Produced by George Lucas
Directed by Steven Spielberg
With Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett
Seen in Theater
Hey, the price of admission was three bucks and it got from mediocre to good reviews. So why not?
Not surprisingly, this is a check your brain in at the door film, but it is good clean fun. I mean let's attempt to look at the plot. The bad guys are trying to get this skull that has something to do with some lost conquistadors that were searching for El Dorado. This skull of course has special powers and the bad guys want it (actually they want to return it because that is how they get the special powers) and Indiana Jones and pals are reluctantly helping them and fighting them. Apparently, when staring in to the eyes of the skull, it can make someone insane as it did to one professor that they were trying to rescue. But when Indy tried it, it affected him deeply (supposedly made some sort of connection between him and the crazy professor). yet ten minutes he's back to normal. Yeah - and the power is that they will be able to control and read people's minds, which is perfect for the bad guys because they are Russian communist who want to take over the world with their ideology (which is of course a true goal of communism).
What ever! It is all kind of besides the point. It is all about the action and the personality of Indiana Jones. And there, with all the resources of Hollywood and George Lucas, the film delivers on that part.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the film is the opening sequence which takes place in Atomic City - You know, the fake city that the U.S. Army constructed in New Mexico(?) to see the results of what would happen if an atomic bomb landed on a real city. Indiana is of course trying to outrun or out smart the atomic bomb, and (i don't think this is giving anything away) he does.
What makes me wonder is why they can't do a film like this with out all the hokum. Why can't the bad guys be trying to get incriminating papers or an existing, real weapon? Why does there have to be supernatural beings and aliens from outer space? You could still do the same action and comedy. In fact that opening sequence described above had vary little hokum and I thought it was particularly interesting. I guess since Indy is an archaeologist, his world is the world of legends, tales and cultures. (That too was interesting when he was explaining the characteristics of some cultures.) I mean that not too many bad guys are going to become ruthless killers to obtain a shard of pottery or an ancient chicken bone which is what archaeologists really deal with , if they are having a good day.
Then there is a new character to deal with. It appears that his character is to fill the shoes of Indy, since he is aging after all. But Indy has to be charming and I did not find this young kid to be charming at all. I thought he was kind of irritating - but he was a teenager so maybe that was the point.
So, while there is no hurry to run out and see this movie, it would surely make for some iteresting television watching. Or if perhaps you find the DVD in the clearance sction (that woulds be quite a while - but then there is no hurry is there?)
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Sacred and Profane Love Machine ***
Murdoch, Iris.
1974 1st Published Great Britain - Chatto & Windus
1974 1st published in U. S. - Viking Press
1976 Penguin Books
A little bit about the author first. She's British and she passed away in 1999. She is a favorite amongst hipsters (as far as I can tell). A friend of mine's wife (an aspiring author) claimed her to be one of her favorite authors and she was also recommended to me and other participants on a Tindersticks forum. Surprisingly, my local library branch had no copies of her books on the shelves even though she has written some 20 odd books. So that says something about her NOT being a mainstream author.
This is my second book by her and the patterns I see (granted reading only two books do not make much for extrapolating patterns) are that she tends to write about relationships between family members. These tend to be dysfunctional families.
What is interesting about her writing is that she really gets into the heads of her characters and she waxes philosophical. At the same time she writes these passages with some lovely poetic language. I like that in a book. I like that a book will follow a tangent and bring up some larger ideas to think about as opposed to a book that just follows the narrative. As long as the tangents don't get too out of control and confusing. Murdoch rarely does this. These passages are for the most part easy to follow and enjoyable to think about. There are some occasions where she goes a little overboard, and I do get a little lost, but those occasions are few. That would be one of my minor quips with the book. She does tend to go very slightly overboard on her tangents.
