The movie wouldn't be of fruit if Dengler's mission went according to plan. Dengler's plane gets shot down by anti-aircraft fire and he crashes into a paddy field. He manages to escape the VietCong fighters chasing him but not for long. Knowing the overall direction that the movie is going to take actually makes it all the more nerve-wracking. You know that Dengler is going to get captured at some point and every moment that he is still free, you wish that he doesn't get captured at that point.

Dengler is taken to a Prisoner of War campsite where he meets other POWs already in the camp for a few years. Two of the prisoners stand out in the movie: Duane Martin (Steve Zahn) and Gene DeBruin (Jeremy Davies). The rest are Thai and Vietnamese who did not support the VietCong. When Dengler arrives at the prison, Martin acts as a mentor advising Dengler on how to avoid punishment from the guards. Slowly, as Dengler spends time at the prison, the roles reverse. DeBruin is shown in the movie to be selfish, childish and fainthearted. When Dengler takes steps for a escape attempt, DeBruin is discouraging the idea at every step. When the other prisoners save their rice for their rescue attempt, DeBruin wants his share of the rice then itself. He also threatens to shout and alert the guards if Dengler goes ahead with his escape attempt. Only when they hear the guards discuss a plan to shoot all the prisoners, DeBruin relents.

Dengler and Martin team up after their escape. Their plan is to float along a river until they reach Thailand, where they would be on safer grounds. Escaping from the prison is only half the battle, as they soon realize. Watch the movie to find out if they manage to get out of the jungle.

One of the characters in the movie is the jungle. The views of the jungle itself might be worth the admission ticket. There is so much greenery around that it is surprising that it can be so harsh on the escapees. You would think that it would be filled all the food that they need. But it turns out not to be the case.

The main reason that I saw this movie was for the director Werner Herzog. His documentary 'Grizzly Man' was mainly based on video footage shot by the protoganist of the movie. However, what was special about that movie was the empathy you felt for the character. Herzog doesn't fail in evoking interest for Diedler as well.

There have been questions raised about the ethics of the way Herzog has re-written the story to suit a movie audience. Please do not continue reading this article if you plan to see the movie. There have been complaints that Dengler's role has been made out to be of heroic proportions in everything from leadership, planning, sacrifice and courageousness. As discussed earlier, DeBruin's character is the exact opposite. The website Resuce Dawn: The Truth attemps to clarify some of the misstatements. While Herzog adds a disclaimer at the start of the movie that it is a dramatized version of Dengler's story, it appears that Herzog distorts the characters of Dengler and other prisoners enough to not simply brush it away as artistic freedom. While it might be excusable to hype up a person's contributions, I don't think it is fair to negatively portray the character of DeBruin just to make the movie dramatic. It appears that the Resuce Dawn: The Truth website does not fault Dengler himself for this skewing. A more truthful analysis of what really happened in the prison and during the escape can probably be found in Dengler's own recollections in his book "Escape from Laos."

The movie begins by introducing us to two journalists at opposite ends of their careers. The movie opens up at the funeral of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), an ace reporter. His colleagues give a toast in his honor and speak highly of his penchant for breaking major news stories.

Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) is an American journalism student with a dream of making it big in investigative journalism. While visiting her friend in London, she meets a British celebrity and wants to write a story on him for her college newspaper. Not only does the celebrity seduce her into sleeping with him but as Sondra anguishes to her friend later, she didn't even make use of her attraction to get the interview.

These two characters are brought together at a magic show of Sid Waterman (Woody Allen), (better) known as Splendini. Wait, you say! Isn't Joe Strombel dead? Hmmm, yeah, but ghosts exist right? There are different interpretations of what happens to us after our death. After someone dies, this movie contends, they are taken on a boat ride in small groups by the Grim Reaper for eternity. The scenery reminds you of a dark night in a Charles' Dickens novel (imagine Great Expectations). On such a boat ride, Joe strikes conversation with a young woman, who had recently died of mysterious circumstances. She suspects her employer Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) is the tarot card serial killer and had in fact poisoned her to keep her from revealing the secret. Peter is the son of Lord Lyman and if this allegation turns out to be true, Joe realizes that the story would be a sensation. While he won't be able to investigate the case himself (with him being in the clutches of the Grim Reaper), he wants to pass his tip onto another reporter while he momentarily escapes from the Grim Reaper.

