Title: Trainspotting
Author: Irvine Welsh
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company
Pages: 344

Title: Trainspotting (1996)
Director: Danny Boyle
Actors: Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Jonny Lee Miller, Kelly MacDonald, Irvine Welsh a.o.
Runtime: 94 Mins.

I recently got this movie on DVD. I owned it on videotape. Remember those? I watched it about a week ago and it still is a great movie.

Part of why this movie is so great is the fact that it follows the book pretty closely. A few things here and there have been left out, but not as bad as with say Queen of the Damned. Of course a few moments are more shocking: he sleeps with his dead brotherÂ’s wife, who is pregnant, on his funeral and Diane, the girl he finds out is underage after sleeping with her, is a lot younger in the book than she is in the movie. At least I get the impression that she is supposed to be 16 or so.
I heard a lot of crap about the movie and the book. They supposedly turned people into junkies. I have read the book (and own a copy) and I've seen the movie a bunch of times and never have I had the urge to start using heroin. I think those claims areridiculouss. The movie and book don't romanticize drugs. They show Renton, the main character (played by Ewan McGregor in the movie) struggling to get rid of drugs and his old friends, who are junkies as well. Every time he succeeds for a moment and then falls back into his old habits. Every time his friends find him, just as his life seems to be back on track again. They show the pain and suffering. That's not romanticizing at all.

I like the fact that they made an art-house movie out of this, because I think a Hollywood production would have ruined the story and made it less in your face. Also like the fact that they cast (mostly) Scottish actors. That is the perfect way for this story to be told. The book, for those who don't know, is also written in Scottish, phonetically. It takes a couple of pages to get used to it, but once you are, it reads like 'formal' English. I think that it's part of what makes this story so good. It's like you really get to know the characters as they are. You can really hear them tell the story to you.

The storytelling of Irvine Welsh is intriguing. You want to know more and more and when you finish the book, you kind of feel sad that it's over. I haven't read his other work, but I definitely will. I know one can only call a person his/her favourite author when they have actually read more, but I will cast aside that 'rule' and say: 'Irvine Welsh is one of my favourite authors'. His writing style grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until you finish the story and even then this book will be in your head for a while. I give the book a 9/10.

The movie, just like the book, is gripping. The actors really bring the characters to life and often have to put themselves in odd situations and they do. And that is great, since not many people like to put themselves in those situations. Ewan McGregor is the perfect actor to portray Renton. He is a guy you like easily and you want nothing more than for him to kick the habit and get a good life. Ewan Bremner is great as the geeky Spud and Jonny Lee Miller is the guy you love to hate as Sick Boy. You find him obnoxious and you wish Renton would get away from him, but still when he isn't there you kind of miss him in an odd way. Some scenes in the movie were just as pictured them when I was reading the book. I give the movie a 8.5/10.

Title: Blackrock
Director: Steve Vidler
Actors: Jessica Napier, Heath Ledger, Laurence Breuls a.o.
Runtime: 103 Mins.

I bought it on ebay a few months ago. I, initially, bought it, because Jessica Napier, who played Becky Howard on McLeod’s Daughters was in it. I wanted to see some of her other work and this was very cheap, only 5 euros, so I thought why not.

Turns out it was not a waste of money. It is a low budget movie, which, as you might have read before, I love. It is a typically Aussie movie.

The movie is gritty and realistic. It is about a girl who gets gang raped and killed on the beach, during a party and the main character Jared witnesses it. The rapists are people he knows and he is torn. Does he have to go to the police or protect his friends. He, eventually, runs away from home and breaks up with his girlfriend, played by Jessica.

It is a very realistic movie. Even though it is a movie for teenagers it actually has a plot and it looks great. Camera work and the locations are amazing. The rape scene is one that sticks with you for a long time. I kept thinking of it for days, after watching it. It is haunting and not for the faint of heart.

It is interesting to see how one person’s world can totally fall apart when he realizes his friends are not who he thinks they are. The dilemma that Jared is dealing with is portrayed amazing well and Laurence Breuls does an amazing job. I am surprised he hasn’t got the kind of career Heath Ledger has now. He is great as the torn Jared, who is angry with himself for not helping the girl.

Jessica Napier does a great job too. She does not have that big a part, but she is the one who first finds the girl. My fave scene of her is when her character is not allowed to go to the party and she tells her father it must be because she is a girl, because her brother can go. The anger over the double standard is very apparent in her eyes.

I recently found out that this movie is actually based on a real story and apparently there also is a play version of it. I would like to see it, but I’m not sure if they still perform it. The movie I give a 8.5/10

Title: Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
Director: Gurinder Chadha
Actors: Keira Knightley, Parminder Nagra, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Juliet Stevenson a.o.
Runtime: 112 Mins.

I recently watched this cute movie again. I have seen this one several times. This is the movie that sparked my interest in Keira Knightley (her acting, I swear ;) ).
It is still good after watching it a couple of times. It has typical British humor and that is one kind of humor I really like. It all starts out with an Indian girl, Jessminder, played by Parminder Nagra, who wants to play soccer. Her parents, however, do not want her to play soccer. They want her to learn how to cook and basically be the perfect housewife.

One day, she gets approached by Jules, this is where Keira comes in, and she asks her to join a girls soccer team. She agrees and when asked by the coach (Cool Irishman Jonathan Rhys Meyers) if her parents are okay with it, she says yes.
Meanwhile, Jules has got troubles of her own, when her mom wants her to be more feminine and go out on dates. But Jules seems to be more interested in football. Her father, however, does not seem to mind. This brings some tension between her parents.

Still, with all the troubles, they seem to cope well. Until they both fall in love with Joe, the coach. And Jessminder has to make a choice: play that important match or go to her sister's wedding, which both are on the same day...

I thought this was a pretty cool movie. It is very simple, does not require a lot of thinking. This is the ultimate sit back and relax type of movie. An hour and a half of pure fun, upbeat music and jokes about racial differences ('British girls have such short hair' and Jules' mom asking Jess if her parents have found her a guy to marry yet.) and lesbians (Jules' mom thinks Jules and Jess are dating.). If you are easily offended these jokes might put you off a bit

I once read that Jess and Jules, in the original draft, were actually dating, but I think the movie is so much funnier this way. The suggestion, sometimes, is funnier than actual actions. And the lesbian suggestion really works well in this movie. Having them actually date would have ruined the jokes.

I give this movie a 8/10. I actually prefer the new Keira movies. You can really see she has grown as an actress and Parminder Nagra, now, shines on ER. Check it out!

Title: Better than Chocolate (1999)
Director: Anne Wheeler
Actors: Christina Cox, Peter Outerbridge, Karyn Dwyer, Wendy Crewson a.o.
Runtime: 102 Min.


What sweet, lovely little (Canadian) movie this is! That was the first thought that came into my head when I watched it. Of course, it deals with more serious issues as well, like being transsexual or getting discriminated against because you do not fit the 'norm'.

