Reviews

I didn't have much expectations about this movie, so I guess it was a good deal paying half the ticket price on a wednesday for a few laughs.

"Sin ton ni sonia" goes nowhere. It has tons of characters with very different backgrounds and situations. They try to give a lot of time to each of them, but in the end you realize they weren't needed that much. At least not in so much detail. We get dubbers, police men (mexican and american), physics, telepaths, organs-traffic dealers, hackers, and much more. I bet by now you're saying "What the...", and yes, that's just what I thought as I was watching the movie.

As I said, too many characters and for nothing. In the end things are just left the way they were in the beginning. In the end nothing happened. In the end you can't help but think "What? That's it?"

Maybe they just tried too hard. In Mexico there's more budget to film commercials than to make movies; is that simple. Mexican filmmakers, and the audience, are tied to that and must rely on good writing (which this movie totally lacks) for a movie to succeed.

If you are at the theater entrance trying to decide on what to see, you can leave this one as the last option. Don't worry, you won't miss anything.

It's funny how many of us use the term "Adam Sandler movie" more and more consistently. As I said before: Sandler has managed to do this kind of comedies, make them his own and get away with it. I have to say, I generally like Sandler's kind of campy, exaggerated movies. Now they added a Jack Nicholson to the recipe, and I was wondering: can this possibly work? To my relief and amazement, the answer was YES.

There's a reason for Jack Nicholson to be one of my favorite actors of all time: he floods the screen with his personality, he can be the scariest villain or the funniest looney ever. He is simply the best. I liked the fact that Nicholson was given the first credit; it is a wide spread tendency these days to put one of these youngsters preceding a well-know movie legend (Keanu Reeves before Pacino, Banderas before Hopkins or Affleck before Freeman, to name a few).

In "Anger Management" Nicholson plays Buddy Ridell, an anger management therapist trying to "help" Dave Buznik (Sandler) get over his problems by the hard way... the VERY hard way. That is IF Buznik has any behavior problems at all. Ah well, if he didn't have any he's about to.

Sandler and Nicholson make a very funny on-screen duo. Both fit in those characters to perfection. Nicholson being a world class know-it-all completely insane therapist and Sandler the shy guy with occasional rage outbursts, which we all know he has mastered over the years, in his own kind of way.

I wish there was a 7.5 rating option in this website. It doesn't deserve the 7 I gave it, but it doesn't make the 8 either. It just one funny film you don't want to miss, specially if you're one of us that likes Adam Sandler movies (yup, there it is again).

I despise musicals. To me, most of them are movies in which all of a sudden, and for no particular reason, people just start communicating with songs. I think it is a very difficult job trying to make this kind of stories convincing, for who in their right mind start singing out of nowhere? Animated and Disney-like movies make me more forgiving, but that's where I draw the line with one single exception so far: Chicago.

"Chicago" is two hours of pure entertainment. The whole plot is very well paced, even with all those musical numbers. The tiny difference that made me like this movie so much is that all the songs aren't real. The director does not try to convince you that all those people in jail or the courthouse just happen to like singing; instead, all the musical numbers are treated as Roxie Hart's perception of things. I just loved this way of telling the story. It fits perfectly with Roxie's personality and helps define her character: for her, it's all show business. Also, it made possible for all sequences to be cut from 'reality' to 'musical' freely, without sacrificing any of the credibility of the situation, displaying an outstanding editing work.

On top of that you get to see Reneé Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Richard Gere in roles you never thought they would be so good at. My personal favorite was Reneé; she nailed the role of Roxie Hart, the girl who seeks (and finds) fame at any cost. The movie is hers completely. Catherine shows off her singing and dancing attributes (more of the first than the latter if you ask me) as Velma Kelly, Roxie's idol. Richard Gere performs surprisingly well as Billy Flynn, Hart and Kelly's lawyer. I never would have guessed he could sing, much less tap-dance! Good job Mr. Gere! (although I cannot help but think that John Travolta would have done better).

You won't regret seeing "Chicago". Not one bit. Once the DVD is out, go get it, crank up the volume and enjoy the show. (Feb '03)

In a time where it seems that all movies are destined to be a re-make or a film version of a novel, comic-book, TV series, etc., "Adaptation" comes to the rescue and restores your faith in expecting something great out of an original story.

