They say people are attracted to reality television series just to see the people and the losers suffer. Is it funny? Most of the time, it is somber and non-humourous. Why not make it funny? Well, let’s hear it for Kenny and Spenny! The TV series Kenny vs. Spenny is chock full of laughs and is a great half-hour of entertainment before you have to resign yourself to bed to start a new work week. The series played for one season on CBC, but has now found a home right after Trailer Park Boys (another secret pleasure of mine) on Showcase at 9pm EST, on Sundays. As a fan, I would certainly encourage everbody to watch the mayhem and hiliarity that ensues. I’ve written a review of it on BlogCritics to bring some exposure to it (Check it out here!). Season 1 of the Kenny vs. Spenny DVD is out now, released since October 25th. Buy the DVD for that friend or teenager in your household for Christmas! I also came across Kenny Hotz’s personal blog on MSN MySpace. Check out this devilish comedy genius!

This is not really a review of the movie, The Wedding Banquet is an excellent movie with many reviews praising it. One more praise from myself will only be another drop in the ocean. Think of it as more of a reflection about the movie. In fact, I’m watching it on CBC’s International Movie Night as I am writing this blog. Did I mention this is why I love Canadian Media and the CBC? I guarantee you will not be exposed to this caliber of foreign film on American broadcast media! For those unfamiliar with the work, a brief introduction is in order. Taiwanese director Ang Lee is a world renowned director famous for works such as “Eat Drink Man Woman”, and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. His earlier works have always had a cross cultural element to it; “The Wedding Banquet” is such a prime example. Before there was “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, “The Wedding Banquet” was the first movie I saw that gave an accurate depiction of such a culture event. The story is simple but a very modern social issue. A Taiwanese gay man attempts to fool his traditional parents by marrying a former tenant who is in love with him. The fake marriage was to get the girl her green card, but she ends up getting pregnant on the wedding night. I’ll leave the rest of the movie plot out to encourage you to watch the movie. My favourite portion of this movie was when Ang Lee himself appears and comments on the fun foolish games and excessive drinking that Chinese enjoy during their wedding banquets, by saying that “it’s the result of 5000 years of sexual repression”. I’ve seen this movie many times and I find it very relatable. First of all, I’m not gay but I can relate to the plight of a Chinese man who is not traditional in nature. I have talked about not wanting a wedding ceremony for myself, but a Chinese wedding is by essence not for myself; only to be accountable to others (as described in the movie too). I also admire the perspective of Chinese culture; a recurring theme of all Ang Lee movies. Taiwanese people are very cultured whereas I am very lack of culture. That is why I enjoy any exposure to culture for myself. I would not know where to begin to organize a cultured wedding banquet. I wondered if I am avoiding it simply to avoid the challenge. There are so many things that can be discussed about this movie. Rather than hear me babble on, if you have seen this movie, please share your view of the movie and what issues or situations you can relate to from the movie. I look forward to hearing from you!