Maggie is a girl who dropped out of Law School (which I can totally understand) and works & lives in a book store. When her mom decides to come visit her she has a crisis. Her boss kicks her out of the backroom of the store, because she does not want to deal with the trouble he visit might bring: Maggie has not told her mom she is gay...

In the meantime Maggie meets the gorgeous artist, Kim, whom she falls in love with. Maggie, then, finds a place to stay. A woman, who teaches Sex Ed, is subletting her flat and just as Kim and her are taking a shower together her mom shows up with her brother. And things go on from there...

Christina Cox, who plays Kim is brilliant and very cute! For some reason, she reminds me of my high school friend H. The facial expressions and certain mannerisms. I could not help but see H in her every time, though I doubt H is gay.

The absolute star of the movie, however, is Peter Outerbridge as Judy. He portrays her in such a delightful way. You really feel for her as she is struggling to cope with the fact that people do not understand transgenderism and some will keep calling her sir. The song he sings, called I'm not a Fucking Drag Queen is hilarious with a serious bite to it.

It is a nice change from all the depressing Gay & Lesbian movies out there. Most are very dark and almost always someone ends up dead, not in this one though. It is a very light-hearted comedy that tackles serious issues in a funny way. I'm not always fan of romantic comedies, but for this one I made an exception. I give it a 8.3/10

Title: Domino (2005)
Director: Tony Scott
Actors: Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, Lucy Liu, Christopher Walken a.o.
Runtime: 127 Min.

'The most boring movie ever!' or 'Too fast-paced!' are a couple of the many (often contradicting) complaints I have read about Domino. I must have watched another movie, because I loved it. In fact, I thought it was brilliant. I loved the entire experimental fee of the movie. The camera angles, the flashbacks, the pace, the colour; everything was so ballsy. I think that is why a lot of people did not like it: it is too ballsy for them.

I realize that this is not for everyone. I can understand that people thought they were getting seasick, but to call it a bad movie because of that, is not very smart. Watch the movie for the story and the acting.

The story is quite interesting and complicated. You have to watch it a couple of time before you get it completely, since a lot happens. It is about a girl who seems to have everything, but something is missing: the action. She's a bored model who has a fascination for weapons. One day she goes to a Bounty Hunter seminar and convinces two Bounty Hunters to take her on. They do so reluctantly, thinking they can use her good looks as bait, but soon they realise she more than that...

Keira convinced me that she was a great actress when I watched Bend It Like Beckham for the first time. She already caught my attention and I looked up other movies of hers. Pirates of the Caribbean, King Arthur and Bend It Like Beckham now belong to my favourite movie list. This movie has blasted past all 3 of them. It is now by far my favourite Keira movie and it made me realize I want to marry the girl!

She was so ballsy in this movie. She nailed the character and she was totally believable as a bounty hunter. Her attitude, the way she dressed, her funky cool haircut (I wish my hair looked like that) her nosebleed, her flirting with Lucy Liu; it was all spot on.

I do not know much about Domino Harvey, but I will read more on her. Her story is very interesting and this movie made me curious. I want to know what is real and what they made up or dramatized. Most of all I want to know how one becomes a Bounty Hunter. They did not really show it in the movie.

I hardly give anything higher than a 8.5, but this movie definitely gets a 9.5/10. Watch it if you love Keira and love twisted, experimental movies. I love both, so this was the best treat ever.

Title: Capote
Director: Bennett Miller
Actors: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Craig Archibald, Bronwen Coleman, Chris Cooper a.o.
Runtime: 114 Min.

My Sociology prof. recommended it to us, because we had to write a Sociological paper on Capote's In Cold Blood. The book plays an important part in this movie., since you get to see how the book came to be. It’s like a long behind-the-scenes of In Cold Blood.

Capote, one day, reads an article about the murder of a family of four. He, instantly, becomes fascinated by the killings and decides to write an article about it. He goes to Kansas and interviews a bunch of people, among them the detective Al Dewey and his wife. He also interviews the killers once they are captured.
After a while he becomes infatuated with one of the killers: Perry Smith. He can't seem to forget about him, but is this real? Is he using them for his article, which by the way has now turned into a book. Or is it real concern about the more 'human' one of the two killers. You never really know for sure, because one moment he is all over Perry and can't seem to forget him and the next moment he is bribing him into telling what happened that fateful night by offering him to help him find a good lawyer. Then in the end he ponders the fact that he cannot finish the book until they get executed, but he doesn't want Perry to be executed.

I thought it was an ok movie. I was reluctant to watch it, because of the hype and that kind of took away my pleasure in watching it as well. I thought it was a tad bit overrated, but nevertheless an interesting movie. I'm not sure whether Capote was really like that and of course it is too late to find out, but I found the movie version of him rather annoying. He was manipulative and really out there to be famous. And he sure had a nagging voice, but I guess that was part of his flamboyance. Some say Philip Seymour Hoffman portrayed him perfectly complete with all of his mannerisms and manner of speech. I thought he was alright, but of course, again, I do not know what the real Capote was like.

The movie showed some interesting things about how he wrote the book and it was a nice extra after reading In Cold Blood just recently. I still find him a genius. I mean after all he created a whole new genre. But I'm not sure if this movie did his genius justice or maybe I just got disillusioned. I give the movie a 7/10.

Title: Transamerica
Director: Duncan Tucker
Actors: Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers, Fionnula Flanagan, Graham Greene a.o.
Run Time: 103 mins.

What a great Indie movie!! I was very impressed by the performance of Felicity Huffman. Now I have to admit that I haven't seen a lot by her and actually only know Desperate Housewives and I do not like it. No matter how many people try to convince it is goooooooooooood.

The movie starts when Bree is getting ready for a sex operation and she finds that she actually fathered a son, Toby, when she (as Stanley) had a relationship with a woman. Her therapist tells her that she should find out who this boy is and leave the past behind before she can get the operation. She isn't really feeling up to it, but goes any way. She bails him out of jail and pretends to be a church lady, who will take care of him. Then a road trip ensues, during Toby and Bree go through a lot and get to know each other a lot better. They also meet a lot of interesting people.

I thought Huffman was very good as a transwoman. She showed the awkwardness one can have when someone finds out one's secret, for instance when a young girl asks her: 'Are you a boy or a girl?' Also she sometimes overdid certain girlie mannerisms, which is what transpeople often do to 'compensate'. The Oscar should have gotten to her instead of Reese Witherspoon.

This really is one of those movies that give an important message without making it too obvious. It never rubbed the viewer's noses in the fact that transpeople are people with feelings too and that the movie was handling a 'controversial' topic. It just showed a woman trapped in a man's body, who wanted to make peace with the past. The road trip, like I said before, was funny and silly things happen, but there are also a lot of touching moments.