Although the title itself contradicts my very point, "Adaptation" is nowhere near being such a thing. The movie is about it's own writer, Charlie Kaufman. A man whose quest to adapt the book "The orchid thief" takes him instead to writing the story of 'how' he attempted to adapt it. So, as you see, they might tell you the screenplay is based on "The orchid thief" but it's not at all. The book is more like a starting point. The movie is all about Kaufman.

So, as the movie progresses you find yourself watching the very same images that Kaufman is describing in his screenplay. It's kind of watching the painter painting himself painting that same painting. And I absolutely loved this approach.

Nicholas Cage absolutely transformed himself to become Charlie Kaufman... and his brother Donald. His performance is very touching being the desperate Charlie and the lovable Donald. By the time you find out there is actually no Donald in real life, you wish there was. Great performances also from Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper, playing the writer of "The orchid thief" and the man who inspired her.

I really hope there are more films like this done in the future. It think "Adaptation" is a very interesting, intimate and sincere story about overcoming challenges and becoming the person you want to be. (Feb/03)

Among the latest romantic comedies I've seen this year so far, "Two weeks notice" is among the not-so-bad.

Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant make a great on-screen couple. I think they delivered their comedy quite well in this movie. They made me laugh hard many times during those two hours even though they both stick to the role they do best: he as a playboy overgrown kid and she as the always-busy hard-working single woman with no time for love.

All in all I think "Two weeks notice" will be a fine movie for that weekend when you have nothing else to do, you're too tired to go out and all you want is a big glass of soda, home-made popcorn and a good laugh with a rented video. (Feb/03)

Brittany Murphy and Ashton Kutcher make you laugh in "Just Married"... the easy way.

After finishing this movie I can't help but thinking of it as a two-hour special episode of "That 70's show" starring Kelso and the new blonde girl called Sarah. It relies too much on slapstick comedy, which works some times but becomes kind of obviously annoying at the end. One tiny plus about the movie is that you get to see the comic skills of the great Brittany Murphy in a starring role.

The movie is funny but it may not be worth a full-price admission to the movie theater for most people. I don't think I would have missed anything if I had just waited to rent it.

I went to see the long awaited "Gangs of New York" not knowing what to expect. When I got out of the theater I was filled with a sense of peace not because the movie portrayed it, but because it showed the other way around.

"Gangs of New York" is a movie about open war; about defeating your enemy by any means necessary, about going into battle when everything else has failed and you realize killing the other is the only way. The movie shows a place with no law but the street law, no order but the order the gangs establish; a place where violence is the common language. This is a city in which the strong survives and the weak is massacred (it reminds me of today's Tepito, Mexico City). And in the midst of chaos there is still room for honor, loyalty and love.

Martin Scorsese has done a great job transporting us to this dreadful city. Once again I have to (painfully) admit that there is no need for computer graphics to make a time and place, such as XIX century's New York city, come alive. I guess it is much easier for actors to be in character in a place they can see and touch. It also demonstrates that you don't have to be extremely explicit in your shots to achieve a sense of animal violence.

Daniel Day-Lewis and the rest of the actors did an excellent job, with the possible exception of Cameron Diaz. Leonardo DiCaprio has proved again that he can be not-annoying when he wants to. After this movie and "Catch me if you can" I wonder if he's only good when he's sharing the screen with a REALLY good actor, like Daniel Day-Lewis or Tom Hanks.

And speaking of Daniel Day-Lewis, HE IS AWESOME! His performance is the best of 2002-2003 and probably the best I'll ever see in years. Thanks to his portrayal, Bill "The butcher" has made it into the list of the best villains in the history of cinema; right up there with guys like Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates. He's the face of pure undying evil. He's the most powerful guy around, he knows it too well and he will use it against you -personally- if you ever cross his path. I absolutely loved him. I think he is the trademark of the whole movie; I imagine a future conversation like this: -"Hey, what was the name of that movie with Bill The Butcher in it?" - "You mean Gangs of New York?" - "Oh yes, that's it".

There is one other thing I noticed about the structure of the storyline. It would seem it was based on a three-act play, the first being from the beginning to Amsterdam meeting Bill the Butcher, the second from their meeting to the betrayal and separation and the third from the separation to the end. Each act has its own climax and the pacing of the movie becomes very slow, and sometimes too slow, in the transitions between them.

