Buffy season 2 has a very different feel than the first season. While te first season had a loose ark of Buffy vs. The Master, most of the chapters could stand by themselves, requiring no deeper knowledge of the whole Buffy / vampire mythology.

During the 2nd season, the series started to take itself more seriously. The humor is still there, but it's not as light hearted as season one was. Since the first season served as an introduction to the people and themes of the series, the second one starts developing them. The caracters (especially the minor ones) are no longer caricatures (such as "Cordelia the Shallow Cheerleader" or "Jenny the Cool Computer Teacher") but beacome real people. More background is given about Angel's past. Even though there are a few 'unrelated' chapters (such as 'Bad Eggs' or 'Ted'), there were a few prominent plot arcs (such as the Angel / Buffy love story) which were viewed and analyzed through different chapters.

'Taking itself more seriously' also means that the question 'what being a slayer means' is explored in depth. In 'Ted', the question of Buffy harming a non - vampire / demon / monster human comes up. We realize how lucky Buffy is to have her supporting network of friends when we realize that Kendra, the 2nd slayer (who had been activated when Buffy died at the end of season 1) has a completely different (and solitary) life. At the end of the season, Buffy comes to realize how alone she is anyway, does what she has to do, but then leaves it all behind.

And then Angel turns bad (then good again for the last few meanutes of the season). This was not only THE major plot twist of the season, but also gives the 2 main actors a chance to show how good they are. Sarah Michelle Gellar does a great job in portraying Buffys pain and confusion while confronting the 'bad' Angel (or rather 'Angelus', as he is called in his soul - less stage), but also her power and decision during the last 2 chapters of the season, by doing what has to be done - alone. David Boreanaz finally gets a chance to portray something different than a depressed, brooding vampire with a soul ,and seems to enjoy doing it.

And last (but not least) - Spike and Drussila. This is another point where season one had a flat - one - faced evil (The Master) while season 2 has a more complex and deeper pair of vilains to go against Buffy.

From the hillarious beginning, where Nan (our fictional nanny and guide to the world of childcare of the rich and privileged) describes a routine job interview, and throughout most of the book (in which she describes her growing involvment with the X's lives) the book is captivating and well written. It manages to portray Nan's feelings while still be funny at the right times.

My only problem with the book is its ending. The whole Nantucket vacation / firing / nannycam issue seemed as unoriginal and predictable as much as the rest of the book was original and fresh.

I accept the fact that movie scripts have to change small details in the books in order to be made. After all, these are 2 different types of media. I don't expect the actors to be identical to Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh, even though they'd serve as good insperation (which they haven't, in case anyone was wondering).

But as the movie kept on going, its story line drifted further and further away from the book's. I don't want to spoil the 'experience' for people who were lucky enough not to see this movie yet, but let's just say that the only things in common the book's ending and the movie's ending are the fact that Scarlett is in danger, and Rhett saves her.

If you MUST insist on watching this, please go to your video library first!

The basic story of the movie is as cheesy as they make them: Gwen (Sandra Bullock) loves going out with her boyfriend, having fun, drinking heavily and using other substances. After ruining her sister's wedding, during which she crashes a car into a house, Gwen is sentenced to 28 days in jail - or in rehab. Now try to remember all the cheesy stuff Hollywood had ever taught us about rehab - and that would probably describe the rest of the film.

So why the 5 starts? Because even with all this gooey cheese, the movie does have a few shining moments. One of the issues that isn't obvious in the first watching is how sheltered the addicts are in the clinic, and how tough it is for them to sometimes deal with the outside world as ex - addicts. There's a scene where a mother has to face her 2 kids in 'family sessions', and she is torn between being their mother who wants to encourage them to speak, and having to deal with her feelings about what they say. Gwen also has a tough decision when she gets back home - whether to rejoin her boyfriend and her old crowd. On another occasion, Eddie, a big baseball star, is glad to have a few minutes' reminder of his previous fame and glory by giving a couple of kids who recognized him an autograph, but is uncomfortable when they ask him where his car is (having arrived in a bus with 'Rehab Center' written all over it). Their dad tries to resolve the situation by shoo - ing them into the car, but causes Eddie even further embarresment...

Overall, this movie is reccomended to people who like Sandra Bullok and the light comedies she usually performs in.

... I noticed 2 reactions to this book. One type was the one or two star "how could she have written such a lousy novel" reactions, that often proved their point by sticking to tiny little details (such as the similarity of Scarlett's trips to Tara when she was desprate, or her having taken off her corsets). The other type of reaction was usually 3 stars or more, with an appreciation of Ripley's effort to write this sequel. I must admit I belong to the 2nd group, because I basically believe that the first book was very well written, and managed to tie all of its own loose ends except for the Scarlett and Rhett relationship - which is an end I think Margaret Mitchell herself wanted to leave loose... And this is why I found the Scarlett / Rhett aspects of the sequal so disappointing - after all the plot twists of GWTW between them, the only way to go was a variation of the one mentioned in the book: Scarlett chasing Rhett, which only makes him run further away, and only when she 'grows up' does she get him back... The inclusion of Rhett in this book seemed a little fake, and to me it felt as though Ripley had included it just to satisfy the die - hard fans of GWTW who wished to see the couple get back...

