the three leads would be plain and boring, and whoever who was chosen for the part would be just be stepping into the place of destiny. I thought Alan Rickman was a wise choice for one of my favorite characters, or classic villains - Severus Snape. He brings life into the serious-toned teacher and he makes him sort of a borderline human being. You have to like him because of his strict portrayal of Snape make you chuckle. Richard Harris gives a sentimental performance as Dumbledore, which is as much enjoyable as Rickman's portrayal as Snape. Same goes to the portrayal of Hagrid, which I enjoyed as much as I did to the rest of the cast. The cast is well-chosen - or at least bearable for fans of these well-loved characters.

The story is simply put on screen. Steve Kloves, the American screenwriter who wrote/directed the nostalgic Michelle Pfeiffer and Bridges brothers flick, The Fabulous Baker Boys, really pulls this one through. You can almost feel that he knows the book and most of all, he stays true to the book through his script. I think Chris Columbus matured in his story. Maybe he's not a Cameron Crowe-actor-director, you can see he really knows the book and read everything carefully because his decisions for the sets are perfect because the sets flow nicely with the book. Even though the so-called special effects were a bit corny (like the three-headed dog, Fluffy), you kind of forget about those stuff and go with the flow because Columbus is a master of these somewhat-classic films because he really knows his family films. He is great at working with child actors - in the past he has worked with Macaulay Culkin (Home Alone), Jena Malone (Stepmom), etc. Columbus is one of those directors who makes entertaining films that almost everyone can bear, and that is what makes him so great. His films may not have the signature of "Colubmus" on it, but you like them and you smile all the way through.

This is an enjoyable film for all ages (I hope it's not too scary for younger kids) and I don't think you have to like the book to like the movie. It's a very entertaining film (credit: Chris Columbus) and the sets and costumes are wonderful, the dialogue and characters stays true to the book, and there are not extra snippets or ridiculous put-ons that may ruin the books. This is my opinion of course because many prefer Alfonso Cuaron's take on Harry Potter films in the third film (Prisoner of Azkaban) but people must understand that Columbus and Cuaron are different directors and they have different takes on what they think a film should be. I think Columbus's vision of Harry Potter is much more similar to the original book's vision, so I must give full credit for that. All in all, this is a fairly enjoyable film with a fairly enjoyable plot line mixed with fine acting from the veterans of British cinema. I have seen this film 6 times and I wouldn't mind watching it again in the near-future.

My Girl (1991)

What are family films missing these days? A heart.

[8/10 · 2 September 2005]

If you watch the modern children films, you're going to get some unpopular girl having a crush on a popular guy or something like that and becomes popular and then becomes unpopular again and make up with her friends and kiss some geeky kid to prove that she's a good person after all. But My Girl isn't like that.

Am I the only one who just loves family films from the 1990s that are just like this? My Girl is a really enjoyable film, one of the best coming-of-age films that I've ever seen. The film doesn't bore you with all the clichés - it kind of make them more interesting. Vada is sort of a loner, her father works at a funeral parlor and gets a girlfriend who does the "dead people's makeup" and she tries to break them up with her best friend Thomas J. Pretty clichéd, in a way. But I loved the relationship between Vada and Thomas J. I really loved it. I don't know. It wasn't pathetic or forced, it was natural and I just liked that. If you just listen to them talk, they sort of talk like the way you want to talk, and the snippets of their conversations sound great.

This film has grade-A writing. I loved the sound of it. They don't talk about ridiculous things, they talk about things that actually mean something little by little. It's a wonder to watch.

The performances are great. Anna Chlumsky who plays Vada is just pure wonder. This is also Macaulay Culkin's best performance to date - better than both Home Alones combined. Dan Ackroyd is very believable in this, and he just takes the fatherly role, which I don't think is that hard to play. There is Jamie Lee Curtis in a small supporting role, but she's pretty good as well. The good thing about this casting is that all the actors fit their characters. The casting is just perfect.

