Mr Hayes' ideas sound very similar to those in the book on 'the conquest of mind' or something (can't recall the exact title), and others on meditation as practiced by mystics for centuries, written by Sri Eknath Easwaran. Read the first sentence in the book, which goes something like: "Life is hard," or something to the effect that suffering is more the norm in life.

Today, the common culture focuses on how one satisfy one's WANTS in life (and not one's real NEEDS) in order to "live well," as defined by the consumerist culture. Mr Easwaran's books teaches one how to slow down and really live in the moment, in order to have a fuller life, in contrast to the constant pressure upon everyone today to multitask so as to get everything done yesterday. The latter can be a source of great stress for many people.

And so, while the USA boasts the most materially abundant people in the world, are they necessarily the happiest, too?

...my failing memory confusing M Scott Peck's book with Easwaran's. I believe Mr Caveal is correct. The first line in 'The Road Less Traveled' is 'Life is difficult.' I stand (or sit) corrected.

Also agree with other poster that the ideas are, indeed, very Buddhist in nature.

Wallace and Gromit have become such endearing and real characters to so many that no one thinks of them as mere clay figures anymore. What Mr. Park and company have done with the dotty old inventor and his smart, silent dog is nothing short of miraculous. I think what makes them so attractive to legions of fans is their (and their friends') kindness and gentleness (untainted by an insincere and saccharine sentimentality that tends to mar Disney's "good" animated creatures).

I'm sure that this simply reflects the creators themselves. There might be a nostalgia for these traits today, traits that are vanishing fast in the current, dominant culture of rudeness, vanity, selfishness and greed. I say, long live Wallace and Gromit! And Nick Park! And Aardman Animations! Bravo! And may you win a most-deserved golden statue!

...the 37-year-old actress, Naomi Watts. After toiling in Hollywood limbo for more than a decade in mostly forgettable flicks, she finally hits it big in David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" (which should have earned her an Oscar) and then goes on to bag a well-deserved Best Actress nomination for "21 Grams" (which she should've won then).

Of course, Ms. Watts is "lucky" because she CAN actually ACT - and how! - without resorting to Acting mannerisms a la Meryl Streep. She's also blessed with youthful looks, unlike others her age who don't possess even half her thespian gifts. She hasn't peaked yet, and I foresee a long and fruitful career before her.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of luck, too. Or a nice break. I'm sure Ms. Watts is eternally grateful to Mr. Lynch for the break. Or at least she should be.

As for Meg Ryan, I was just wondering what ever happened to "America's Sweetheart"? Now I know. Very sad. Good that she's trying something different, but she also needs some wise counsel about the decisions she takes.

Go see "Searching For Debra Winger" by Rosanna Arquette, and you'll feel exasperated with some Hollywood actresses as they whine, whine, whine about how the film industry "maltreats" them, and then do nothing about it. I think there's a lot more to be accomplished if they decide to finally stop the whining and band together - or something - and produce films for themselves. (Learn from Selma Hayek - who took it upon herself to produce "Frida", even if it took her 7 years to do so.)

...but it's the message of "V for Vendetta" that does it for me. It might be based on a comic book, but it's hardly a frivolous piece of film. It stands up as fine entertainment, too. So it fails as a treatise against totalitarianism - but sometimes simplification is what is needed to get certain points across. If everything touched on in 'V' were to be elaborated upon, you'd end up with a 10-hour movie. Besides, satire and reality coincide far too often today. It's much too easy to connect the dots between reel life and real life anymore.

I thought the film an intelligent and riveting work that's definitely flawed (paranoia tinges a few of the film's assertions), but hey, I'll take every fighting, truth-telling piece of art wherever I can find it. Do you think George Orwell's "1984" was a perfect masterpiece? I didn't think so, as his premise still seems so over-the-top - even if reality continues to prove him right again and again. 'Twas the message, ma'am, 'twas the timeless and timely message of the fable that he tells. In brief, "V for Vendetta" is "1984," just updated to the present.

...constantly criticizing the critic on Salon? I say, post your own opinion instead, and just keep writing, Stephanie - even if I may disagree with you at times!

As for Ms. Stone, she manages to rise above the material a lot of the time. Besides those movies already mentioned, there's also the Stone-produced "The Quick and the Dead" from '95, which was still loads of fun to watch despite all the Western film cliches - thanks in large part to Sharon Stone's credible performance in it.

...I'm hoping that "Marie Antoinette" is better than it sounds from Andrew O'Hehir's report. An 18th century period picture set to 21st century rock/pop? Er, I'm not so sure I like that trick. Is there any plot or story to the film? The trailer looked so promising, too. Just hope it doesn't disappoint too much when it finally hits the US theaters, re-edited or not.