I thought it was a bit short, while the movie actually is longer than most movies. The ending is rather open and I liked that. You can figure out for yourself how they continue to live their lives. I also liked the fact that they didn't treat transsexuality as a 'controversial topic'. Some movies do that and it's like they are saying: "Oh, look at us! We're so controversial!" I'm a fan of the more subtle in-your-face-movies. It sounds like a contradiction but really, think about!

I think this movie also suffers from the Brokeback Mountain syndrome: certain people might find this a horrible movie just because it's about transsexuals and that's too much for them to handle or something. I am glad I am openminded enough to enjoy this very good movie. Those people are really missing out. The balance between drama and comedy is fantastic! And that is why I give this movie a 8.5/10 as well! This, too, will be added to my DVD collection when it gets released.

P.S. If you want to know more about transsexuality you should watch the documentary series Transgeneration. I found it very informative and it made me more open-minded.

Title: The Illustrated Family Doctor
Director: Kriv Stenders
Actors: Jessica Napier, Samuel Johnson. Colin Friels, Sacha Horler.
Run Time: 90 Mins.

I just had to write a review about a crazy Aussie comedy. So I picked the Illustrated Family Doctor. It is a very black comedy and I think a lot of people do not appreaciate this type of movie. A lot of people have not even seen this, because this is the best kept Aussie secret.

The movie is very slow-paced and it works very wel for the story. Gary, the main character, is rather slow in the uptake of things around him. The slow-pacedness gives the movie a very surreal feel and so does the lighting. It often is too bright, but, again, that really works for this movie.

Gary works at a book condensing company. They make books thinner, by deleting entire passages and subplots/subcharacters. One day he has to condense The Illustrated Family Doctor. It is a medical book filled with pictures of infections, swollen body parts and skin diseases. The pictures are pretty graphic.

Gary's father has just passed away and so he is in a very existential state. He asks himself the old questions: 'why are we here?' and 'where do we go when we die?' And so working on this book does not really do him well. And then he starts to develop all kinds of symptoms that are written about in the IFD...

There are also a few sub-plots: Christine, the daughter of his co-worker, is in domestic trouble. His girlfriend leaves him for an old friend of his. His mother and sister are dealing with the death of his father in their own way. His co-worker used to be an amazing storyteler but he is throwing away his abilities with the book condensing. These are all interesting sub-stories that make the main story movie a bit faster.

Samuel Johnson is great as the gloomy Gary. He has the perfect empty stare and he really looks weaker and sicker every minute. He also has a certain sadness in his voice that fits this role perfectly. All the supportive cast members, including Jessica Napier, are great as well. This is a great movie considering they only had a small amount of time to film this. I give it a 8.3, because it is so refreshing and so different from comedies like American Pie, that are not even that funny. SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT'S THE BEST MOVIE NO ONE HAS SEEN!

Title: Brokeback Mountain
Director: Ang Lee
Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Michelle Williams, Anne Hathway
Run Time: 134 mins

This movie was hyped up a lot and I thought I would not let that stop me. And I was right to not let it stop me, because it was a very good movie. I loved the scenery. I am a sucker for scenery as you might have noticed! It was a gorgeous landscape, the woods, the stream and everything was right in place.

I assume everyone knows by now what the movie is about and I think that calling it a 'gay cowboy movie' is not doing it justice. It is so much more than that. It is an almost mythological doomed passionate relationship between two men. Although, when you are watching it you pretty much forget it is about two men and view it as a relationship between two people who are in love (although I might be slightly predisposed on this one)

Heath Ledger (AUSSIE!!!) is great as the repressed Ennis. He is not only repressed as far as his feelings for Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) go, but in everything he does he has a certain repressed aura about him. I am very sure it has a lot to do with his upbringing. I got the impression he was raised in a family in which they did not really talk about their feelings and that is why he hardly talks about his true feelings. I think he deserved the Oscar instead of Philip Seymour Hoffman, but I'm not a stuffy old member of the Academy.

Jake Gyllenhaal was also fantastic as the more open Jack Twist. He seemed a lot happier and more willing to take the plunge and live a happy life with Ennis. I, too, would want to get away from that annoying father-in-law of his. I loved the scene in which he stood up to him, when he was constantly undermining his authority over his son.

A lot of people say that this movie is over-rated and it wouldn't have been this popular if it was about a straight couple. I didn't think so and I think people who say that didn't get the point of the movie. The point would have been lost if it was about a straight couple (unless they were of mixed race). I think it deserved all the attention that it got. I have been reading a few things on the net about the opinions of people on this movie and people have been accusing others of being gay if they liked this movie. Also people have trashed this movie without having seen it. That is so childish. What does one's sexuality have anything to do with what movies they like or not. I know a few gay men (the supposed audience) who didn't like this movie and straight people who loved it. And how can you judge a movie if you haven't seen it? Don't judge a book by it's cover is a cliched phrase that apparently is not cliche enough, since people keep doing it.

Anyway, enough about that. That is one of the things in this world that keeps puzzling me and I will never get. I give this movie a solid 8.5 and will buy the DVD when it gets released.

On a side note: good to know it's not only lesbian movies that are very depressing!

Title: Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)
Director: Rob Marshall
Actors: Michelle Yeoh, Ken Watanabe, Li Gong, Ziyi Zhang, Kaori Momoi and others.
Run Time: 145 mins.

I started this entry a while ago, put it in draft and forgot al about it. That's not very smart, is it? Well, anyway I'll try to finish it as well as possible.

On the 5th of May, I took my sis to the movies, because her birthday was on thursday the 4th and she had friends over, so I couldn't take her then. We, both, really wanted to see this movie, because the trailers looked spectacular and my sis has a new found Asia obsession. It is almost as huge as my Ireland and Aus/NZ obsessions.

The trailers weren't lying. The movie looked amazing. It started out real dark, when the main character, Chiyo, is taken away from her home with her sister. She doesn't know where she is going and it is all very confusing. That confusion has also been translated to the shots. They are quite quick when Chiyo's sister is being driven off and she, herself, is being pulled into a house. It is also raining very hard and that adds to the sadness of the moment.

It turns out to be an Okiya (spelling correct?). There she becomes a slave and has to work all day to make Hatsumomo's, the geisha of that Okiya, life better. In the meantime her parents die and her sister has become a prostitute. She makes a plan with her sister to escape but she falls from the roof and gets hurt. She can't go to school anymore and her parents, in teh meantime, have died.

Then one fine day, she meets a man, who changes her life. He makes her feel better when she's crying at a bridge. This event makes her determined to one become a Geisha for him. When the biggest competition for Hatsumomo wants to help Chiyo, who's name by now has become Sayuri, become a Geisha her dream seems to become true. But is the life of a Geisha as fun as it seems?