This is my favorite childhood film. It's sort of a memory, and I would like to watch it again. Even though it is not what I have experienced, I watch it and I think, "Hm. It would be cool if I experienced that."

Meet the Parents (2000)

Pure entertainment - what movies are made for

[8/10 · 12 July 2005]

(very, very minor spoilers)

I am usually the type who doesn't enjoy "this sort" of comedy. Name my least favorite movies and at least three of them include Ben Stiller. I've never been a huge fan of Ben Stiller for some reason. It wasn't that he was a bad actor, it was just his choices in roles. I just wasn't a fan of his. Period. But I do like Robert De Niro. I think he's a spectacular actor. One day Meet the Parents popped up on television and I decided to watch it. To much of my surprise, this film was really good.

Ben Stiller stars as Greg Focker (Ben Stiller), a male nurse. Before he asks Pam (Teri Polo) to marry him, he would ask for her father's approval. The father, Jack (Robert De Niro) is sort of this suspicious and overprotective father that just wants "the best" for his daughter. He would give disapproving glances at Greg, which causes Greg to have numbers of flops and seem to be nervous ... all the time, which causes Jack to hate Greg more and more. We then find out Jack is a former CIA agent that has been to different countries and has a lie detector in his "private office" downstairs.

Comedies are pretty predictable. Especially recent ones. We know about 100% that Greg and Jack are going to be happy in the end, approve of each other, and not try to kill each other. And that is what happens. What I liked about this movie is that it's not predictable-predictable, it's more like - you just enjoy it. You have a mindless head on top of you and you just want pure entertainment. Not some serious dialogue with Oscar-worthy performances, but just have a good time like what movies are made for. There are a few hilarious scenes between Stiller and De Niro. They just seem to be having fun, which is a good thing because it's always nice to watch actors have fun on screen. Stiller seems happy that he gets to work with De Niro and De Niro seems happy that he is in a light comedy and doesn't really need to put a single effort in it because he is almost considered "legendary" in modern Hollywood.

So, it's worth your time. I saw this film two times and I won't be afraid to make it three. It's totally harmless. You're not going to really think about this movie after you seen it, but you're satisfied because you like it. It has very, very funny dialogue between characters and nice physical comedy. Ben Stiller is probably not a bad actor after all - just needs some motivation. And Robert De Niro steals almost every single scene in the movie. They're a good duo. Very, very enjoyable to watch. Watch this film when you just need a light-hearted comedy that doesn't require great use of intelligence.

Grey's Anatomy (2005– )

First mid-season show EVER that I actually liked

[12 July 2005]

If you think ABC can't get any better - you're wrong. With the great success over smash-hits, "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" they also picked up a few shows over mid-season hoping for more success. They got "Jake in Progress," "Eyes" and "Grey's Anatomy" - but "Grey's Anatomy" is definitely considered the best out of those three.

Grey's Anatomy stars Ellen Pompeo (who has starred in a few movies but was never really noticeable) as the narrator - Meredith Grey. Her mother is the famous surgeon and she is trying to follow in her mother's footsteps. The story revolves around her time as an intern and the people she meets and sort of is portrayed as "survival camp for medical students." The minute she arrives at work, she meets Christina Yang (Sandra Oh - flawless in her bitchy supporting role), George O'Malley (T.R. Knight - one word: breakthrough performer), Izzie Stevens (Katherine Heighl - very, very believable as a model who is more like the girl-next-door), and Alex Karev (Justin Chambers - plays sort of a not-so-likable person). Most of all, there is Dr. Derek Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey - very attractive), the man that Meredith had a one-night stand with - he just happens to be her boss.

This is a show that wants to be liked. It just sort of screams in your face "Love me!" with all its interesting characters who are very different from each other and a nice plot that you just have to be addicted to. The supporting work is clearly a winner. It has a very lovable supporting cast with T.R. Knight as the sweet and sort of the "average guy" as George O'Malley and Katherine Heigl who is very likable in her role - even Sandra Oh is a clear winner on top. And my personal favorite is "the Nazi" - Dr. Miranda Bailey who is played by Chandra Wilson. Very, very well done.