After Joe appears to Sondra briefly at Sid's show, she believes this is the moment that she had been waiting for - a chance to show her dedication for her work. She prods Sid to tag along her as they try to find out if Peter is the tarot card serial killer. The rest of the movie is about how Sondra and Sid get closer to Peter to try to get clues that would implicate Peter as the serial killer.

One of the funny moments in the movie occurs when Sondra and Sid spend time with Peter and Allen privately admonishes Johannson for suspecting Peter of being the serial killer by saying that Peter doesn't even look like someone who would kill one person. Maybe you didn't find it funny but with the delivery, trust me, it is funny.

The movie has a lot of zany one-liners typical for a character played by Allen. There are some jokes that lose the audience but most hit the mark. I would not say any of the acting is above the mark but the strength of Woody Allen's movies is the writing. In that regard, the movie is a success.

P.S.: This movie is pure fiction, in case any reader has doubts. Just like how many Indian movies now have a disclaimer at the start of the movie confirming that the movie is not based on any real person, I think English movies (and perhaps even movie trailers) should start carrying such disclaimers. :P

If it is so hard for a movie to make a difference on the viewer, then is there is a purpose to view movies or read books hoping to learn from them? I suppose, as with most other things in life, looking forward is the solution. It is upto us to try to apply what we learn, realizing that we can do better than what we have in the past.

After her party's complete defeat in the Lok Sabha elections two years ago, she reversed track and withdrew most of her earlier policies. It seems like a distant memory what the state went through in 2001 and 2002. I used to wonder how people could forget what politicians did and vote them back to power. (This is not to say that there weren't problems with Karunanidhi's government either, most obvious of it is the promotion of his family members.) I can see why it is not that difficult to forget. I have to consciously remind myself what Jayalalitha is capable of if she is voted back to power without any checks.

Remembering Jayalalitha's past deeds is only one side of the coin. The electorate would also have to feel that a Karunanidhi government would be better. Of course, Karunanidhi government's policies will not be all good and Jayalalitha government's policies will not be all bad. I cannot claim to be an objective judge because I feel innately that Karunanidhi will be a better leader, based on what I have read and heard about his passion and his skills. Trying to be a little objective, there will be similar sops provided by both parties. (I don't like Karunanidhi's idea of giving away television sets but looking at how things are going, Jayalalitha will probably announce some similar measure.) One advantage with a DMK government is that there are obvious benefits with having the same party in power at both the state-level and central-level. The state and central governments haven't seen eye-to-eye and the fault should be attributed to both sides not wanting the other side to get credit. If Jayalalitha comes back to power, we can expect similar deadlock to continue. On the flip-side, Karunanidhi probably won't make any drastic policy changes that is unpopular. At the same time, aving learnt how the electorate can punish unpopular decisions, I am not sure if Jayalalitha would be as bold as she was at the beginning of the current term. So I cannot really say that Jayalalitha has a big advantage on this aspect.

What do I mean by elegance? Maybe the way things are organized in an easy-to-access manner. The dock bar in Mac OS stores frequently used apps and identifies currently running apps. It also keeps a list of minimized windows with a little thumbnail of the window. Another nice feature is the system status information at the top-right corner that gives details such as battery life, 802.11g/bluetooth/vpn connectivity and so on. The top-right corner also features the spotlight search tool that performs super-fast file searches. Of course, we can't forget the dashboard that has cute little widgets that can do anything from google map search to weather to stock quotes to post-it notes. The best part is that the dashboard is normally hidden and if we simply press F12, the widgets super-impose themselves on top of the desktop.

Another nicety about Mac OS is a lack of clutter. Applications are usually present as a single file making the process of installing and uninstalling applications very easy. Moreover, just the metallic texture of title bars and the smooth corners of windows add to the Mac's chic appeal.

Apart from the OS, the Powerbook is also packed with excellent physical design. The widescreen displays allow sufficient room to run multiple windows. The 15" proved to be plenty of real-estate. The recent update to the Powerbook G4 line have further improved the resolution. The keyboard was a pleasure to use and the best I have seen.