I thought the movie was very beautiful, but the story was quite slow (and a bit predictable). The movie was quite long and i think they could have cut at least 15 minutes out to speed up the story a little. I guess it wasn't supposed to be a quick story, but a moving work of art, like a Geisha. I thought it was truly a spectacle to watch and it had just the right amount of drama in it. Sometimes, the names were hard to follow, because there were so many people with interesting names. But I'm sure they would say that of Dutch names as well. I give it an 8/10. Now, I want to read the book.

P.S. Hatsumomo is quite the cutie!

Title: In Cold Blood.
Author: Truman Capote
Publisher: Penguin Books
Pages: 336

I had heard a lot about this book and wanted to read it long before the movie Capote was nominated for a bunch of Oscars. I was lucky when my Criminology/Sociology professor picked this book to write a Sociological paper about. We were able to buy the Dutch version with the rest of the books for the third trimester. I, however, wanted the English version. And so I got it.

It reads very easily. He does not use complex sentence structures and not much fancy words. The way he wrote it makes you want to turn the page and see if the bad guys get caught.

For those unfamiliar with the story here’s a summary: A family of four, Clutters, get killed by two men: Hickock and Smith. The story is told from different perspectives: the killers’, the family’s, the investigators’ and several other people. That way you a great sense of what people are going through and what impact it had on people.

I, however, started to dislike the family at some point. They seemed too perfect. The kids were good in school and Kenyon, the son, was good at making furniture and the daughter, Nancy, was good at sports and baking things. They were described as the perfect 'Christian' family(of course that does not give anyone the right to kill them) and that made me want to barf at times. It’s like going to a funeral and hearing people talk about the deceased as if he/she were a saint. I went through that with my Grandpa’s cremation and the two-facedness made me sick. No one is perfect, no one is a saint. Everyone has got their cranky moments where they act like total bastards and I'm sure this family had too. Apart from the mother being ill, there was nothing that indicated they were a normal family, who fight and get angry with each other. Who sometimes just don't have Lady Luck on their side. That was a shame.

The killers were also described vividly and I hated Dick from beginning until the end. He did his name justice. Perry, however, made me feel torn. Yes, he was a cold-blooded killer, but there was something about him that was sad. That made you sympathise with him. At times I hated him, but he seemed to be the decent one. He prevented Dick from raping Nancy and another young girl. He seemed to be the less ‘evil’ one and more of a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I thought that was very well-done on Capote’s part. He really made you feel torn and sometimes angry with yourself for feeling sorry for a killer.

I give the book an 8/10.
P.S. Also check crimelibrary.com for more information of the case.

Title: True Women
Director: Karen Arthur
Actors: Angelina Jolie, Annabeth Gish, Dana Delany, Jeffrey Nordling
Run Time: 170 mins (total of 2 parts)

In the old west, men made the rules...And women broke them.
I recently watched this 2-part mini-series, starring Annabeth Gish as Euphemia, Dana Delany as Sarah and my girl Angelina Jolie as Georgia. I bought the DVD a while ago, but never found the time to watch it, since it is (almost)3 hours. They put it on the DVD as if it was one movie, instead of a 2-part mini-series.

Normally, I can't really sit still through a movie that is 3 hours, but this is the second time that Angelina manages to get me to sit through one. And not only Angelina was good, Dana Delany was also delightful to watch.

The story takes place from the Texan Revolution to the American Civil War and is about 2 young girls, who get separated when one of them, Euphemia, goes to live with her big sister in Texas, after her father dies. The girls keep in contact through letters and when Georgia finds out that she is 25% Indian (which is a crime in those days), she tells 'Phemie', but her sister, Sarah, finds the letter and burns it. Then Phemie sends a letter saying how bad the Indians are and that causes a rift between the two girls.

A couple of years later, Georgia gets married to a doctor and they move to Texas, the girls meet again, but it's not a very pleasant meeting. Georgia has got slaves, whom she treats like she would anyone else, and Phemie is dead against having slaves, this causes them to fall out again. But then Sarah and Phemie have an idea to fight for the right to vote for women and they need someone who is a good talker and who can convince people easily: Georgia.

The first part is quite slow and introduces the characters. We see the girls, who are then played by Rachel Leigh Cook and Tina Majorino, growing up and become women. The second part goes a lot faster and is about them having children, losing children, losing their husbands, having to deal with war and new laws and fighting for equal rights. That is were the movie really begins, at least for me. It is faster paced and a lot more happens. I guess they wanted to let the viewers get to know the characters slowly before they let anything happen to them.

The movie doesn't shy away from delicate subjects like racism, sexism and slavery. It tells it as it is. Although I'm not sure if it was historically correct, to me it seemed like it was but I'm not an expert. I did read somewhere that the book was loosely based on real events and I would like to read to see how loosely the movie was based on the book. The movie also shows strong women who have to take care of the household when their husbands are away to fight in the war(s). Ergo: a movie that every young girl should see(if they can manage to sit still for 3 hours).

I thought Angelina portrayed Georgia beautifully. She is the kind of woman who doesn't take things lying down. Someone who raises her voice and questions the situation and for those days that was something special and considered a danger for the system. I thought she shone, once again, playing a strong woman, who also had her weak moments. A woman who was not afraid to be afraid and that's the kind of roles I like to see her in. Plus her wearing those beautiful dresses! That was definitely a plus. Also pay attention to Michael Greyeyes, who plays Tarantula, the chief of an Indian tribe. He reminded me of Brandon Lee in the Crow, with the make-up and all. I give this movie a 8/10, if the first part was a bit faster than it would have been an 8.5.

Title: Merrick
Author: Anne Rice
Publisher: Ballantine Books
Pages: 370

I just finished reading Merrick by Anne Rice. It is book 7 of the Vampire Chronicles. This book brings the readers the introduction of a new character, the return of a beloved old character and, of course, in true Anne Rice style, the eternal torment of the undead.

This book is written by David Talbot. You can kind of tell that by the word use and the style of the sentences. Lestat always used fancy words and complex sentences. This showed his old-fashioned nature. I prefer Lestat's writings. David's writing style is a bit more accessible but still very beautiful.

The story starts out with Merrick, a young woman who comes from a long line of powerful witches, and David sitting in café talking about the old days and Louis' plan. Louis wants to bring back the spirit of his beloved Claudia. He wants to see her once more and see if she is in a good place. The only person capable of conjuring up spirits is Merrick. Merrick is an old friend of Davids, whom he met through the Talamasca.

After this encounter David tells the story of Merrick to Louis. He feels he has to know more about Merrick' past, before Louis can make a real decision about the spell they are about to do. The story is mostly about family members and the distinction between "White Mayfairs" and "Coloured Mayfairs". Merrick, herself, could "pass for white". David tells in great detail about how he met her for the first time and what kind of plans the Talamasca, the secret order (for those who have no idea what the Talamasca is), had for her. A couple of family members of Merrick also appear: Her mother, Cold Sandra, and her sister Honey in the Sunshine disappeared and she lived with her godmother Great Nananne, who taught her everything she needed to know about magick and religion.