This is sort of a soapy spin on "Scrubs" and "ER" but with light comedy/romance and serious and intense drama where character build up the plot. Some of the characters may get a bit annoying for your taste (ex. Meredith Grey) but the acting is just superb and you can't help liking it. It has a guilty-pleasure feel to it and you just can't help but stay up late for this show. This show is definitely not about "medicine" - when it has to deal with medicine, it has a clear soft side to it. The doctors play heroes (pretty clichéd, but yeah - this IS a hospital show) and save lives or care or has to live up to certain defeat. Just to be aware: This is a show about relationships-within-a-hospital and the life of each person that works there.

The show breaks all the "bad" mid-season shows record. It is just extremely enjoyable. Go check it out - you'll definitely like it if not love it.

Everwood (2002–2006)

Great cast, nice story to start with, nice characters ... problem?

[31 December 2004]

I watch this every Monday, and I've probably seen every episode since season one. I can't call myself addicted but it has a tough time to carry - it's right after 7th Heaven ... and 7th Heaven is a show that makes you smile, but Everwood seems more of a hardcore drama, so let me get right to the point: --- contains ultimate spoilers if you never watched the show before --- Season One: World-famous Dr. Andy Brown and son (Ephram) and daughter (Delia) moves a small town of Everwood in nowhereland, Colorado. They meet a few interesting people: the Abbott family ... Harold's practice is across Andy's practice, the two share a passion for a conversation filled with sarcasm. Rose, the town's mayor, Harold's wife. Bright, the brother of the family, and Amy, Ephram's crush. When Ephram finds out about Colin, Amy's boyfriend who (I think) is in a coma after the crash Bright has got into when he drunk-and-drive. That's the plot for season one.

Season Two: Colin died after Dr. Brown's unsuccessful surgery. The season mainly revolves around the new relationships. Ephram and an older woman (babysitter), Amy and an ex-junkie, and Andy with Harold's sister (who has HIV). The story always seems to go back to Ephram and Amy with their longing for each other. This is simply too predictable: I knew they were going to get together from season one.

Season Three (now): This is probably the most predictable season. This season revolves around what we knew was going to happen from season one. Harold loses his practice (because of sharing it with his sister who had HIV) so he teams up with Andy. So Ephram comes back from a summer-program from Julliard and he's *television magic* with Amy. Bright, unable to go to college go through the doom of being only a high school graduate. There's Nina (next door neighbor of the Browns) who seems to want to be Andy. Then there's new characters: Jake Hart (Scott Wolf) who's the nice-bad-guy whom both Andy and Harold has a grudge for because he's the "nurse-stealer" and there's Amanda, whos husband is paralyzed or comaish (I think I lost track) and seems to be slowly falling out of love with him and falling for Andy ... which does happen ...

Season three looks promising and is probably the most wittiest and smartest season out of the three.

Desperate Housewives (2004–2012)

A huge surprise on Wisteria Lane

[31 December 2004]

All I can say about this show is: You gotta love the dirty laundry!

At first when I saw the pilots, it was like: What the heck? Are they serious that they were going to make a show about a bunch of shallow people living on a street having sex and complaining about not having enough sex? But at the end, I was wrong.

This is a show about misunderstood and troubled people who really cares about each other and shows it. They are human and they hurt people like everyday-people do. I love this show and it is so humane and the characters are so likable in every single way.

The desperate housewives are portrayed by Teri Hatcher, Marcia Cross, Felicity Huffman, and Eva Longoria. As much I hate the character Gabrielle, I have to say, I have to love Eva Logoria's charm because she is delightful to watch as a person in interviews. I love the character Bree. She is so stunning to watch as this perfectionist with a family that is nothing but 'perfect.' Felicity Huffman plays the real everyday-mom who's stressed - Lynette, who's also an great character. There's Teri Hatcher's character, Susan, which I liked at first but she gets boring but she does have a great cheerleader, her daughter Julie, who is probably much more likable than her.