So this story is about this guy, Blaise, who has a wife and a mistress. The mistress is of course unhappy and wants Blaise to end his marriage. Eventually, though Blaise is afraid of the consequences, the wife finds out because Blaise tells her. Instead of being angry the wife forgives him for his transgressions because she knows that there are kids (both theirs and one that came from the relationship with the mistress) involved. Knowing that Blaise has commitments to both the mother and his second son, she agrees, no insists that Blaise spend time with his second family. Blaise's wife, Harriet, even tries to make friends and socialize with the other woman/mistress (Emily). But Blaise changes his mind after a while and goes back to Emily and then gets tired of being with Emily and tries to reconcile with Harriet his wife. It goes back and forth like that for a while. Basically, Blaise can't make up his mind, and everyone gets hurt. Meanwhile, Harriet has eyes on the second boy (son of Emily and Blaise) because her own son is a teenager and is withdrawing from her emotionally. So she see the other boy as a solution to this problem.
Well, the summary seems to get more confusing as I write it so I'll stop there, knowing that of course there are many details missing. One of the interesting parts of the story is why Harriet is so insistent about keeping the both families together. Apparently it is about control. (A feminist theme here?) If she runs the show, then she's in charge and she has control of the situation. That's her rationale. But when Blaise decides to run back to Emily (and live with her), Harriet changes. She seems at a loss, but she refuses to allow Blaise back into her life, even though that is of course what Blaise wants.
I am always intrigued by the author's point of view and how it relates to gender. Murdoch is woman writing during the seventies. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that being a woman from that time period that her writings have feminist undertones. If we look at the characters there is some proof of that. She doesn't exactly male bash, because all the characters are seriously flawed, but her female characters do come off a little better. For example:
Male -
Blaise - He's weak. He's grateful for his wife's and mistress' forgiving of him. He can't make up his mind what he wants. He allows Harriet to take control of everything.
David (Son of Blaise and Harriet) - He's lonely and weak also. When given an opportunity to hook up with a beautiful teenager, he's too scared and runs off. He's sullen and off putting.
Monty (neighbor of Blaise and Harriet who gets mixed up in all this) - True he's gone through a major trauma of his wife dying and his suspect role in it, but he is rude and callous to most of the people involved. One of the female characters calls him cold.
Luca (son of Blaise and Emily) - He's an eight year old boy with emotional problems. He won't speak to his parents and is almost mute, though he will speak to some other people.
Edgar (friend of Monty's who gets involved) - He's a hanger on. He sticks around when no one really wants him. He falls in love first with Monty's wife and then with Harriet but that love is unrequited. He's fat and an alcoholic.
female -
Harriet - She's missing the days when her son was young and she was able to be demonstrative with her affection. As discussed earlier, she tried to take control of the situation (Flaw or strength?) but when things fall apart she ends up throwing herself at both Monty and Edgar.
Emily - Blaise fell in love with her because she seemed more his type - more intellectual. Plus there was the physical relationship, which hints at some rough play. As time goes by though, she becomes bitter and shrew/ She's argumentative and always concerned about the worst happening. Of course she may have good reason to.
Sophie (dead wife of Monty) - She was cheating or at least claimed to be cheating on Monty. It made Monty very jealous of course. They were very argumentative even on her death bed.
Pin (Emily's friend and boarder) - She's one of the stronger characters. She rose from a simple char woman to a more middle class status. But she was conniving and there is always the impression that she was up to trouble.
Kiki - (friend of Pin's who made life difficult for Emily when she was Emily's student) - Young , beautiful and perhaps a bit of a schemer, or in the very least her youth makes her unable to empathize with others. She's also one of the stronger characters, but she's minor.
So which gender is painted worse? Maybe the males, but not by much. With the female characters, I see that all of them were strong in some ways, flaws and all.
A feminist book? A question I always like to ask. Another question I always like to think about is how would the characters be different if the book was written by a man. It always intrigues me how authors of the opposite sex treat those characters.