The only thing this movie lacked for me to rate it a 9 is a good ending. Me, like many other people I know despised the ending, or at least didn't understand it at all. I liked the very last shot though. The one with that beautiful view of the evolution of New York City.

"Gangs of New York" is a must-see. Go see Daniel Day-Lewis in the performance of a lifetime.

Steven Spielberg shows why he is the most important director in Hollywood. Not just anybody takes over a project with "Trash" written all over it, and makes a very good movie out of it.

"Catch me if you can" is a very enjoyable film that you can watch over and over again. I believe I'm one of the few that thinks Leonardo Dicaprio can be a good actor when he puts his mind to it. And although this is not the case, I must say that this is one of the few movies in which I don't find him annoying. Tom Hanks also proves his quality with an excellent performance in a supporting role, although it never felt right Hanks doing a goofy second to Dicaprio. Another great addition was Christopher Walken as Frank Abagnale, Sr. He doesn't have as much screen time as Dicaprio or Hanks, but makes a strong background character that helps the audience understand Dicaprio's character.

I think the film's biggest plus is being a real-life story. I don't know how much of Frank Abagnale Jr.'s life has been changed for the script, but no matter how different it is, the story is believable, except for making Dicaprio a 17 year-old, c'mon!. I think somebody hit the jackpot when they looked at Abagnale's adventures and said "Hey, somebody should make a movie about him".

Spielberg made a great last minute save with this film. I just can't imagine it being a good movie with Gandolfini as Carl Harranty and Verbinsky directing it. Spielberg + Hanks can never fail. I'm just glad Dicaprio didn't ruin it for us all.

"Simone" is a farce. By ridiculing Hollywood and the whole media-hype that surrounds the film industry it raises questions about what movies and their stars have become. And that's why I liked it so much.

Al Pacino plays Victor Taransky, a Hollywood director who is more interested in making a fine movie rather than it's box office success. But Hollywood is not only about art, it's also business: producers, actors, actresses, studios, publicity; and Taransky, even with his many years in the business, gets himself kicked out of the game. And that's when Simone arrives.

Viktor inherits a computer system capable of reproducing a realistic digital actress. Seeing her performance, people start loving this new actress that came out of nowhere. The press chases her, the girls want to be like her, her colleagues admire her, the studio wants to own her and even Taransky begins to fall in love with her. Pretty impressive for a woman that is not a real person.

The movie deals with many phenomena that involves the audience, the media and film-making. It makes fun out of the obsession of people wanting what they cannot have. It takes a shot at the many actors and actresses that proclaim themselves as gods when they obtain just the merest hint of fame. It shows an honest director getting caught in a web of lies and oversized success that he spun himself.

I've seen and heard many complains about the technical inaccuracy of the film, mainly because it uses a state-of-the-art computer as a crucial element of the story. They say it's impossible to have that kind of human-computer interface and to create a believable computer-generated character. Well, these are no brainers, everybody should know that by now. But these are elements that serve for establishing the plot only; the movie is not about "how" to do Simone, but "what if" there was a Simone. And for that matter I would've accepted a talking elephant coming from outer space and handing Simone to Taransky; it would have worked out just the same. Remember, it only establishes the plot.

Although the story it's very much predictable (oh, I've seen this ending too many times), it's funny and perhaps it's also a yellow warning for all those in the movie business, especially actors, trying to own Hollywood with just a pretty face. You need talent and you need hard work to succeed, and if you're not willing to do it perhaps one day a computer will. (Jan/03)

"About Schmidt" does for people in their 60's what "American Beauty" did for middle-aged men. It is a monologue about being old; remembering what you used to be, what you wanted to be and what you have become.

Jack Nicholson steps aside from his usual neurotic over-the-top performance and shows he can play an generally shy and insecure man trying to set things straight in his last years of life. He is truly a great actor.

Although the constant insights of Schmidt about his life are those of a 66 year-old man, I believe the message can be understood by young people as well. Well, I for one felt a connection with this guy. His letters to Ndugu, that were more likely pages of a journal, makes you think about your own life, your perspective for the future and your idea of success. Perhaps, one way or another, all of us will inevitably become Warren Schmidt. Will we also have the courage to detach ourselves from our routine and go look for something new?