The story of Merrick takes up the most part of the book and is too complex to actually summarize here. Nothing much happens in the book. It is mostly David talking about Merrick and his love for her. Then the final part of the book is about Louis and his wish to see Claudia once more. If the spell works I won't tell here. Go pick it up and read it for yourself.

I, myself, have mixed feelings about this book. The other novels of the Chronicles have been a bit more action-packed and this seemed to be more about introducing Merrick. Even though, the some of the other novels have been about a character's past (Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Armand etc) they always seemed a bit more faster paced than this one. It seems like Anne had less to tell in this novel than she did in the previous ones. Still, It shows classic Anne Rice writing. A great eye for detail. The way she describes people, vampires, houses, gardens, whatever is almost passionate. They really come alive for you and even a person, whose imagination isn't that great can see what is happening with their 'Inner Eye'. I give this book a 7/10. And that is the lowest that I have ever given an Anne Rice novel.

Title: Taking Lives
Author: Michael Pye
Publisher: Vintage Books
Pages: 295

I really loved the movie, that stars, yes there she is again, Angelina Jolie. When I started reading I found that I had to give up the images and story of the movie and just read it as if it is a new story altogether. The book for instance doesn't even contain the part that Angelina plays in the movie. It is also set in Holland and Portugal, while the movie, if I remember correctly, took place in Canada.

This version of the story is quite interesting. It combines art and history of several countries and you actually learn things from the novel, assuming they are correct. The story begins in Florida when a Dutch student named Martin Arkenhout meets a guy, Seth Goodman, and takes his life, literally. He becomes this person. He goes to college, even though he himself still has 1 year of high school left and when it gets too dangerous to be Seth, he kills another. And when it gets to dangerous to be him, he kills another. That's how he gets to live many lives and goes to many interesting places, until he makes the mistake of taking the life of Christopher Hart. Christopher has stolen images from the Libris Principalis that is kept in a Museum in London. John Costa, who works for the museum is sent after Hart to get the images back. This brings him back to his father's country: Portugal.

There he finds out about his own past and his father's past, which isn't as clean and heroic as he always thought. In the mean time his marriage is falling apart and the museum keep pressuring into getting back the images himself, so they don't have to inform the police and avoid a big scandal.

I thought it was an interesting story. The plot seemed a bit over the top, but once you are reading it that thought vanishes. The story is interesting enough to keep you turn the pages. Sometimes, there were part that could have been a bit faster-paced for my taste, but it kept me reading. I thought the art was interesting and it was funny to see actual Dutch words and places in English sentences. Too bad, it took place in Amsterdam, like pretty much all the foreign stories set in The Netherlands. That is getting rather old. They did, however, go to Delft too and my home town, Rotterdam, was mentioned a few times. Also, there were the cliches of drugs and windmills and stuff like that. The Netherlands is much more than that. But I guess those prejudices will never go away.

I give the book a solid 8/10. In my opinion the movie was a bit better, but that's because it featured a strong and independent woman, who was needed to solve this horrible crime. I have a thing for strong and independent women, but I guess that's pretty clear by now. The movie was a bit scarier as well, but I still recommend reading this book.

Title: Kissing Jessica Stein (2001)
Director: Charles Herman-Wurmfeld
Actors: Jennifer Westfeldt, Heather Juergensen, Scott Cohen.
Run Time: 97 Min.


This may contain some slight spoilers.
Last week I saw a promo for KJS on TV. I heard a lot about it and wanted to see it. I was in luck, because the movie was being shown that same day.

The story goes out as follows: Helen is fed up with her love life. She is a successful art gallery manager and is having meaningless sex with 3 men. She needs something else. So she places an ad in the newspaper under the woman looking for a woman section.

Jessica Stein is an equally successful woman. She works as a copyright editor. She is single and her mom pressures her into getting a boyfriend. One day her friend is reading the ads in the paper out loud and comes across the ad Helen placed. Her ad starts with a Rilke quote. Jessica's attention is caught immediately, but is disappointed to find out it was placed by a woman.

Later, the thought of the ad keeps playing through her mind and she gives Helen a call. Helen is more than happy to meet her after being called by a bunch of sad women.

Almost immediately after stepping into the cafe and seeing Helen sit at a table Jessica changes her mind and leaves. But Helen sees it and is able to stop her. Helen persuades Jessica to go for a drink and the pair start to talk. It is evident that Jessica is uncomfortable around Helen, but it soon changes. They start to hang out more often and they eventually take it step by step, much to the annoyance of Helen. She, clearly, is more experienced than Jessica and is more comfortable with her sexuality.

Eventually Helen meets Jess' family and friends, but she introduces her as 'my friend Helen'. Helen and Jessica soon realize they want different things out of the relationship...

I thought it was an interesting movie. Not as depressing as most 'lesbian movies', though I would not classify this as a lesbian movie. It is simply a movie that shows a straight woman falling in love with another woman. It has nothing to do with gender or lesbianism.

Jessica is merely curious as to what it is like to be with a woman. Helen, clearly, wants to be with women and is beyond curiosity, but it is never mentioned were she is bi or a lesbian. I thought it was refreshing to see a movie about two women falling in love without the 'in your face look at us we're gay' kind of thing. This is, what I think, every subject about sexuality should be like: no labels, no fuss, just two people falling in love.

Another thing is both of them gained something from the relationship even if it didn't work: Jessica became more open and less uptight and Helen continued dating women.

As much as I liked this movie I feel that compared to Imagine Me & You it possesses a naivity that didn't always work for me, whereas IM&Y was more mature. I give it a 7/10.

Title: Imagine Me & You (2006)
Director: Ol Parker
Actors: Lena Headey, Piper Perabo, Matthew Goode, Anthony S. Head, Celia Imrie, Sue Johnston and others.
Run Time: 93 mins.

Friday, I watched this incredibly cute movie. Two romantic (“lesbian”) comedies in 1 week! Cool, huh?

I read a lot about this one on http://www.afterellen.com/. They said it was a great movie. Other reviews were positive as well. Now, I never let movie critics rule my life, so I decided to watch it and form my own opinion on it. My opinion, how very boring, is positive as well.

Initially, I watched it, because A) It’s a British comedy. B) Anthony Stewart Head is in it. C) It’s a non-depressing lesbian movie. A rare case indeed. I watched it again and again and now I watch it for a different reason: Lena Headey. But I’ll get to that later.

First, the plot: Rachel, played by Piper Perabo, is getting married to her long-time boyfriend Heck. On her wedding day she meets Luce, the woman who ‘did her flowers’. Rachel immediately befriends Luce and it is clear that the two of them have a certain chemistry together. They click right away. For instance, when Rachel’s wedding ring drops in the punch, Luce is there to help her. A cute little scene ensues. Luce is also immediately liked by some of Rachel and Heck’s friends and Rachel’s little sister H.