There is one last flaw that keeps me from rating this book a little higher. It gets a little repetitive. Especially with Blaise going back and forth between women. Sure there is a subtle change each time he changes his mind, but his rational is always the same. For Harriet it was how good she was and how calm and loving she was. How comforting she was to come home to. For Emily it was always his guilt. She had waited so long. She deserved her chance. She was always the one. His love for Emily was a "true" love. He simply could not make up his mind and wanted both. But the point is that it was a little repetitive, especially from Blaise's point of view.
1974 1st Published Great Britain - Chatto & Windus
1974 1st published in U. S. - Viking Press
1976 Penguin Books
A little bit about the author first. She's British and she passed away in 1999. She is a favorite amongst hipsters (as far as I can tell). A friend of mine's wife (an aspiring author) claimed her to be one of her favorite authors and she was also recommended to me and other participants on a Tindersticks forum. Surprisingly, my local library branch had no copies of her books on the shelves even though she has written some 20 odd books. So that says something about her NOT being a mainstream author.
This is my second book by her and the patterns I see (granted reading only two books do not make much for extrapolating patterns) are that she tends to write about relationships between family members. These tend to be dysfunctional families.
What is interesting about her writing is that she really gets into the heads of her characters and she waxes philosophical. At the same time she writes these passages with some lovely poetic language. I like that in a book. I like that a book will follow a tangent and bring up some larger ideas to think about as opposed to a book that just follows the narrative. As long as the tangents don't get too out of control and confusing. Murdoch rarely does this. These passages are for the most part easy to follow and enjoyable to think about. There are some occasions where she goes a little overboard, and I do get a little lost, but those occasions are few. That would be one of my minor quips with the book. She does tend to go very slightly overboard on her tangents.
So this story is about this guy, Blaise, who has a wife and a mistress. The mistress is of course unhappy and wants Blaise to end his marriage. Eventually, though Blaise is afraid of the consequences, the wife finds out because Blaise tells her. Instead of being angry the wife forgives him for his transgressions because she knows that there are kids (both theirs and one that came from the relationship with the mistress) involved. Knowing that Blaise has commitments to both the mother and his second son, she agrees, no insists that Blaise spend time with his second family. Blaise's wife, Harriet, even tries to make friends and socialize with the other woman/mistress (Emily). But Blaise changes his mind after a while and goes back to Emily and then gets tired of being with Emily and tries to reconcile with Harriet his wife. It goes back and forth like that for a while. Basically, Blaise can't make up his mind, and everyone gets hurt. Meanwhile, Harriet has eyes on the second boy (son of Emily and Blaise) because her own son is a teenager and is withdrawing from her emotionally. So she see the other boy as a solution to this problem.
Well, the summary seems to get more confusing as I write it so I'll stop there, knowing that of course there are many details missing. One of the interesting parts of the story is why Harriet is so insistent about keeping the both families together. Apparently it is about control. (A feminist theme here?) If she runs the show, then she's in charge and she has control of the situation. That's her rationale. But when Blaise decides to run back to Emily (and live with her), Harriet changes. She seems at a loss, but she refuses to allow Blaise back into her life, even though that is of course what Blaise wants.
I am always intrigued by the author's point of view and how it relates to gender. Murdoch is woman writing during the seventies. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that being a woman from that time period that her writings have feminist undertones. If we look at the characters there is some proof of that. She doesn't exactly male bash, because all the characters are seriously flawed, but her female characters do come off a little better. For example:
Male -
Blaise - He's weak. He's grateful for his wife's and mistress' forgiving of him. He can't make up his mind what he wants. He allows Harriet to take control of everything.
David (Son of Blaise and Harriet) - He's lonely and weak also. When given an opportunity to hook up with a beautiful teenager, he's too scared and runs off. He's sullen and off putting.
Monty (neighbor of Blaise and Harriet who gets mixed up in all this) - True he's gone through a major trauma of his wife dying and his suspect role in it, but he is rude and callous to most of the people involved. One of the female characters calls him cold.