I have always been a geek. Whether it’s a computer geek, a music geek, a comic book geek, they have been my secret passion. And I arguably just saw one of the best Batman movies in my life thus far, so I had thought I would like to say a lot about it. But I actually would like to leave most of the review in the hands of another review that I saw. Everything that has been already said is what I would like to said. http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/b/batman_begins.html Of course, I do have thoughts of my own to add to the discussion. I am absolutely delighted at the treatment of this latest installment to the caped crusader’s saga. The world’s greatest detective’s humble beginnings is revealed in truest form to what its creator, Bob Kane had intended. The casting of Christian Bale, a relative unknown, is actually the best decision of the movie. Comic characters have made stars out of actors, not the other way around. Looking at the history where Superman made Christopher Reeves (god bless his soul), and most recently, Spiderman made Tobey McGuire. Stars have never made the characters work, there was too much of that star power there. We expected those actors like Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney to be the star power they represent, rather than the characters that they’re supposed to bring to life. Having sang the movie’s praises, I am not pleased that the length of the movie was kept short perhaps to maintain audience interest. The director/studio should have realize that to do an epic movie requires the length of time to tell its story. The edits and scene cuts in the movie made important events out to be flashing glances, and the disjunction of the story telling can really benefit from better organization. In the comic books, Batman has not just been about the story, but also the wonderful action sequences depicted by the penciler. These scenes differ from typical comic books because there are seldom force blasts or lasers or other supernatural abilities but rather relying on Batman’s human abilities. The comics would showcase his prowess of the martial arts in exciting poses and action sequences. The movie has failed to deliver this aspect of the comic. Many of the action scenes seems to be deliberately chosen to be shot as “close-ups”; negating the beauty of the bodily actions. This may be to compensate the actors lack of ability, but I feel it’s more a statement made by the director to put a stamp on his work, in order to differentiate this adaption from the campy 70s action of “kaplow”, “bam” and “zonk”. This decision should have be rethought with the help of a good action choreagrapher. The action sequences now resemble the old 60s, 70s chop-socky kung fu films where untalented kung fu actors and directors compensated by doing actions close-ups. Where as artists like Bruce Lee, Jacky Chan choose to shoot and show the full action in all its glory. Batman is defined by his enemies as well as his heroics and quirks. The poor choices of villians in the previous Batman movies is contrasted this time by using the Scarecrow, and the league of Shadows. Laim Neesom breathed life into a Batman adversary by showing some depth to his character - a character that is both proud of his former student, but bent on advancing his own vision. Scarecrow remains understated in the movie and actually served his purpose better in his diminished sidekick capacity. This version of Batman also seemed to flow much better between his Bruce Wayne and Batman persona whereas previous incarnations always seemed to make this duality an awkward issue. The token love interest, Rachel Dawes played by Katie Holmes did not strike me as a believable District Attorney, but she was not hyped up as a female lead in a Batman film, and that was actually a good thing! Michael Caine did well to introduce an aura of respect into the butler role of Alfred, whereas Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Lucius Fox was a waste of this great actor’s talents. Finally, I was most intrigued by the choice of Sargent Gordon’s passivity characterization in this movie. It was refreshing to see the rough, tough, take no guff Comissioner Gordon during his humble beginning of a long lasting friendship with Batman. On this note, I can only give 4 out of 5 stars for this great effort and a worthy beginning to a new series of Batman movie franchises. There were many refreshing things to the production, but the action direction and editing of the picture prevented an otherwise great vision from fulfilling its destiny.

Being human means that there are 1 of 2 (or both) emotions that you will feel when you hear the words “alien lifeform”. Those 2 emotions are “curiosity” and “fear”. On one hand, we would love to find out more about extra-terrestrial life, but we often also fear what this new knowledge will mean for our survival. Many science fiction movies are not much different from horror movies. The typical horror movie victim should not have opened that door that led to their death, but more often than not, their curiosity leads to grips of fear, leading to eventual death or destruction. Both emotions culminate in the latest Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of H.G. Well’s “World Of The Worlds” (read it online here). Spielberg teams up again with Tom Cruise, since previously collabrating on Minority Report, to bring this classic science fiction tale to the silver screen. I will leave the spoilers to the end, so keep reading until my spoiler warning! The most famous rendition of War Of The Worlds actually happened in the fall of 1938. Orson Welles, then master of broadcast theatre production for the Columbia Broadcasting System, produced and starred in an exciting on-air dramatization by Howard Koch. The radio production was so realistic that it caused wide spread mass hysteria in much of the eastern United States, around the New York, New Jersey area (The landing point was supposed to be Grover Mills). People were listening to the radio broadcast, and when they looked out their windows, they saw exactly what they wanted to see. If the streets were empty, it was because everybody had fled. If the streets were full of people and cars, it was because everybody was fleeing. People were glued to the radio because of their curiosity, or were making plans to flee for safety due to fear, until it was revealed that the broadcast was in fact a dramatization, (Listen to the actual radio broadcast of ‘War Of The Worlds’ in RealAudio here) Radio Script Spielberg’s screen adaptation did not match Orson Welles’ artful masterpiece. There is something to be said about the simplicity of the medium used (radio vs movies), and how it absolutely captivated Welles’ audience. Welles’ skillful direction, simple and effective use of cut offs and silences to instill fear is still unmatchable by any special effects. In one scene, Spielberg does integrate silence by having Tom’s character make a remark about the silence. *** WARNING: Spoilers! Please don’t read further if you do not want to review movie specifics ***