Three weeks later, Rachel goes to Luce’s flower shop and invites her to come over for dinner. She wants to set Luce up with Heck’s best friend Coop, but Heck soon finds out that Luce is gay. Rachel doesn’t know this and neither does Coop. When Heck tells Coop, he gives the typical male reaction: he finds it sexy and tries to get her to sleep with him. Which doesn’t work of course.

Then one of the best scenes of the movie happens: When Heck and Rachel are doing groceries, Rachel stills playing matchmaker. When Heck tries to tell her Luce is gay, she suddenly appears with Edie, a friend of hers. A silly little scene ensues and then the four split up again. Heck tells Rachel and when they bump into them again he asks Edie: Are you gay? To which she replies with definitely the best line in the movie: I’m ecstatic! But soon explains that she and Luce are not an item.

Rachel starts to become more and more interested in Luce and the two of them go out, because Heck apparently ‘has a work thing’. They go to a football match and Luce teaches her how to shout insults louder and states that number 9 is a wanker, really really loud. Finally, Rachel realizes she is in love with Luce and what happens then is for you to see…

Like Kissing Jessica Stein this movie never makes a big deal out of being gay. When Luce tells Heck he accepts it immediately and so do other people. The only one who makes a little bit of a fuss is Rachel’s mother. There are no stereotypical lesbian jokes, except for one, brought to us by Ned, a character portrayed by Anthony S. Head, but he doesn’t really mean it. He just uses it to get to his wife, Rachel’s mom, a bit.

The chemistry between the two actresses is phenomenal. They really connect with each other and have a certain fearlessness needed to make a good love-story. And admittedly it is hard not to fall slightly in love with Lena Headey. She is an amazing actress and I am stunned I have never noticed her before. I am definitely going to check out more of her work. At times she reminded me of Keira Knightley. Not only looks-wise (they look alike in certain angles), but also speech-wise and mannerism-wise. And, of course, the British charm. I’m a sucker for it. The rest of the casting is great too. Anthony Head is amazing as the clueless father, who in the end says a very smart thing. It was nice to see him as something other than Giles. And the little girl, who plays H, is fantastic for such a young actress! The chemistry between Lena and her was great too, in a totally different way of course. Don't even go there!

The movie is filled with these silly and cute scenes and it is a very feel-good sort of movie. Think Bend It Like Beckham if the lesbian storyline had been put through and minus the football and Indian family storyline. I have recently got this one on DVD. It is much better than Piper’s other lesbian movie: Lost and Delirious. And the fact that it is a British independent film only adds to the coolness. I give this movie a 9/10

Now If you’ll excuse I have to prepare for the L Word, which is on tonight.

Title: The New Dinkum Aussie Dictionary
Author: Richard Beckett
Publisher: New Holland
Pages: 108

Who reads a dictionary? I just did. I know I'm insane, but it is Australian Slang or Strine we're talking about. I absolutely love all things Australian, Strine in particular, and that's why I had to have this cute little book.
It is like a regular dictionary with a term or a phrase in bold letters and an explanation in normal font behind it. The only difference is that it contains extremely funny explanations at times. It is much more interesting to read than a usual boring dictionary. This book teaches you things about Strine you never knew and always wanted to know. So it is both funny and educational.

Lots of phrases are so ridiculous that it makes you wonder where they came from and what the hell they mean. I laughed my arse off at times. You really need to have the explanations to fully understand what some of the phrases mean. Some things are so far fetched it is hard to believe they are actual phrases that are really used on a daily basis by actual human beings.

Everyone who loves Australia and who likes a good laugh has to read this dictionary or just own it, so you can look a few words up when you're watching McLeod's Daughters. I give it a 8.5/10 and that the highest I have ever given a dictionary.

Title: Anazapta (2004)
Director: Alberto Sciamma
Actors: Lena Headey, Jason Flemyng, David La Haye
Run Time: 1 hr 45 mins

I was checking out Lena Headey movies on www.bol.com and I saw this one for only 5.99, so I couldn't resist ordering it. It turned out to be a good movie, because I really enjoyed this pretty unknown (supernatural) historical thriller.

The story is set in a village in England in 1348. Lena plays a once wealthy woman, named Matilda, who is eagerly awaiting her husband's return from France. He has been fighting there with a large group of soldiers from the village. He doesn't return. He has been captured by the French and his cousin, Nicholas, who does return, brings a French nobleman, Jacques, as a hostage.

Nicholas treats Jacques incredibly bad and subjects him to harsh torture. Matilda is the only one in the villages who cares about Jacques' well-being and lets him go wherever he wants to, under one condition: he is followed around everywhere and at nights he is locked away.

Then people start to die one by one and it is believed that it's the Black Death, because all symptoms are present. However, there is more going on then people realize. It has to do with a dark secret that some of the villages males hold. And exactly how much of this has to do with Jacques? Why is he constantly whispering these Latin sentences?

In the mean time, Matilda is having troubles of her own, when the Bishop wants to take over her property. He believes her husband will not come back and gives her 10 days to come up with money otherwise she has to perform several sexual favours on him.

That is a short summary of the story, if I say more I will spoil the twist. It is a bit hard to follow at times, but in the end all the pieces of the puzzle come together.

I really like the idea of having a thriller set in medieval times and a mystical twist to boot! It looks amazing. The sets really look like you are walking down the road of a medieval village. At least that's what I am assuming and can remember from medieval art in Art History Class. The costumes are great too. Lena's dresses and Jacques' nobleman outfit in particular. You can tell who are the rich and who are the poor. People are dirty and also have very bad teeth. That is a thing that usually bugs me when in medieval movies people have great teeth and are squeaky clean.

The performances where great as well. Lena portrays Matilda as a strong woman in a male dominated time. You can see the trouble and despair in her face as she is left no choice but take on the bishop's offer and as she figures out what really is going on. She is a very likeable heroine. David La Haye is fantastic as the mysterious Frenchman. He captivates the viewer with one look. He is very expressive in his face as well. Why haven't I seen this guy before?

This is, again, one of those movies not many people see, but should. It is a literal storyline mixed in with a clever metaphore and that's why I give it a solid 8/10.

For those who were wondering Anazapta is a word used to protect yourself from curses and the likes.

Title: Dead Man's Curve (aka The Curve) (1998)
Director: Dan Rosen
Actors: Michael Vartan, Matthew Lillard, Keri Russell
Run Time: 1hr 30 mins

Another one of those movies were there twists and turns keep you on your toes. The story is as follows: Two college students, Tim and Chris, heard rumours about the unofficial rule in college that says when your roommate commits suicide, you will get a good grades for the rest of the semester. They are more than willing to put it to the test and plan to stage Rand's, their roommate, suicide.