And there's Edie Britt ... the 'slut' of the neighborhood. I hated her at first, but then, slowly, loved her.

What makes this show so creative is that it is narrated by a housewife that committed suicide on episode one. It is an extremely nice turn in television.

This is my favorite show ... next to Lost. ABC is doing very well this season.

Lost (2004–2010)

This is an AWESOME show!

[31 December 2004]

This has a current standing of "1" on my favorite shows list. This has probably the most superb storyline I've ever seen in my life and it actually makes me wonder why I wasn't a fan of Alias. Lost is not just a drama and thriller, we get a sense of humor from the characters as well ... riveting too. I am not familiar with any of the actors besides Dominic Monoghan and my focus was on him until is slowly drowned away. Matthew Fox is a great actor, and his character, Jack, has to be the greatest television-hero I've seen this season. There's Evegaline (sp) Lily who plays Kate, which I find her wonderful as and Josh Holloway (sp) who plays Sawyer ... the supposed-bad guy in the show. This show follows a thrilling storyline which is so interesting, it will make you feel as if you're watching an actual movie. I tend to wait for the next episode ... it makes you want to watch the next episode, which is actually what a television show is supposed to do nowadays, which most shows don't. Highly recommended for people who are so bored that their life sucks.

The O.C. (2003–2007)

Very very good casting ... but

[31 December 2004]

This has a great cast. All the people look beautiful. There's Peter Gallagher, who has been amazing for the past few years and there's Benjamin McKenzie who I have never seen in anything before, also very attractive to audiences and Mischa Barton who played the "scary" one in The Sixth Sense, and I never knew she looked like this ... she is also very very lovely. Adam Brody plays a very sweet and great character that I pretty much like and so does Rachel Bilson who probably plays my favorite character, Summer. There's Kelly Rowan (I don't know her well) as Kirsten, who I also like. Tate Donovan has a good role, so does Melinda Clarke ...

But I have a lot of criticism for this show that I can't really fit on one page. All the characters look discontinued. I know there's a lot of fans out there who absolutely adore The OC (it was quite addicting when I first saw it) but it washes off. There isn't enough caring characters besides the Cohens. I don't like the Coopers that much because they are shallow in every way. This show is somewhat confusing to explain because it has so much connections between characters, but I have to admit, the acting's great and the characters are somewhat-developed.

3.4/5 stars, I guess. I need to check for later seasons.

7th Heaven (1996–2007)

Guilty Pleasure, I guess

[5/10 · 31 December 2004]

I am not shy to say I've been watching this show since the first few seasons and I still think I watch it. It has a very alluring cast - Stephen Collins and Catherine Hicks, two very very talented actors. Probably somewhere in its 6th or 7th season, it went dead, but I think this season (9th, I think?) is going pretty good. I really like Lucy's husband, Kevin, which I find as a really nice addition to the Camden residence. I am glad to see Barry Watson and Jessica Biel returning to the show once a while ...

So let's go down memory lane: There has been a few very great characters. I liked the eighth season but I hated the fact so many 8th-season characters went away so quickly. I like Jeremy London, I like Rachel Blanchard (I loved her the television-show Clueless) and I have to admit, this show was probably the one that made me recognize who Ashlee Simpson was. And the kid who played Ruthie's friend/boyfriend was pretty good and there were very interesting relationships during the eighth season ... which also brought to the introduction of Martin, who fortunately, is also in the ninth season.

The start of the ninth season was crooked. Ruthie does this pull-Martin's-pants down thing which I found ridiculous and refuses to apologize. I have no idea if it's hormones or anything, but I watched on. There were great subplots - even though they were predictable, this brings be guilty pleasure for people who watch it. Even though some of the characters are extremely annoying, I tolerate it.