Spielberg examines humanity’s curiosity in the movie’s first portion, by having everybody stand around and watch their own impending doom rise up from the earth. Tom Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, a divorced father whose kids were left to his unreliable care for the weekend while his ex-wife goes to Boston with his new boyfriend to visit the in-laws. The alien tripods hit New York hard, vaporizing everyone in sight. Ray leaves New York in a hurry with his kids; in the only automobile that was still working! (oh.. the magic of the movies). Spielberg devotes the rest of movie to examining humanity’s fear and what we are capable of to preserve ourselves. These depictions include Ray doing everything in his power to make sure he and his family gets out of New York; the car-jacking by the fearsome horde of stranded people, and also the memorable panic at the docks as the boat casts off prematurely, leaving many helpless people behind. Of course, the aliens were also to be feared but their own significant appearance came only in the form of tripods, and did not seem menancing enough during the basement scenes. I find myself asking constantly througout the film, should we really fear the aliens? or should we really fear humanity? fear ourselves? If there was a message to be conveyed, this would be the topic. Case in point, during the strongest shall survive scene involving the angry mob surrounding the van, and when Tom Cruise’s fear for his daughter’s survival prompted him to kill his once-saviour (Tim Robbins) to ensure that he and his daughter will not be discovered by aliens. In that regard, Spielberg really hits the point across just as Orson Welles did in 1938, when the audience had to validate why they reacted the way they did during the panic. Tom Cruise was his usual superstar self in this movie. His performance was only adequate for an actor of his experience, but his star quality stood out like a sore thumb, as with all of his movies. The only interesting performance was Dakota Fanning as Ray Ferrier’s daughter, Maggie. Maggie’s portrayal in the beginning was well acted, but turned into a scream machine crying for help towards the latter end of the movie. Dakota has wrestled the spotlight twice in a roll, in “World Of The Worlds” and “Hide & Seek” from big shots like Tom Cruise and Robert De Niro respectively. I definitely like her performance in this movie more so than in “Hide & Seek”, as she portrays troubled/traumatized characters in both movies very well. I hope to see more of her in future movies, but perhaps in different roles than she has already played. Spielberg knows how to create visual excitement. The movie visuals were faithful to H.G. Well’s original depiction of the tripod. Some of these illustrations can be found on the cover of the novels. The scene featuring the speeding train with every carriage burning did well to stimulate the audience but to me was very unbelievable, and did not serve a purpose in the movie. Dialogs were few to come by character development took a back seat to the special f/x’s center stage There were a couple of interesting dialogs, such as the argument between Ray and his son as his son bursts out what he really feels about his father’s attempts to flee to Boston. Tim Robbins’ character also gave a memorable speech about the difference between those who died and those who survive: “The ones that didn’t flatline are the ones who kept their eyes open.” Spielberg has always given a very PG treatment to his movies. I was surprised however, to see him painting the country landscape into a sea of blood in the aftermath of the alien attack - another visual stimulant. The explanation of the alien’s self defeat is terribly unsatisfying, and the audience is never given the reason for the invasion in the first place. Like all Spielberg films, everybody can die except for the lovable “good” characters in the film. I find these pacifications to be unfulfilling. A different dimension could have been added if Ray’s son did not survive the onslaught that killed thousands on the battle fields, and to make things worse, made it to Boston before Ray and Maggie. Throughout the basement scene, I also kept thinking to myself why aliens with such advanced technology could not have invented cameras that could see infrared, have night vision or thermal imaging to better detect human presence. This must also be the reason why the aliens, after monitoring us for millions of years, still manages to overlook a fatal flaw with their plan to eradicate humanity. Guess it would not be much of a movie if Tom and the kids did not have a fighting chance now, would it? Overall, I have to give this movie a 3 out of 5 stars. Spielberg succeeds in entertaining the masses much like he accomplished with Jurassic Park. You get your bang for the buck to see this in the theatres. However, I’m not that keen to buy the DVD when it comes out, or consider it one of the greatest movies to add to my collection!