They ask the College counselllor what signs of depression could be and she comes up with rather cliche signs like: depressing music, preferably from the 80s, depressing movies, preferably Swedish, and of course: Sylvia Plath novels. So they buy all this stuff and plant it in his room.

Then on the night they plan to kill him, Rand's girlfriend tells him she's pregnant and he makes a big scene. This, of course, is very fortunate for the two. They go out to a cliff, where Rand is sitting, drinking like a madman and kill him. To their surprise the rule is real and they put on an act to refuse the offer but take it anyway. When the police come check it out, Tim, who seems to be the heartless of the two, makes Chris look very suspicious. He tells the cops he and Rand where fighting and Tim also made Chris pay for all the stuff they bought. This shows up on his creditcard receipts and makes him look very suspicious.

Then it's where all the twists and turns start to occur and nothing is as it seems.

I really liked the twists and turns, because without them this is just a standard 'are they going to get away with it' thriller. The twists and turns make it different and special, almost. Of course, it is still filled with thriller cliches. Matthew Lillard is great as the evil Tim. He portrays the character not only with just the lines, but his entire body. You can see he had a great time portraying this bastard. Michael Vartan was also cast perfectly for the doubting Chris. He is the one who constantly thinks about ethics and he shows remorse. Dana Delany has a funny cameo as the counsellor who tries to quit smoking and is constantly chewing on things and note the patches on her arms.

I give it a 7.5/10

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Director: Gore Verbinski
Actors: Johnny Depp, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, Bill Nighy and others.


Now, a review of the movie I most anticipated in my life. I wanted to see it, ever since I heard they were going to make a sequel and I am pretty sure they didn't even have a script ready back then.

As much as I wanted to see it, I also had my doubts. I really loved the first movie and the general rule is: sequels suck, so part of me was afraid I wasn't going to be enjoying it. I think I even had a stomach ache as I sat down in the cinema. After seeing it, I was speechless! I loved it! I loved it so much that I went twice! Once with Anne and once with my sister. It is not as good as the first one, its even better!

The movie gave me goose bumps. I'm sure most of you know the story, I mean it broke records, but like I always do I'm going to give a plot summary anyway. It's my review! I decide! The movie starts with a beautiful shot of Keira who's sitting in the rain, wearing a wedding dress. Her wedding is violently interrupted by a guy named Lord Beckett (he used to be Cutler Beckett, but he is a Lord now). He has warrants for Elizabeth and Will. They are being arrested for helping Jack escape the death sentence and they will now be sentenced to death themselves.

However, Elizabeth is being thrown in jail and he makes a deal with Will. He has to find Jack's compass, which shows you the way to that which you desire most. Meanwhile, Jack is in trouble himself. He owes the infamous Davey Jones his soul and he is very afraid of him. He goes to hide on land, which is something Davey Jones can't do. He can only go on land once in a decade.

While hiding there he has walked right into the hands of a cannibalistic tribe. They think he is a god trapped in a human body and they want to help him get released by eating him. That is what we learn when Will gets caught by them as well.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth's father helps her escape from prison, but plans get interrupted when the captain of the boat that was going to take her back to England gets killed. She escapes from the guy's involved. She goes to Beckett and puts a gun to his head. She makes him sign a pardon for her and Will.

They eventually all get back together again. How? That's a bit complicated, but worth watching. You will see a lot of familiar faces: Norrington, the prison dog, Pintell & Ragetti, Mr. Gibbs, Cotton and Jack, the undead monkey. But also a lot of new faces: Bill 'Bootstrap' Turner, Tia Dalma and of course the beforementioned Davey Jones and Beckett.

The move is a lot darker than the first one. The story is more complicated. It actually consists of several storylines in one: Jack wanting to find the Dead Man's Chest, which contains the heart of Davey Jones, but not really. Will wanting to help Elizabeth once again. Elizabeth being more mature and independent (and having more to do) than in the first one. Norrington wanting revenge. Davey Jones' infamous story. Will meeting his father. I have to say when you watch it a second time it makes more sense and you sort of know what to look for.

I loved the character development, especially Elizabeth's. She toughened up and definitely had more to do than in CotBP. Keira really got a chance to show off her comedic skills and her fighting skills, which you might remember from King Arthur and/or Domino. Johnny Depp, of course, is fantastic as Jack Sparrow. He's even funnier and quirkier. I'm not always fond of Orlando Bloom. He doesn't do much for me, but I liked him in this movie. There I said it, let's move on. The absolute star of the movie is: The Kraken. What an amazing creature that is! And CGI looked just right.

It is not necessary to watch CotBP first, for the story at least. I do recommend it, because you might not understand most of the jokes. There are a lot of references to CoBP, like Elizabeth fake-fainting, the undead monkey, Jake saying: "Quick, hide the rum" when he realizes it's Elizabeth he's talking to and the whole eunuch thing. If you watch the first one, you will be able to enjoy it a lot more. The jokes are still funny the second time around. I still laughed at Keira's whole: "Let's grab our swords and starts banging away at each other" scene. She is priceless in that scene and I have to disagree with Jack. She does look good in that outfit. Also Jack's "I've got a jar of di-irt, I've got a jar of di-irt and guess what's inside it." scene was hilarious. It's filled with oneliners and cute crazy scenes. And the ending! It will leave you stunned and wanting more. I wish it was May 2007 already! I want more!

I loved it so much that I give it a 9/10, making it my second favourite Keira movie. The movie did leave me stuck in a confusing dilemma: Who's cuter? Keira or Johnny?

Title: Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Director: Joe Wright
Actors: Keira Knightley, Donald Sutherland, Jena Malone, Matthew Macfadyen.

I recently watched another Keira movie for the first time. My mom had the *cough*ripped*cough* version of it and I figured now that I am reading the book I should watch the movie as well.

I am glad I did. What a great movie this is! They left out some of the secondary characters which makes it easier to understand. The novel is filled with all these people that make you go: "Who's this again?"

The story is well-known, since it has been filmed numerous times. For those who think it's just a boring story here's the plot: Mrs. Bennett, mother of 5 daughters, desperately wants them to get married to wealthy men. Elizabeth, Lizzie for short, is the second oldest and she believes in real romance and is waiting for it. This makes her rather stubborn and feels most men aren't really good for her, including the infamous Mr. Darcy, who seems very stuck-up.

Mr. Darcy isn't very impressed with Lizzie either. But is all really what it seems? Could it be that Mr. Darcy is just shy? And could it be that Lizzie will eventually fall for him? Hmm.

This version has been dubbed the sexiest version ever made. We get to see a collection of naked men and women (sculptures, of course) and the dancing scene, where Darcy and Lizzie dance for the first time, sizzles. Men and women hardly ever touched each other in those days and dancing at balls was the only moment they did. You can clearly see that. The sexual tension and passion in those touches, even though they themselves are oblivious to them. And those who have seen it will remember the pig!

