Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller make a really great comedy duo. For me they're like this decade's Bing and Bob. Wilson's awkward charm and Stiller's latent rage contrast and balance each other perfectly. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The last episode of the 70's TV series aired when I was less than two months old, so I have no idea if the movie is true to the original, but it made me laugh big belly laughs multiple times, so it gets the thumbs-up from me.

Viewed: 2004-03-05 | Released: 2004-02-25 | Score: B

IMDb Page

I sort of wonder if getting to know more about Orson Scott Card has affected my impression of his writing. I respect the man enormously, but I disagree with him on so many things that it seems like it would be impossible for that not to alter my judgment of his work. I did like this book. It was engaging and well-paced, and the inclusion of two real-life friends of mine as characters certainly didn't hurt. But it doesn't seem to hold up to the rest of his works for me. Books like Seventh Son, Ender's Game, Hart's Hope, and Treason have a sort of magical quality in my memory, while ones like Pastwatch, Speaker for the Dead and Lovelock stick out for having really interesting central ideas. This one really had neither of those for me. Still, I did enjoy it, and I don't think I could point to anything specific to criticize. I just can't find anything wonderful about it.

Started: 2004-02-15 | Finished: 2004-03-04

Purchase from Amazon

With all the hype this movie had received, and with the assurance of Charlize Theron's Best Actress win (which she did), Juliette and I were very intrigued to see this film. It managed to fall short of expectations. We concluded that a lot of Theron's buzz must have been because of the way she changed her appearance for the role. Don't get me wrong, she did a very good job and was very convincing in her performance. I just didn't find it to be particularly amazing. Meanwhile, Christina Ricci was possibly as good as Theron, but she's been quite overlooked. But the biggest disappointment was the film itself. I just didn't get anything from it. It didn't take much of a stance on the subject of Aileen Wuornos or her crimes, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would find this story compelling enough to want to make this movie.

Viewed: 2004-02-26 | Released: 2003-11-15 | Score: C

IMDb Page

Kim Stanley Robinson has been sort of hit or miss with me before. Some of his books keep me up reading into the wee hours of the morning. Some are a struggle. This book was kind of both for me. The idea of the book—what the world might have been like if Europe had been completely wiped out by the Black Plague—fascinated me. Robinson has a real gift for alternate timelines, as evidenced by his Three Californias series. The problem is that the scope of the book is so sweeping that it's a little difficult to get involved with the characters. When the story arc covers multiple centuries, individual lives tend to become a little less important. So it was hard for me to really connect with the book. On top of that, much of the book involves long discussions of the nature of history, and while the ideas were interesting, it didn't make for an exciting read. Fortunately, something about the ending resonated with me, so I walked away from this book with a good feeling.

Started: 2004-01-03 | Finished: 2004-02-14

Purchase from Amazon

I have been meaning to see Mystic River for months now. With the Oscars looming so close, I finally got around to it, and I'm glad I did. This film was described to me as a Boston Irish version of The Godfather, and I think it's an apt comparison. It's not really a mafia movie—in some ways the movie isn't really about crime at all, though the central action revolves around a crime—so there are lots of differences. But both films are deeply concerned with family. Clint Eastwood really brought the film to life, and he did so with a humility you rarely see in film drama today. Sean Penn gave a masterful performance, and even though I think he'll lose the Oscar to Bill Murray, I still think his nomination was richly deserved. Kevin Bacon was also very good, although his performance was subtle enough that it almost gets lost beside Penn. The weakest link was Tim Robbins. I really don't understand why he was nominated for Supporting Actor; his performance was too one-dimensional, and that one dimension was completely overdone. Even so, the film is good enough to overcome that one weakness, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

Viewed: 2004-02-13 | Released: 2003-10-02 | Score: A

IMDb Page

People go to an Adam Sandler film expecting to laugh, and maybe to walk away feeling good at the end of the movie. I've always found that his movies have quite a lot of heart. This one, though, was surprisingly mature. I really expected it to be awful, but the love story at the core of this film was both tragic and heartwarming. Yes, there was a certain amount of the bathroom humor you expect from a Sandler film, but it almost seemed out of place here. The on-screen chemistry between Sandler and Drew Barrymore was wonderful, too. I think it's possible that they may become the new Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

Viewed: 2004-02-12 | Released: 2004-02-12 | Score: a

IMDb Page

What an amazing disappointment. To begin with, Sara Foster, who played the female lead, was utterly lifeless on the screen. She really brought nothing apart from her looks, and, frankly, it wasn't enough. But that was hardly surprising. The sad thing was that the presence of people like Owen Wilson, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Sinise was not enough to save this film. Sure, they had some good moments, but the problem with this movie is the script; it's just boring. Hopefully Starsky and Hutch will be funnier.

Viewed: 2004-01-30 | Released: 2004-01-28 | Score: D

IMDb Page

I saw this one for the same reason most men will: my wife wanted to see it. I expected Bye Bye, Birdie warmed over for this decade, minus the music. Actually, the film quite exceeded expectations. Topher Grace is pretty typecast these days, but only because he does that geeky boy-next-door thing so well. Yes, the film is the same romantic comedy you've seen so many times before, but the makers were overtly conscious of the genre, poking fun at it in ways that I appreciated. For many of you it will be a date movie, and it serves it's purpose as such.

Viewed: 2004-01-29 | Released: 2004-01-22 | Score: C

IMDb Page

Despite its many flaws, this movie inexplicably kept a lump in my throat for a surprising amount of time. Tom Cruise gives a typically self-indulgent performance, and the film has little in the way of historical accuracy. But there's something about the tranquility of the Japanese landscape and culture combined with the inexorable approach of the future that really resonates with me. The critics have all been raving about Ken Watanabe, who played the role of Katsumoto, and he was good, but many of the other Japanese actors also really impressed me. Masato Harada played Katsumoto's nemesis, Omura, extremely well, and Shin Koyamada's portrayal of Katsumoto's samurai son was amazing. But the performance that really left me breathless was Koyuki, as Katsumoto's widowed sister-in-law, Taka. She pulled off an amazingly subtle and rich performance as a young mother as well as the love interest, and, surprisingly, the script never cheapens her relationship with Cruise's Algren.

Viewed: 2004-01-10 | Released: 2003-11-30 | Score: B

IMDb Page

Before I picked up this book, I had liked everything I had ever read by Neil Gaiman. Now that I have finished it, I still do. Neverwhere held flavors of Dark City and The Wizard of Oz for me, and the fact that I've been to London (admittedly only for a very short time) only heightened the sense of magic about Gaiman's London Below.

Started: 2003-12-29 | Finished: 2004-01-02

Purchase from Amazon