The movie is a little bit too slow. It makes you laugh along the way, but as it is coming close to the end it becomes more and more a dramatic and depressing story. But the ending, the very last seconds of the movie, are just precious. They contrast completely with all the conclusions that Warren got from his journey and tells you that you might still find happiness in your seemingly pathetic and useless life. (March 20 '03)

"Maid in Manhattan" is just your average romantic comedy, or perhaps even below the average. It's one of the most predictable movies you'll ever see. And I mean 'predictable' in a sense of 'obvious'; there are many other predictable movies out there that are nevertheless quite good. If you like this Cinderella innocent kind of romantic stories, by all means go see it. Just don't get your expectations too high (March '03).

A videotape that kills people when they watch it. *sigh* All right...

The argument of the story sounds somewhat intriguing and the first sequence of the movie makes you think you're going to have a hard time trying to sleep that night. Well, I for one didn't.

As the storyline develops the whole videotape business goes down the trash and the movie slowly turns into a "What lies beneath" or "The sixth sense" kind of film. I didn't like that one bit. By the end of the movie, and specially in the last sequence, you have to remind yourself "Oh yeah, the tape! That's what this was all about!". In short, the movie weakens itself progressively and finally collapses, just to have a little spark of life in that "last confrontation" scene. Still, the very ending, in my humble opinion, is nothing short of dumb. And Naomi Watts' performance doesn't help the story much either. It's just not convincing.

I think the movie is worth watching for two main reasons:

• The videotape itself gives you goose bumps. As they say in the movie, it's something you'd only see in a nightmare. - The "last confrontation" I mentioned earlier contain some of the scariest images you'll see in any movie. The director chose many of those shots so that they would look like an individual point of view, and that has a big impact when you're alone in your room watching TV. But then again, most of this new wave of thriller movie directors do the same.

Aside from this two sequences the movie does not contribute anything to the genre. Recent movies like "The sixth sense", "The others" or "Signs" have a much bigger impact on the audience using only the atmosphere built throughout the film and a few carefully selected shots and sounds; they don't rely in visual FX: just good directors and good performances. (8/dec/02)

There are just a few sequels out there that turned out to be better than the first, and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is one of them.

While keeping a lot from the 'Sorcerer's Stone" in terms of casting (fortunately), pacing and humor, 'the Chamber of Secrets' is a much darker film. It depicts a more threatening and dangerous Hogwarts; a place in which you could actually die if you're not careful.

The overall performance is also better, if just a little bit over the top, which actually helps narrate a more complicated story to the children (for whom this movie is intended). Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh were great additions to an already great cast.

The first film had very poor computer-generated visual effects, particularly noticeable in the Quiditch game sequence. Well, it seems that the FX department went through a lot of work to improve the look for 'The chamber of secrets'. The perfect example is Dobby, one of the three major digital characters of 2002 (along with Yoda and Gollum).

In general, almost every aspect of the film is better than its predecessor, except for one thing: the 'Scooby-Doo' feeling of it got stronger this time. Since I haven't finished the book, I can't say for sure if this is the screenplay's or the book's fault. It's a very childish end to a not so childish movie. You know what I mean, the "Ha ha ha, I'm so very evil that I'm going to tell you all the details of my plan for taking over the world so that you can thwart it once you escape from my ellaborate death scenario while I laugh and say, for no particular reason, sarcastic-evil phrases out of the air" scene. No, that was not Dr. Evil speaking, just the bad guy in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" (hmmm, maybe they are related).

I hope our paisano Alfonso Cuaron does an even better job for 'The Prisoner of Azkaban'. If things keep going this way the "Harry Potter" saga will be worth having both in the books and DVD.

There was much expectation here in Mexico to see "My big fat greek wedding" since it was one of the surprise box office hits in the USA.

The movie, however, did not have the same impact on the mexican audience. Maybe the USA movie goers found very amusing the story of an extremely close and large family, with conservative values and a knack for traditions, going crazy because of a wedding. In Mexico it's something you see twice or thrice a year. So, many of the people that watched the movie left the theater asking themselves "That's it?".

