Note to self: When seeing über-creepy Japanese ghost movie in which the ghost's lethal manifestations are accompanied by creaky clacking wood sounds, notably in a public restroom, do not immediately follow up by going to a restaurant whose men's room has a spring-activated door that makes almost exactly the same sound .

Note to Matt: At least you would be in the proper place to piss in your pants.

This is true. I think I might last a little longer than most of the victims in these movies, though. The ghosts always get people while they're paralyzed in terror and trying to hide in a closet or under a coffee table with their eyes closed. You never see them going to the effort of chasing after the guy whose first instinct is to dive headfirst out a window and run down the street screaming his head off .

Also, six years of going to gay clubs and seeing really bad drag queens getting themselves made up in restroom mirrors. Ghost's gonna have its work cut out for it finding something scarier in that setting .

As a display of sweaty manflesh, also a rousing success

Wait, this is second on the list??

It's an unutterably silly movie, what with growing, of all things, tomatoes as a primary sustenance crop, but there's a reason why the hero is introduced shirtless and panting.

My relation to sweaty manflesh is pretty canonical, but it's much easier to come by than my #1 on the list.

I mean, how often do we see a movie where when the saviour rounds the corner on a horse he evokes knight instead of cowboy? Not often enough. I loved that.

Let me ask you this: Was the moral of that story supposed to be

As far as I could tell, Aims? Yes. Beeeeeeeeewaaaaaaaaare the unopened mail!

DH and I saw the Infernal Affairs trilogy last night at the NYFF. As has been widely reported by the sorts of people who report such things, the first two are good, and the third one is...not. Basically, the first movie is a slick police thriller, and the second one is a gangster epic, and the third one is kind of a psychological thriller, but there's so much filler -- the actual storyline, such as it is, could have been dealt with in about ten minutes -- that it ends up looking more like a deleted scenes reel from the first two films.

I actually liked the second one better than the first, but if the first gets released anywhere outside of NYC, it's also very worth seeing. Lots of fun.

Wait, Infernal Affairs is a trilogy? The Times reviewed it as one movie. Do you mean, it's 3 stories in 2 hours, or 3 different movies?

I think what's been released here first is the second in the narrative.

For limited uses of the term "here" -- it's very frustrating.

Wait, it's a trilogy and the only part that's being shown in US is the second part? That makes sense in a way... it doesn't. Well, it's probably be never shown in my neck of the woods anyway. Bah.

I hear Martin Scorcese is trying to get an American version of the movie(s) on a way. With Matt Damon and I forget who else. On one hand, Scorcese and conflicted gangster/cop/ethical quandary appear to be a good fit, but what IS with Hollywood remaking any semi-successful foreign film? Do they think Americans won't see movies with subtitles? Uh, wait...

Do you mean, it's 3 stories in 2 hours, or 3 different movies?

It's three different movies, but only one is being release in the States. (Which is why we saw it at the film festival, since it was the only way to see all three.)

I think what's been released here first is the second in the narrative.

Sort of -- it's actually the first movie, but since II is a prequel, it's chronologically second.

The remake has Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio, but I can't remember who plays which part.