alice in wonderland (2010). directed by tim burton.

managed to catch alice in wonderland (2010), i am not impressed. well i don't please easy especially when the story is all fun fare but no substance. where is the tim burton, the visionary, who made edward scissorhands (1990)?

nothing will change this - no story, then no amount of computer graphics can make up for the fact that there is no story to tell in the first place.

ps: i loved lewis carroll's alice in wonderland and through a looking glass. the books are so clever and full of tricks - where is all that in the movie?

kissing jessica stein (2001). directed by charles herman-wurmfeld.

Josh: You know Stein, why don't you cut yourself a break. It's obviously not the time to be meeting someone anyway.
Jessica: [sarcastically] Really? What? Not the season?
Josh: No. It's just because you're clearly not open to it.
Jessica: [laughs] Excuse me? I'm sorry. How would you know?
Josh: Well, I do have a little history to draw from. But even if I didn't, you've known Charles here for about an hour and in that time you've dismissed a panoply of men based on factors as reductive as a linguistic misstep, a different view from yours on going dutch, a kind reaction to your legendary lateness, and a genuine interest in yoga. You know, I think it was Anais Nin who said, "We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are."
[chuckles]
Josh: Generally I'm not much of a Nin fan, but I do feel that bit sums you up to a "T", Stein. So I don't think the problem's with these poor men, these freaks and morons, as you put it. I think the problem is with you.

i am pedantic too. i do not like people who can not spell or put words together properly. i know it is childish to screen people like that - but it is such a turn off to see bad spelling. there is a person that i know - when he sms-ed - he wrote "jew" instead of "je" or wrote "wak" instead of "awak". forgive me god, but i am forever like this and it is not asking too much for someone who can spell - i know it has no bearing on happiness either.

solaris (2002). directed by steven soderbergh.

Chris Kelvin: What does Solaris want from us?

Gibarian: Why do you think it has to want something? This is why you have to leave. If you keep thinking there's a solution, you'll die here.

Chris Kelvin: I can't leave her. I'll figure it out.

Gibarian: Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? There are no answers, only choices.

i love you, beth cooper (2009). directed by chris columbus.

two words, not impressive.

what else, too predictable?

i don't find it cute, say like Juno (2007)

miss this one, i would say.

the only good thing is this

Beth Cooper: Thank you... for loving me.

Denis Cooverman: What's not to love? You remember that.

yes, when someone says i love you to you, it is a compliment. you ought to be flattered. so it is only appropriate to say thank you to them, eventhough you don't feel the same. there is honour in that.

no country for old men (2007). directed by ethan and joel coen.

Ed Tom Bell: [talking to Ellis] I always figured when I got older, God would sorta come into my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I would have the same opinion of me that he does.
Ellis: Whatcha got ain't nothin' new. This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity.

javier bardem had never looked so scary. we are always under the impression that back then when we were younger those were the best times when people are good and everything else is nice. though not so, actually. what happened in the past will happen again in the future. the wheel never stops turning. the only thing you can count on is despite the apparent predictability of it all, life is anything but predictable.

check out No Country For Old Men (2007)

rocknrolla (2008). directed by guy ritchie.

every country needs at least one quentin tarantino. and the brits have one in the form of madonna's ex, guy ritchie. ritchie's RocknRolla (2008) is irreverent and what could go wrong will go wrong. it's a crazy underworld full of drug dealers, small time crooks with gay best friends, russians like roman abrahamovic, bored accountants married to gay men, old school gangsters and junkies.

and it's funny like there's no end to it.

state of play (2009). directed by kevin macdonald.

i love dramas. State of Play (2009) doesn't disappoint at all. five words to take away, investigative reporting can not die. as mentioned by save the media

It’s invaluable to journalists to know where to get information and have strong source relationships, but there is a limit that should not be crossed. However, the movie showed journalists’ contribution to society by exposing wrong. We need to keep doing that.

sherlock holmes (2009). directed by guy ritchie.

roger ebert isn't usually kind towards remakes. he surprisingly is in Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Sherlock Holmes!. i guess he's right when he said "The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked 'Sherlock Holmes'".

it's been some time since i encounter the word dastard, which was aptly used by ebert in the article and frequently employed by arthur conan doyle which means a despicable coward. brings back fond memories of sherlock holmes, indeed.

the reader (2008). directed by stephen daldry.

the reader, as in someone who reads. not the reader (2008). i didn't find the movie like-able at all. pretentious and boring, at best.

kate winslet shouldn't have won just for taking her clothes off.

sherlock holmes (2009). directed by guy ritchie.

i managed to catch sherlock holmes (2009) today and mr. downey was a joy to watch, that i think he risks turning into johnny depp or jack nicholson in his ability to swallow the screen. that's not a bad thing on its own if the story is about one person alone, but not when you have other characters vying for attention too.

i am a big fan of sir arthur conan doyle's sherlock holmes. definitely one of the books that contributed to my nearsightedness apart from william shakespeare's tragedies. yes, i am a romantic for hamlet and king lear. going back to guy ritchie's holmes, this is not a tribute. merely character adaptation. whilst downey brought his own brand of holmes, which is the antithesis of doyle's holmes; the story has a mass appeal effect to it. it's not strong enough. it's downey's talent that he can be comical without trying, and he is fantastic with expressions which made him quite a stand out. but holmes, would take a lot more than that.

ritchie is aiming for entertainment, not a faithful adaptation. nevertheless, my opinions are eerily similar as this one, taken from imdb.com

Has "Busted Franchise" Written All Over It, 15 December 2009

As a long time Sherlock Holmes fan,I really wanted to say something good about this one, but I really can't. Guy {Madonna's ex} Ritchie modern take on the classic Conan-Doyle stories seems to have been made for a contemporary audience who has no clue {get it?}-on who Holmes is. Downey totally fails as Holmes in a character who is too modern-and possibly too ambigiously gay for the role-not that there's anything wrong with that. Law is just alright as Watson and he does try to bring some comic relief to the character. The story has Holmes trying to stop a plot to destroy London. There are the usual CGI scenes, but for some reason most of them are pretty well done and do manage to capture the essence of what London probably looked like at that time. Even though it is a good looking and well produced movie, it is predictable from start to finish, even though some interesting diversions are placed to add some momentum to the story line. Obviously looking for a new franchise, the producers of this should hope that the Baker St. boys are a hit at the box office. Movie itself is fairly likable, but it just falls flat on what it has to deliver. That's the trouble with Holmes when new stories are written to cater to contemporary tastes. Perhaps if an original Conan-Doyle story was used, this would have turned out better. Where are Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce when you need them?

at best, i give this movie a C.