On the flip-side, I didn't care much for the touchpad. It was awkward moving things around and I frequently ended up dropping selected items. Another problem with the touchpad, consistent with Apple's philosophy, is that it comes with only a single mouse button. If you want to delete something, either you had to drag the item to the trashbin or press the button while clicking the single-mouse button to emulate a right-mouse-button pull-down menu.

There are also complaints about the speed difference between Mac processors and Windows processors. While applications are a tad slower in Mac, especially at start-up, it didn't bother me. I also wouldn't depend on the VirtualPC software to replace your Windows desktop PC. The VirtualPC software is a Windows emulator software but it proved to slow enough for me to avoid using it. In the end, the biggest thorn for Mac users is the dearth of software compared to Windows OS.

Personally, I found the Powerbook very practical for day-to-day usage. For simple things such as browsing, writing, playing and editing multimedia, I don't think it can be beat. If you can live with the deficiencies in the mouse and if you already have a Windows desktop PC, the Powerbook is an excellent choice for a laptop.

The first half of the movie tells the love story between Sivakasi (Vijay) and Hema (Asin). Sivakasi works at a welding shop and Hema is the daughter of a rich jewellery merchant. There isn’t really any issue at all in the love story. Sivakasi berates, makes fun of and teases Hema and in the end, Sivakasi gives a reason for why he did it. It seems Vijay was trying to compete with Rajinikanth’s character in Chandramukhi to see who could insult the heroine more and still end up with the heroine. The only difference I suppose is that in the end, Sivakasi admits he was wrong about something, though not related to how treats Hema and her family.
In the second half of the movie, Sivakasi confronts his past. Even though the second half is a clichéd revenge story, it had all the ingredients necessary for a hero. However, it doesn’t live up to its potential.

Vijay does have the star persona, no doubt about it. He has already proved himself capable in dances. The special effects added in his fight scenes in Sivakasi add an electric effect during his fight scenes. His introduction is no less than superstar material. When he is locked in his shop, he cuts his figure’s shape using a welding torch and kicks out the shape with his leg.

Asin doesn’t have much scope in the movie but manages to fill her scenes. She is able to emote well especially when she shows mock anger. Prakashraj delivers in the role of the villain and this is just yet another feather in his cap. However, the screenplay makes his dialogues a little too repetitive.

Director Perarasu does a cameo role solely to introduce himself and roll out his title credit. Directors like K. Bhagyaraj have a right to bring attention to their name. They have proved themselves. Perarasu’s introduction seemed nothing more than cheap gimmick.

The movie states the obvious by showing that using movie stars in election campaigns makes all the difference and a campaign does not need to spend any attention on issues. The movie seems to justify it by stating that using cinema is the only way to fight against money power. Even if it may be the truth, it doesn't seem appropriate.

Nayanthara plays herself as she appears in a cameo role for a single song. The song “Kodambakkam area” with Vijay and Jayanthara turned out to be the overall best among all the songs. Among the other songs, only “En theivathukkey maaruveshama” and “Ithu enna puthu ulagam” are mentionable with good lyrics.

another thing he defended was issuing sub-poena to journalists... he said that while he supports source confidentiality, in this case, the whole case was about if people in the white house talked with journalists about something that they were not supposed to (he made it clear that it was an issue of national security and not about a whistle-blower)... so, how can a prosecutor decide on whether or not to prosecute someone unless he talks with both sides and finds out what libby told the journalists...

he was very clear on what he was allowed to speak about... he said that he cannot talk about anyone who was not charged and he also cannot talk about allegations involving libby that are not pertaining to the indictments... he said that he can understand that people want to know more details, but the grand jury works under an assumption of secrecy and witnesses are accorded the right to privacy... he said that while he and the grand jury cannot talk about things not in the indictment, witnesses are free to say what they want... however, he asked them not to say anything while the investigation was still pending...

it seemed like as if he was discounting the chance of rove getting indicted sometime in the future... he said that it was routine for special prosecutors to continue the investigation even after an indictment has been served and nothing should be read into it...