Luca (son of Blaise and Emily) - He's an eight year old boy with emotional problems. He won't speak to his parents and is almost mute, though he will speak to some other people.
Edgar (friend of Monty's who gets involved) - He's a hanger on. He sticks around when no one really wants him. He falls in love first with Monty's wife and then with Harriet but that love is unrequited. He's fat and an alcoholic.
female -
Harriet - She's missing the days when her son was young and she was able to be demonstrative with her affection. As discussed earlier, she tried to take control of the situation (Flaw or strength?) but when things fall apart she ends up throwing herself at both Monty and Edgar.
Emily - Blaise fell in love with her because she seemed more his type - more intellectual. Plus there was the physical relationship, which hints at some rough play. As time goes by though, she becomes bitter and shrew/ She's argumentative and always concerned about the worst happening. Of course she may have good reason to.
Sophie (dead wife of Monty) - She was cheating or at least claimed to be cheating on Monty. It made Monty very jealous of course. They were very argumentative even on her death bed.
Pin (Emily's friend and boarder) - She's one of the stronger characters. She rose from a simple char woman to a more middle class status. But she was conniving and there is always the impression that she was up to trouble.
Kiki - (friend of Pin's who made life difficult for Emily when she was Emily's student) - Young , beautiful and perhaps a bit of a schemer, or in the very least her youth makes her unable to empathize with others. She's also one of the stronger characters, but she's minor.
So which gender is painted worse? Maybe the males, but not by much. With the female characters, I see that all of them were strong in some ways, flaws and all.
A feminist book? A question I always like to ask. Another question I always like to think about is how would the characters be different if the book was written by a man. It always intrigues me how authors of the opposite sex treat those characters.
There is one last flaw that keeps me from rating this book a little higher. It gets a little repetitive. Especially with Blaise going back and forth between women. Sure there is a subtle change each time he changes his mind, but his rational is always the same. For Harriet it was how good she was and how calm and loving she was. How comforting she was to come home to. For Emily it was always his guilt. She had waited so long. She deserved her chance. She was always the one. His love for Emily was a "true" love. He simply could not make up his mind and wanted both. But the point is that it was a little repetitive, especially from Blaise's point of view.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Book: The History of Venezuela *1/2
Tarver, H. Michael & Frederick, Julia C.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Opening Statement / Mission
What in the world am I doing here and what in the world are you doing here looking at this babble?!?!?!
Well... I'm not sure why I am here. My intention is to take my personal writing and share it on the wide world of the web. In the past I have enjoyed writing about what I love - the media. I love to see films (especially indies and foreign), buy music (over 1000 Cd's I owned until i purged my collection) and read books. I erratically kept journals of these things that I consumed and passed them along via e-mail to friends and family. So why not put them in the blogosphere and see who stumbles upon them. Maybe do some networking or meet new people or even just start an interesting conversation.
Why are you here? Well I really don't know. If you aren't a friend or family, then some how you stumbled upon this site. Perhaps you googled a topic that I wrote about. Well, you're here so let me warn you about a few things. I am not a professional journalist. My writing is not very good (though with practice perhaps I'll improve). Don't expect much in that way. These are basically journal entries. I don't intend to write carefully planned, well edited articles. I'm just putting them out there as they come out with minimal editing. So if you think I'm full of it, you are probably right and we should just start out right away with that premise. That way no one's expectations are disappointed.
Another thing that I should warn you about is that I try to rank everything by a star system. Art (film, literature and music) is of course subjective so some people might argue that stars have no value and I would agree with those people. But I know when I look at a review magazine, I don't have time to read every review and I know I don't have enough money to buy every CD/book/film, so I am more interested in what are the "best" (Subjective word) pieces out there to spend my hard - days wages on. Sure I might miss something that is really great becasue it didn't get enough "stars", but I ususally review more than one magazine (we're talking mostly about music now) so that if one critic overlooks some great treasure, perhaps someone else will rave about it somewhere else.