I think that Ripley made a wise choice by removing Scarlett from everything and everyone she knew. Scarlett had misunderstood the rules of the Atlanta 'Old Guard' and had so many chances to fix her status in GWTW that keeping her in Atlanta would have been boring. She was there long enough for us to see how low she had gone there (not being invited to parties, people ignoring her, not selling her stuff in their stores, not going into hers...), and by this stage having the 'Old Guard' forgive her would have been fake. The Old Guard's attitude was already tied and sealed by Margaret Mitchel, and all Alexandra Ripley had to do was show that Scarlett finally realizes the kind of people her new friends are, and when she throws them out she just has no one to live for in Atlanta... This might be a specific example, but in general, I felt that going back to all the locations from GWTW would have been just re - writing the first book, and I'm glad the plot was taken to new and interesting places... I suppose that many of the die hrd fans expected something with the same style and plot turns of the GWTW book - but then, why not ust read GWTW again?

Scarlett's moving to Ireland seemed a natural step - after not fitting into the southern society in Atlanta and Charleston, she finally finds her Irish relatives, which seem to love her, admire her, and most important of all - accept her just as she is... This is what trigers her to change. Instead of wearing a tight corset under over - decorated fancy clothes, she takes her corsets off, and wears simple peasant clothes, because she doesn't have to impress anyone with her fancy clothes - her relatives love her anyway... She finally gains status without having to act unnaturally, which makes her realize all of her natural power and talents, and eventually does become a great lady (just like her mother).

Even when Scarlett goes away to a whole new place, and meets new people, we still get to learn how people from GWTW are faring. This was probably a tribute to all the fans of the original book, just to justify this being a proper sequal. In general, Ashley turns out to be OK, Ella and Wade find happiness in Tara with Will and Suellen, etc.

In general, I think that people who are strong fans of GWTW and expected a classic sequel would be disappointed, because besides Scarlett, all other characters from GWTW appear very briefly, if at all. These 2 books are like 2 books about the same charcters, and while GWTW provieds some history for Scarlett, the later takes the story to completely different directions... So I recommend this book to anyone who is willing to accept this change.

Unfortunately, the only good thing I could mention about this film is Jude Law's acting...

Lets start with the fact that THERE ARE NO EXTRAS WHATSOEVER on this DVD - which I find very disappointing, especially since the movie is trying to promote a certain abstract ideal, which a commentary with the director / screenwriter would have promoted.

The only way I colud discribe the acting, especially that of the 2 main stars is "terrible". Even when I consider the fact that both characters had something to hide or resent about the other, I found the acting to be too mechanical, like a couple of robots had replaced Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke... I've seen both in different roles in the past, and both are obviously very talented, so the problem isn't them but the plot and script...

I've finally reached the worst part of the movie for me: the plot. The story had a feeling that "I've been there and seen that" - because it is all just a big cliche. I realized what the ending was and the movie's message was from the first minute of the movie. The hardest for me to understand, were the many logic slips in the story. Please give the following some thought:

1) Vincent is described as a potentially very sick person - which wouldn't be the case for a large part of the 'In - Valids'. Most In - valids would be perfectly normal. If so, why would the healthier & intelligent ones be able to apply to Gattaca (or any other firm)? Isn't it in Gattaca's best interest to take the best people, whether they're valids or in - valids? If traits like determination and motivation are so important, why would Gatacca ignore them so easily?

2) If all of Vincent's problems could be remedied - his eye sight for instance - why would they be a prbolem for Gattaca in the first place? Heart conditions usually don't develop all of the sudden - they can be found a while before they cause any serious problems - which means that if Vincent was healthy, he would have no problem working for Gattaca. Otherwise, he would not only be risking his life, but the lives of the rest of his crew members (not to mention equipment and training which would cost dearly to Gattaca). Is fulfiling one man'd dream worth so much damage to others?

In general, I don't think this story can serve as a moral for our world. It only sees the world in black and white, and ignores a lot of issues that might blur those extremes.

Becky has finally paid up all of her debts, and even made friends with Derek Smeath, her bank manager... Her new job on TV is going great, and her love life couldn't be any better... So she deserves a little break from keeping her financial affairs in order, doesn't she? After all, she repaied them once and like Luke always says: "you've got to spend money to make money". All these clothes and stuff are are an investment in her job and her future right?

But Becky puts all this mess behind her when she follows Luke to NYC - after all, she's going to get a new job on CNN with a much bigger salary, and pay them all quickly. So she keeps herself by getting fimiliar with New York - or rather, it's shops.