The cast is also gorgeous. Keira does a fantastic job as Lizzie and I can see why she was nominated for an Oscar. Next to Keira we see the mysterious Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy. He brings Mr. Darcy to another, instead of being a cold guy, he gives him a shy side. The cute Simon Woods stars as Mr Bingley (those eyes!!!). American (!) actress Jena Malone as Lydia Bennett. They are accompanied by great actors: Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench. You can't go wrong with a cast like that.

The scenery is also mindblowing. I really love the scenes where Keira is walking and/or running through fields in the rain! The rain really adds to the mood of the story. It is not a heavy storm, but it gives just that little bit of extra drama. And so do the costumes.

I have to say this is my favourite version I have seen so far. I give it a 8.5/10. I immediately went online and saw it for 9 euros and got it! This is worth spending your money on.

Title: The Jacket (2005)
Director: John Maybury
Actors: Keira Knightley, Adrien Brody, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kris Kristofferson.

Yes, another Keira movie. No, I'm NOT obsessed with her. I think she is an amazing and underrated actress. She doesn't seem to be causing drama like most of the actors her age. Okay, and maybe I'm a little obsessed.

The Jacket is one of those little independent gems that nobody watches, but should. The story is about Jack Starks, a Gulf War veteran, who gets sent to a mental institution. He has been suspected of murdering a police officer, but we, the viewers, have seen that it wasn't him, who killed the officer but another man.

'Experts' say that he suffers from a post-war stress syndrome and that is why he doesn't get sent to jail, but to the institution. The experts don't believe he met a young girl and her mother, before the shooting. They say he fabricated the story and he is not able to see the difference between reality and is own fabrications.

In the institution a man named Dr. Becker uses a cruel method to 'monitor his patients'. He believes that what is broken already, can't be damaged. He puts them into a straight jacket and then puts them into a morgue drawer. He leaves them there for a certain period of time.

When he puts Jack in there, he gets flashes from his past: the war in Iraq and the shooting. But also other flashes he can't really understand. When he gets put in there a second time he meets a waitress on Christmas eve. She takes him home and when she passes out on the couch from the booze, he starts snooping around. He finds dog tags that say: Jack Starks. He realizes she is the young girl, named Jackie, he met that day. He gave her his dogtags. He wakes her up and tells her. She doesn't believe him and tells him Jack Starks is dead, he died in 1992, and that it's the year 2007. Jackie kicks him out of the house.

He soon realizes he can see the future when he's in the drawer and finds out that he is going to die by a blow to the head, with a blunt object. He keeps provoking Dr. Becker to get him to put him in the drawer. He keeps meeting Jackie in the future and after she has done some research she believes him. She wants to help him find out what really happened in the institution.

This is one of those movies that are complicated and stick with you a couple of days. The movie is quite experimental, although not as experimental as Domino. The movie opens with Gulf War material and I have heard that it was real news material. The flashes are beautifully done as well. They appear in his eyes in full close-up, very original. The bright snowy landscape is a great contrast to the darkness of the drawer.

The ending is a bit of an anti-climax, but i think they did that on purpose. It is such an odd story and if they had given it an odd ending as well,l it would have gotten predictable. It works really well this way and gives the movie a bit of twist.

Keira's performance is, once again, great. She draws you right into the story. The only thing i didn't like about it was her horrible American accent. By that I mean the fact that she was speaking in an American accent, not her sexy English accent, and not that her accent sounded fake. It sounded American to me, but I'm not an expert on accents. Every now and then you could hear a bit of her own accent in it, but she corrected herself. As for the lowness of her voice, a lot of people didn't like it, but in the extras it is said that they did that on purpose. This is a girl who has had a tough life. She has lost her mom at a very young age, smokes like a chimney and is an alcoholic.

Adrien Brody is fantastic as Jack. He, too, draws you right into the story. He has this sad look about him, which works wonderfully in this movie. The character possess a certain sadness, because no one believes him and he really doesn't belong there.

Verdict: Watch it, watch it, watch it, especially if you like Keira, Adrien and/or crazy independent films I give it a 8.5/10

P.S. Keira once again has the best quote in the movie: "There's nothing to steal, but don't be a jerk and steal something anyway."

Title: Possession (2002)
Director: Neil LaBute
Actors: Gwyneth Paltrow, Lena Headey, Jennifer Ehle, Aaron Eckhart.


No, NOT Poseidon. Possession. Has anyone actually seen it? Or am I the only one? I recently got it on DVD and funny enough it was on TV last Thursday. I, initially, bought it because Lena Headey is in it, a tiny part, but she's in it.

The movie starts when Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart) finds a love letters in a book of a famous Victorian poet, Randolph Henry Ash. The book has been in the library in London for some time, but nobody has seemed to notice the letters. He reads the letters and soon realizes he is on to something. Something big, since the letters written by Ash aren't addressed to his wife, but another poet, Christabel LaMotte.

He gets the help of Dr. Maud Bailey, a cold literary researcher, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. She doesn't believe him, especially since LaMotte was a feminist, who was considered a lesbian. Her lover is played by Lena Headey (yes, she plays a lesbian again! But she does it so well.) She helps him anyway and soon they find out the truth and they could have the biggest break of the English literary history. Of course, other people want to have this break too and they are after Maud and Roland.

On a romantic level, Maud and Roland come closer together as Ash and LaMotte do and it has some nice parallels between the modern day scenes and Victorian times flashbacks.

I'm not a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but she was unusually good. Her British accent was okay to me, but, like I said before in my The Jacket review, I'm not an expert on accents (yet, because in the course I'm going to I will be learning everything about accents). Aaron Eckhart was good too. I had no idea who he was before seeing this movie, but I can see he is a talented actors. I'll definitely watch more of his work. Lena Headey was great as usual and she looked great wearing those cute old-fashioned glasses! She really portrayed the saddest person in the movie and she did that very well. The scene were she walks into the water to commit suicide was heartbreaking. That shot of her spectacles on the rocks and it's all misty: WOW! I got goosebumps watching it.

The story, itself, is an unusual romance story. I liked the parallels between modern day events and the Victorian events. They gave a nice twist to the story, otherwise it would have been a somewhat standard romance story. I liked the fact that even though the love between LaMotte and Ash was the center of the story, you could still see that there was a lot of love between LaMotte and Blanche Glover (Lena). They were really in love and it didn't get snowed under by the Ash/LaMotte romance. The only thing I didn't like is that bisexuals, again, are portrayed as two-timers. But that's Curse of the Bisexuals (how's that for a Pirates sequel?).

The scenery and the costumes were amazing, so even if you hate the story, you'll keep watching because they are so beautiful.

I give the movie a 7.5/10, because Lena wasn't in it enough and her glasses weren't either.

P.S. Hopefully, the movie is foreboding for my future in English literature.

P.S. I recently got the novel. I can't wait to read it.