To have ratings of any kind, I believe it is best to define those ratings. Otherwise a 2 could be pretty good for one person and lousy for another person. So...
None = no stars = worthless
You should see this rating rarely since i pick my own stuff, and I like to think that I have pretty good taste. I'm not obliged to buy/review anything I am not interested in.
* = has some redeeming values
** = worth seeing/reading/listening - good but probably not high on a priority list of stuff to see/buy/read.
*** = Excellent
**** - Masterpiece
This should also be rare since a masterpiece should be a rare miracle.
I'm not afraid to use half stars either.
One last word about reviews. I tend to like some reviewers more than others. Probably because their tastes are more similar to mine. That might happen to you too. If we have different tastes, I probably will never see you again. If our tastes are similar (or you are the aforementioned friends and family - then you will be obliged to visit here often) then you might want to visit often - in spite of the amateurishness of the whole proceeding.
I also might throw some other stuff on here beside films, music and literature - some other odds and ends that might be interesting or useful.
Man - I thought I would write a couple of posts tonight, but I'm plum tuckered out. If I can find some old work, maybe I'll post. Otherwise...
Well... I'm not sure why I am here. My intention is to take my personal writing and share it on the wide world of the web. In the past I have enjoyed writing about what I love - the media. I love to see films (especially indies and foreign), buy music (over 1000 Cd's I owned until i purged my collection) and read books. I erratically kept journals of these things that I consumed and passed them along via e-mail to friends and family. So why not put them in the blogosphere and see who stumbles upon them. Maybe do some networking or meet new people or even just start an interesting conversation.
Why are you here? Well I really don't know. If you aren't a friend or family, then some how you stumbled upon this site. Perhaps you googled a topic that I wrote about. Well, you're here so let me warn you about a few things. I am not a professional journalist. My writing is not very good (though with practice perhaps I'll improve). Don't expect much in that way. These are basically journal entries. I don't intend to write carefully planned, well edited articles. I'm just putting them out there as they come out with minimal editing. So if you think I'm full of it, you are probably right and we should just start out right away with that premise. That way no one's expectations are disappointed.
Another thing that I should warn you about is that I try to rank everything by a star system. Art (film, literature and music) is of course subjective so some people might argue that stars have no value and I would agree with those people. But I know when I look at a review magazine, I don't have time to read every review and I know I don't have enough money to buy every CD/book/film, so I am more interested in what are the "best" (Subjective word) pieces out there to spend my hard - days wages on. Sure I might miss something that is really great becasue it didn't get enough "stars", but I ususally review more than one magazine (we're talking mostly about music now) so that if one critic overlooks some great treasure, perhaps someone else will rave about it somewhere else.
To have ratings of any kind, I believe it is best to define those ratings. Otherwise a 2 could be pretty good for one person and lousy for another person. So...
None = no stars = worthless
You should see this rating rarely since i pick my own stuff, and I like to think that I have pretty good taste. I'm not obliged to buy/review anything I am not interested in.
* = has some redeeming values
** = worth seeing/reading/listening - good but probably not high on a priority list of stuff to see/buy/read.
*** = Excellent
**** - Masterpiece
This should also be rare since a masterpiece should be a rare miracle.
I'm not afraid to use half stars either.
One last word about reviews. I tend to like some reviewers more than others. Probably because their tastes are more similar to mine. That might happen to you too. If we have different tastes, I probably will never see you again. If our tastes are similar (or you are the aforementioned friends and family - then you will be obliged to visit here often) then you might want to visit often - in spite of the amateurishness of the whole proceeding.
I also might throw some other stuff on here beside films, music and literature - some other odds and ends that might be interesting or useful.
Man - I thought I would write a couple of posts tonight, but I'm plum tuckered out. If I can find some old work, maybe I'll post. Otherwise...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