Aside from that, I think it was a very nice romantic story. It deals mainly with coping with the family and finally getting to enjoy being a part of it. What I liked about it is that it went right to the point, it does not have unexpected turns or complicated obstacles. It just about a greek woman and an american man getting married; it's that simple, yet funny.

I got some good laughs but not a lot more than what I got from the trailer. It has many bright moments sprinkled across the film.

I haven't really much to say about this movie except is a typical James Bond film with lots of explosions, technological gadgets and gorgeous women. So, if you've seen any of the previous Bond movies and liked them, then there would be no reason for you not to enjoy this one.

I just want to add another thing: it's a shame that the James Bond movies, a tradition of world-class spy films, has spawned the recent unbelievable idiotic ripoffs like "XXX".

-(12/dec/02)

Just as its predecessor, "The Two Towers" is a major scale film, very well executed and performed. I don't think I can call it a sequel, since it was simultaneously filmed along with parts I and III of the trilogy.

Just under three hours long, the movie picks up right where we left in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Frodo and Sam are on their painstaking way to Mordor and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are trying to catch up with the Uruk-Hai that took Pippin and Merry as prisoners. Enter Gollum, the Riders of Rohan and Treebeard, the new characters that play an essential part, each on their own, in the whole trilogy.

I was looking forward to see this movie ever since I was captivated by the first installment of the trilogy. I hadn't read any of the books by that time, but the story caught me so much, I just couldn't wait another year to know what happened to Frodo. I think that's the main difference between my perception of "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". To be honest I felt that the first film was too long the first time I saw it, but when I finished the book and saw it again I felt it was too short.

Now, having read the book twice, I feel that "The Two Towers" is just a little bit too long, and I think I have a very good reason to do so: chapters 8-11 of book III and 7-10 of book IV were simply cut out and and replaced with many other battle sequences, like the attack of the orcs on the people of Rohan on their way to Helm's Deep, many flashback and dream sequences, and others I won't tell to avoid spoiling it for you. This certainly will benefit the third film "The Return of the King" as it will contain many more action sequences than the book describes (and I agree it needs them instead of such a long epilogue), but "Alas!" it made me mad having to wait another year to see them. And since those chapters are left out, the whole movie concentrates on the grand finale of the Battle of Helm's Deep. Did you think the first battle sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" was long? Think again.

Leaving this aside, the movie is a very good adaptation from the book. I'm amazed by the way Peter Jackson's vision brought the story and its characters from the books to the film. All the places and landscapes are everything I had pictured in my mind. I was so anxious to see Gollum and Treebeard come to life, and I got more than I expected. In fact, despite the disadvantage of being a digital character, Gollum's performance is the one that makes the most lasting impression in this movie (and perhaps the three of them). Just like Frodo, you feel pity for the little guy. Awesome voice performing by Andy Serkis combined with flawless animation. Also, kudos to Frances Walsh for her screenplay adaptation. It's no easy task writing a linear story from a book that goes forward and backward in time so abruptly.

I have to see it again two or three more times to make an honest vote about it. I thought 9 at first, but that's just because I missed Shelba so much. I guess you guys that had read the books before felt the same way about Tom Bombadil (although she's not out at all, no my precious, just delayed...).

Now bring on the Extended Edition on DVD! I want to see Treebeard's home, the complete battle with the Balrog, more Merry and Pippin! One year is too long to wait for "The Return of the King"!

Jackie Chan has been doing comedy-martial arts films ever since I can recall. And this is no exception. "The Tuxedo" blends Jackie Chan's patented fighting sequences in the James-Bondian enviroment of spies and world domination.

Personally, Chan makes me laugh. It's amazing that at 48 he can do such stunts and be funny about it. Seems like a skill he's perfected over the years. It's the only reason that kept me from rating this movie a 6.

The big downsides are:

• The script. It doesn't make any sense at all, even for a comedy of this kind. There are many events throughout the film that seem to had the sole purpose of delaying the next scene.

• Jennifer Love Hewitt. At first it seemed that she and Jackie Chan would be a good match, specially in Hewitt's first fight scene, but from there on she went from dull to duller. By the end of the movie you wish she wasn't there at all. She did almost OK in "Heartbreakers", but in this film she proves she hasn't improved her acting skills.