But her past catches up with her and her financial situation is splashed all over the front page of "Daily World". All of the sudden, all her New York prospects are not interested in her, and she loses Luke. When she returns to London, things are only getting worse: she loses her job on TV only to be replaced by her ex - co - worker Clare, and the only chance of getting back on the show is to tell her story soap - opera style and get some advice from Clare...

How will Becky get out of her overdraft & pay all her bills? Read the book... But don't worry: she does manage to get out of it this time too, and even get her revenge on the Morning Coffee staff... And, find the job of her dreams...

... but movies rarely are as good as the books they are based on, which is understandable considering both are very different types of media.

In this case, I think that the movie complements the book, by giving us a 'visual' perspective of things (even though I'm not sure that's how Iran looks like, since in Betty's 2nd book she reveals that these segments of the movie were shot in Israel). But by transforming the book into a movie, we lose a few things:

1) A movie can only show us things and people's actions, while the book can also give us their thoughts and motivations. Even though we see Betty running around Tehran in the movie, we can never share her feelings or thoughts. Therefore, most of the characters aren't as deep as they are in the book. Moody, for instance, just seems like the forceful Iranian husband who tries to make his wife and daughter live in Iran because HE feels like it. The book, on the other hand, gives us some background on what he was like before coming to Iran. His transformation from a typical American to a man who wishes to live in Iran in the book is much slower than in the movie (where we can see his changing attitude by the way he feels about morning prayers) and seems much more convincing.

2) The scope of the movie is much shorter than a books, and therefore many people, events and places had been ommited. In this case, it's obvious an effort had been made to conserve as much of the original spirit of the book as possible, and the efforts were mostly successful, but still - the movie isn't as rich in scope as the book is. This mostly applies to the relationship between Betty and those surrounding her - I'm not sure people who only see the movie would be able to see the ups and downs in Betty's life in Iran...

3) Many of the small details mentioned in the book are missing from the movie. This bothers me even more than the drastic change made to the ending! (for readers who don't realize this, Betty's horse ride out of Iran was in a bad winter storm, not through a desert, but the essence of the dangerous & tiring escape are still there). Stuff like Mahtob's and Betty's problem with typical Iranian restrooms, Betty's description of food, feasts and holidays, or even the few Farsi words she throws in every once in a while in the book...

My bottom line is that for a book adaption - this is a pretty good movie. There aren't that many special features, but there is a documentary that I THINK that the 'real' Betty participated in - unfortunately, no one obthered to put in the names of people on the screen to introduce them. My advice to you - while renting / buying this DVD, borrow Betty's book from the library - since both complement each other.

The chances of anything like this happening in real life are pretty slim, but since this is a movie, this is a minor point for me.

Eddy (the wonderful Josh Charles for 'Dead Poets Society' - I wonder why we don't see him in more movies) moves into the dorms - only to get a roommate from hell, who is his exact opposite. While Eddy is serious, clean, quiet and shy, Stuart (Stephen Baldwin) is a messy, girl chasing little boy. The manage to find a way to live together, when Alex (Lara Flynn Boyle) moves into the other room in the suite - since her college record says she's a guy, not a girl. Stuart is attracted to Alex, while she's attracted ot Eddy, which soon discovers that not only is he gay, but he's attracted to Stuart... Sensing that sex would make their life together tough, they vow to avoid having it with one another (even though they scare all other suitors), and become close friends - so close, this friendship excludes every one else... But, they break their promise and have sex, in unlikely forms, and the 'Threesome' eventually break up...

This movie is more than sex and sexual discovery - it's also about friendship and its boundries. As Eddy, our narator, sees it, the Threesome meant to him more than sex - he feels that he developed true friendship with Stuart and Alex. At the end of the movie, he wonders how people as close as they all were during that year in college can lose their connection with one another. In the alternate ending scene (which is included in the DVD with or without Andrew Fleming's commentary) we can see how people who were close as can be can't have a conversation without uncomfortable silences a couple of years later... Eddy feels he still wanted this friendship even when Alex and Stuart were running away from it, and the only one who felt comfortable enough to admit he wants and needs it... Ths situation in the movie was taken to an extreme, but I think that looking back, most of us had friendships like that - close, but when they ended for the wrong reasons you had nothing to say to each other...

So much better, in fact, that I feel that I wouldn't have understood the film without reading it first... One of S. King's strengths is his character development, and I don't think that this was passed to the movie. Instead, the movie tried to concentrate on the story line of people 'time traveling'. Now the logic of this story never was very strong, so when you lose the character depth of it, you lose the whole deal...

On top of that - the performances were very unconvincing (why does S. King insist on having a cameo in all the films made of adaptions of his books? He's a great writer, but he can't act!) except for Bronson Pinchot, who plays a perferctly neurotic Craig Toomy...