So why did I bother going to see the film?

I was intrigued by this Oscar nominated film which has been praised as ‘intelligent' and ‘quite brilliant', with high calibre actors being drawn by the outstanding quality of the screenplay (by Doug Wright). Its self confessed theme is that of artistic censorship, using the Marquis as a figure to weave an argument around. Housed in a 19th century asylum, the Marquis is forbidden to write after surreptitiously publishing a novel that shocks (or delights) all France, and a battle of wits ensues as he goes to ever more extreme measures to continue...

 So is this film "nothing more than an encyclopaedia of perversions" (as Caine also says of Justine), or masterpiece of moral philosophy in drama?

 To decry the film seems to beg the Marquis' question: "are your convictions so fragile that they cannot stand in opposition to mine? Is your God so flimsy, so weak?" I find fleeing from controversy a form of cowardice and rise to the challenge, especially as it directly includes the Church, and we have only the mouth of Joaquin Phoenix's liberal Abbe de Coulmier (who runs the asylum) to speak up for us. He puts De Sade in perspective: "You're not the antichrist! You're just a malcontent who knows how to spell!"

 Quills shows little violence or sex: most of the film is dialogue, although there are some scenes I am still uncomfortable with. It is exaggerated, often very funny, human and touching with a convincing central romance. The characters are vivid and unstarched by period drama.

Its central premise is a timely question when the boundaries of film censorship are being tested. It is superbly structured ‘escalating frenzy' with succinct synopses of philosophical debate in rich language.

Both sides of the argument are given: the violent acts committed seem to stem from the Marquis' story, insinuating that those who have a more laissez faire attitude must consider those incapable of telling fact from fiction. Equally, the Marquis claims that he writes a work of fiction, not a moral treatise, and he writes what he observes as the eternal truths: the most base of human nature; he says that elevating the human soul to higher things is the job of the Church. But it leaves the viewer with the right to make up their own mind.

Quills has a tendency to elevate the writer's creative needs above all else in society, and perhaps the East Anglian newspaper reviewer who stated that Quills is full of its own self importance did not charge unfairly. But there are other themes which interest me more. The most central and relevant to me is redemption. It challenges me as a Christian: is it for us to say where God draws the line at forgiveness and where humanity has taken leave? Dr Royer-Collard, the alienist sent to cure the Marquis, uses discipline to yield self improvement. But is denial and punishment the way forward? Or is the Abbe's approach of befriending and encouraging the channelling of one's demons as a form of catharsis (such as the Marquis's writing) more fruitful? We see the pitfalls of both: the hypocrisy of the supposedly upright doctor, and that repression has equal dangers as too much freedom - something the Church needs to learn.

 The Marquis' tenet that "to know virtue, one must first be acquainted with vice" is a refraction of Romans 1: we have the law so we know what sin is. The only thing the film really incites is debate, not debauchery. The film certainly inspired lots of thoughts for me - not perverted or disturbed ones, but really involved issues that few films have the courage to address.

Yes, humans are truly and continuously evolving. We humans invent and create more and more things that were probably unimaginable centuries and centuries ago. And to think our intelligence causes the earth's destruction. We are divided over our comfort and that of the future of our world.

Yes we are evolving. How else can we explain the concept of erasing parts of our memories completely through voluntary and technological means? How else can you explain Lacuna, Incorporated's business operation? How can you explain fiddling with people's minds and memories, something that no common human person would do?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind may seem like a big promotional movie for Lacuna, Inc. And yes you may be somewhat reminded of Vanilla Sky, but this Hollywood movie starring Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet is a fictional take on the power of love and the human mind. Before I saw this movie, I could only say that we should be careful of what we ingest mentally. Not everything that could seem to advice or tell us what we should do for our comfort is actually good for us.

But then upon watching the movie, I believe even our advancements in technology and how we humans have been living our lives somewhat contradict each other in some way. We strip ourselves of our humanity but we keep going back to live the life we forgot or want to forget. That is what this movie is all about. It shows us that humans are meant to live and experience life and learn from everything. Technology is just there to help us realize our humanity.

Human evolution is relative. We must evolve in a better way for a better future. We must make good choices and world-helpful actions. Human evolution will reach its end. But before it does, make sure that you did your part in making the world a nice, happy and better place to live in.

My boyfriend has a “thing” for Cameron Diaz (he loves her nose, which I heard she was going to have fixed,) so we took in “The Holiday.” Very Christmasy without elves or Kronks or similar film emblems for the season, the film’s premise is intriguing. After parallel romantic disappointments, Kate Winslet (always beautiful and vulnerable and an actress of grand and versatile talent and Cameron Diaz (I get what my boyfriend sees in her, spunk, great comedic instincts and offbeat beauty) switch houses, cars, “everything”but thankfully (!) not identities. (That would have made it comic book silly and that just doesn’t work in a romantic comedy.

Amanda (Cameron Diaz) produces movie film trailers; Iris (Kate Winslet) covers weddings for a London newspaper. Overnight, they arrive at each other’s homes and the frothy fun begins. I wanted to love this movie, but I didn’t; I’m sorry…especially since I am the movie’s target demographic. Somehow, for me, it missed the mark, the L.A. to England vacation exchange is a fine hook, but while there is character growth and change, and the characters are well-drawn, it falls down and feels like unfizzy Diet Coke. It tries hard enough, and there are some great laughs and somewhat poignant moments, it comes off as a little less than comforting or like the warm cocoa of a movie one would expect from the trailers.

I don’t like to read reviews in which the reader is told too many specifics about the plot, figuring: how could it be possible to know every plot detail as it is about to be revealed; if you’re the type that wants advance notice, there are entire “spoiler” sites that will give you every detail about a film. Sue me, but I just don’t get that at all.

It’s the film equivalent of “chick lit,” which means it may be box office poison for men of any age, even though there are enough men to go around and more than the occasional moment with soundtrack producer Miles (Jack Black) who works for Cameron Diaz’s ex (Ed Burns) who appears in a single scene; Burns’s character, of course, is the reason Amanda seeks exile from L.A. but then she meets Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) in Surrey (which is Iris’s ‘hood)… and the result is a movie that is a bit sweet, very small and ultimately, sort of forgettable.

Everyone is loving this movie and I am usually the type to adore even a lousy made-for-tv romantic comedy, but it is so light, it is positively feathery; Kate Winslet was underutilized and Jack Black watered down his personality and lost a few pounds to be a believable love interest. Cameron Diaz and Jude Law, who, by sheer virtue of the script, had more screen time and a more developed story arc, were both “lovely” (as they say across the pond). Cameron Diaz is unafraid to laugh at herself, and she turns in a dynamic performance, and she is very well-developed as a very tightly wound control freak. I’m not sure Jude Law was ever more endearing, warm, vulnerable or believable as a good guy on film. Since Iris is such a loving character, her brother is equally kind and generous. And interestingly, I loved him in “Alfie” but that character is so intrinsically lonely and tragic in an everyman way, it was a great distraction to be allowed to really like him as an actor and a character in this film.

Oddly enough, in a romantic comedy, the very best relationship seemed to be Kate Winslet’s thoroughly platonic friendship with a legendary screenwriter, subtly played by Eli Wallach, who surrenders his walker and fragility thanks to Winslet’s nurturing. Watching their trust in each other grow, how they cross over into each other’s lives and become an unlikely but genuinely “believable” pair is heartfelt. I would have loved the movie to mean more, but I’ll give it more credit than it actually deserves. It is a testament to finding what you need in giving and in being open to everything life – and love…in its endlessly myriad forms…can offer.