Just like "Pearl Harbor" with it's aerial attack sequence, "The tuxedo" is worth watching only to see Jackie Chan doing the James Brown. That's right: Jackie Chan doing the James Brown!!!

Frida Kahlo is without a doubt the most popular female mexican painter to date. Her work is shown everywhere and there's hardly anyone who does not recognize it at first glance. I'm sure Salma Hayek wanted this to be a movie worthy of the artist, since it's a project she wanted to do for many years, but if you ask me, it's no better than the best mexican films of the last years.

I thought Salma would put her heart into playing her favorite artist in the big screen but it doesn't seem like it, and if she did, then maybe she's not such a great actress as I had believed. I think Alfred Molina outdid her every minute of the film. I loved his performance as Diego Rivera. He makes you like him and hate him at the same time. The rest of the cast did very well too in their almost-cameo appearances: Edward Norton, Geoffrey Rush, Ashley Judd, Valeria Golino (where were you all these years?), Patricia Reyes and Margarita Sanz (whoa! even with no lines she says everything with her look). The animated paintings and their relation to Frida's reality are also a big plus to the story.

I think this movie is Salma's last chance to succeed in Hollywood. If it works it will be a big breakthrough for her, if it doesn't she will remain one of the many latin actresses trying to get a slice of the big cake.

All in all, "Frida" is a good movie, but rather than saying "could", I say it "should" have been better.

They say that "Red Dragon" was a sure bet, even when there already was a film adaptation from the book ("Manhunter"), since everybody wanted to see Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter one more time. Well, include me in "everybody".

Anthony Hopkins is plain simply one of the best actors you'll ever see in the big screen. Once again, he takes a step off his well known educated-gentle-wise-old guy role and into our beloved psychopathic genius murderer, the best villain Hollywood has seen in the last decade. As always, his performance is nothing less than brilliant. But it doesn't stop there; you also get to see excellent performances from Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes too! The cherry on top. I waited so long (since "Silence of the Lambs") to see someone that could put up with Anthony Hopkins on screen, and finally Edward Norton has done it. The psychological confrontations between Graham and Lecter were my favorite parts of the movie. Dare I say, somebody in here might get away with an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.

I haven't seen "Manhunter", nor read the "Red Dragon" novel itself, so I can't go into comparisons. I just think this is a great thriller; it's not as gory and dark as "Hannibal" but it has a more "insane" feeling to it, specially coming from Ralph Fiennes' character. I was amazed that Brett Ratner could pull out quite nicely a Hannibal Lecter film after making the "Rush Hour" comedies. Kudos to him. Maybe we can expect something very big from him in the future.

This is one of those movies that makes you think "Why, oh why did he accept to do this garbage?". I obviously refer to Anthony Hopkins. His charm is 100% countered by Chris Rock's bad performance, annoying voice and out of place jokes; at least I think they were jokes since I didn't laugh one time at his wise-cracks.

Make no mistake people: Chris Rock is not funny. He's one of the worst comedians ever to come out from Saturday Night Live. He's right up there with Chris Farley, Randy Quaid and Jan Hooks. Now why put him right next to Anthony Hopkins in a movie that was clearly a bad idea from start? In the end it wasn't even worth the experiment.

In the first place it's a script you have already memorized: the bum that has to take the hero's place and save the world. I could've done my peace with it if the movie was well done, but not even that I got. The story is boring, the jokes are not funny, the plot is not the least believable... and I can't find more words in my limited english vocabulary to describe how awful this film was. This is the first movie starring Anthony Hopkins I regret to have seen.

Following Disney's purest tradition, "The Rookie" tells a story of hope and believing in yourself.

This film is actually a two-in-one combo. The first half is the story of the bad (baseball) team that, through some hard work and inspiration from their coach, come all the way from behind to win the championship. This movie we have seen tons of times ("Hardball", "Mighty Ducks", "Little Giants", etc, etc.). There are very few references to the Jimmy Morris tale during this first half.

The second half is all about Jimmy Morris and his struggle to pursue a long lost dream: become a major league baseball player. He is driven to gain self-confidence, hope and ultimately courage to take a shot at his dream; even when he's old enough to be retiring from instead of entering professional baseball. On the other hand, he has a family to take care of and a decent job he would be turning down to go after a potential lost cause.