You are what you read. I’ve always believe that statement. I do not think I am different than the average person in terms of intellectual abilities. But I do know I have some habits different than the average person. I like to read, not necessary any books, but books that you can learn something from. I don’t like to read novels, I used to when I was a kid. In fact, I really want to thank my mother for encouraging me to read a lot of books when I was young. I remember borrowing as many books as my library card allowed, finish them without a week or two weeks and going book for more books right away. That has set the foundation for my life. But I haven’t been reading any new books lately. I’ve been re-reading old books. So in order for this article to fit the idea of a NEW recommended book, I have to find something new first , right? Certainly, let me tell you more about [tag]THE NUMBER[/tag]: How The Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate America after the jump.

For the last year or more, whenever I met someone who said he/she would like to start investing in stocks, I’ve recommended The Intelligent Investor (revised edition) to them. To me, anybody wanting to put money into companies must read chapter 8 of that book about capital preservation. It’s even recommended by the world’s most well-known investor, the only person on the Forbes 100 richest people to have made his fortune through investing, Warren Buffett. Today, I’m recommending another companion book, one that is so well like by one of my highly regarded role models, [tag]Mark Cuban[/tag], that Mark asked to write the foreword himself. “The Number” is written by [tag]Alex Berenson[/tag], and focuses on the tricks that companies employ to hit/beat the number, and the corrupted attitude towards investing that prevails on Wall Street. People may find it curious why I’m recommending books about the bad side of wall street to people looking to get into the market. In the words of Mark Cuban, “I may be a cynic [...] but I am an informed cynic”. You cannot rush into things you don’t understand by looking for knowledge that helps in your attitude. But by being a cynic and wanting to find out the information contrary to your enthusiasm, you can uncover facts and information that will ensure you have a confident decision. That’s what this book is all about. Even the most astute analyst on Wall Street will fall victim to the number. If anything, I hope this book demystifies the fact that you and me are no better or worse than the analysts out there - which is a positive. The number simply means the earnings per share that is referred to as such, by the pundits, analysts and brokers of Wall Street. So tightly focused on this one single number that its impact is felt for the CEO, the company board, the fund managers, the brokers, everybody involved in the process. To me, The Number is a must-read for people who are getting into stock investing. So now I have 2 books that I will give to everyone as a package to enter into stock investing - The Intelligent Investor and The Number. Sounds more like John Grisham novels to me!

When I first heard that [tag]Warren Buffett[/tag] recommends for all investors to read his mentor, [tag]Benjamin Graham[/tag]’s book The Intelligent Investor, I had to see what the book was all about. I was absolutely blown by the simplicity and relevancy of the content provided. It was like I was reading the lost scrolls that promised the secret of the treasure of the Templar Knights. I agree completely with Mr. Buffett. Even if you do not have any knowledge or technical aptitude for investment discussions, as long as you can read, understad and apply Chapter 8 of this investment bible, you will not do badly in the realm of investments. Though this book was originally written in 1949, it certain has not lost any relevancy through the progression of time. But what has been lost through time is its writing style. Modern readership may not fare well with the language with which this was written in. It is to Mr. Graham’s credit that it is still very readable, but I absolutely love the revision put together by senior Money editor, [tag]Jason Zweig[/tag]. Zweig is very well versed in the philosophies of Benjamin Graham. Every chapter is followed by commentary, and footnotes to complement Graham’s sage advice and analytical guides. The most interesting parts of the books were Graham’s cautionary tales through actual examples from his era, puntuacted by Zweig’s similar contributions to update with modern case studies. Before you invest a dollar, invest and read [tag]The Intelligent Investor[/tag] first!