All in all I think this movie is a story of courage. It takes lots of it to go after something you forgot you wanted more than anything; that and a very supporting family. The fact that this is a true story makes this point even more significant.

The movie itself may seem a little bit too long for it's purpose, specially the first half which didn't need so much detail, but it takes its message across well enough.

There aren't too many spy movies like this, in which the hero is not the James Bond type who's going to save the world from the ultimate super-villain.

Matt Damon portrays Jason Bourne (one of his many identities), a regular guy who lost his memory and is about to discover he's a genuine lethal weapon. He fights not to prevent the villain to take over the world, but to regain his memory, to find out his true identity and, in the process, change his previous way of life. All he has to do now is avoid the other agents trained like himself trying to eliminate him.

I liked this movie very much. The addition of Franka Potente to it was a really nice plus. And seeing the whole story staged in Europe was a very nice change from L.A. and New York. But the main reason I liked it so much is Matt Damon's performance. He's one the rightful heirs of future Hollywood. He's shown that he can play any character convincingly, even when the role is a Van Damme type of character.

The action is good, the suspense is good, the chasings are good, the performances are good. Just go see it.

Two college researchers start following the trail of a famous poet, Christabel LaMotte, her lesbian relation with Blanche Glover and her secret affair with R. Henry Ash. While in their investigation, the researchers fall in love.

I keep the poets, spare me the researchers. I just didn't care for the falling in love of Maud and Roland, it was all too predictable. The movie goes from LaMotte-Ash to Maud-Roland constantly. As I said I keep the LaMotte-Ash story.

The only good thing I could see apart from that is Gwyneth Paltrow. She is the one element that keeps the movie from being a total fiasco. It's always a pleasure seeing her perform. She upgrades the movie from "garbage" to plain "forgettable".

I like movies with a point, and in "Changing Lanes" the point is ethics. The two main characters Gavin Banek (Affleck) and Doyle Gibson (Jackson) are both, deep inside, good people; but when they're put to fight each other, they seem to have no limits to get what they want and they become authentic criminals.

The movie shows two very different men: the successful young lawyer and the almost-broke guy in his 40's. One has pretty much what anyone would ever want and the other one is struggling to keep the little he has not yet lost, his children. After a car accident, they have control on each other's life, playing dangerously with what is more precious to them.

The story simply states that if things would've been done right from the beginning, a lot of problems could have been avoided. Instead, as the film goes on, they feel pushed to doing some serious harm in order to get back what belongs to each one. It's in the middle of this open war that both characters begin to realize that perhaps they don't deserve (or want) the elements of their life they're defending: a job for one of them; a family for the other. This movie reminded me a lot of Michael Douglas' "Falling Down", in which the character also feels pushed over the edge to make things go right.

Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Affleck are both good actors and their performances in "Changing Lanes" are not disappointing at all. I said it before and I say it again: Affleck is better off in a supporting role; this movie proves my theory. I specially liked the film editing; it delivers the stressful, fast paced, crowded feeling the movie needed.

To do things right, that's what the movie is all about. And in a world of lost values, it's a concept many of us should embrace.

One of the numerous legends that exist in Mexico is 'The Tiger of Santa Julia'. This was a man that lived in a town called Santa Julia, a town that would later become part of the enormous Mexico City by the second half of the 20th century. Tired of army and police corruption, "El Tigre" took justice into his own hands. However the most popular fact known about him is the way he got caught. Confusion and popular gossip mixed the real facts surrounding this person with fantasy, and thus "El Tigre" became a living legend.

Director Alejandro Gamboa tried to capture exactly this in this movie. He tells his version of the real story behind Jose de Jesus Negrete, El tigre de Santa Julia. More than half of the movie looks fake, with many live colors, exagerated blue skies filled with the whitest clouds and an overdone narration of the story. Although Gamboa said in a radio interview that this was done intentionally, the result is not that visually pleasant.

Aside from that, the movie is a lot of fun to watch. The comedy is well paced and is mixed up with robberies, sex and vengeance. The performances are sufficiently good for the movie to work.

"El Tigre de Santa Julia" is not by far the best mexican movie ever, but it's fun and sometimes that's what movies are all about.