Search
Search results
Mike Birbiglia recommended Moonstruck (1987) in Movies (curated)
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire in Books
Oct 22, 2018
Why do I have a feeling that the guy who wrote this just went on a rant and decided to put that whole rant into one giant ass book?
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Phoebe Robinson recommended We Should All be Feminists in Books (curated)
Richard Hell recommended Shoah (1985) in Movies (curated)
David McK (3227 KP) rated Before They are Hanged: The First Law: Book Two in Books
Jan 28, 2019
Second book in [a: Joe Abercrombie|276660|Joe Abercrombie|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1421267339p2/276660.jpg]'s 'The First Law' series (so after [b: The Blade Itself|68616|The Blade Itself|Marcus Sakey|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437443720s/68616.jpg|1002512], this - again - weighs in on the heavier end of the spectrum: it's not a light read by any means, either in size or scope!
This is also a true sequel to the previous, in that if you hadn't read the earlier you wouldn't have a clue what was going on/who was who. As before, this pretty much jumps between characters chapter by chapter, while the novel is also split into two distinct sections, with the split coming roughly at around the halfway mark with the fall of Dagoska after the torturer Superior Glotka is recalled.
Of them all, I have to say, I found 'his' chapters to be the most interesting, in particular his continued snarkiness to any and all around him.
I also found this to be very much a bridge novel - after being introduced to the characters in [b: The Blade Itself|68616|The Blade Itself|Marcus Sakey|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437443720s/68616.jpg|1002512], a lot of this seemed to be setting the scene for what-I-imagine-will-be the events in [b: The Last Argument of Kings|944076|Last Argument of Kings (The First Law, #3)|Joe Abercrombie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1302062699s/944076.jpg|929012].
However, I need a break from all the darkness now for a while!
This is also a true sequel to the previous, in that if you hadn't read the earlier you wouldn't have a clue what was going on/who was who. As before, this pretty much jumps between characters chapter by chapter, while the novel is also split into two distinct sections, with the split coming roughly at around the halfway mark with the fall of Dagoska after the torturer Superior Glotka is recalled.
Of them all, I have to say, I found 'his' chapters to be the most interesting, in particular his continued snarkiness to any and all around him.
I also found this to be very much a bridge novel - after being introduced to the characters in [b: The Blade Itself|68616|The Blade Itself|Marcus Sakey|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437443720s/68616.jpg|1002512], a lot of this seemed to be setting the scene for what-I-imagine-will-be the events in [b: The Last Argument of Kings|944076|Last Argument of Kings (The First Law, #3)|Joe Abercrombie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1302062699s/944076.jpg|929012].
However, I need a break from all the darkness now for a while!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 24, 2019
Sci Fi Film Noir Masterpiece
When film scholars debate whether Alien or Blade Runner is director Ridley Scott's best film it is hard to make an argument against each as both are masterpieces It's funny that although they are both science fiction films, they are completely different in tone, style and action.
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!
The art direction and cinematography are almost unmatched even under today's standards and then consider this movie is from 1982 and it is just astonishing. I won't argue with someone who says the film is slow developing or style or substance; however, I do not consider that a negative whatsoever. Consider it just another way to tell a story. Why do movies always have to follow the same formula to be considered a acceptable?
It is hard to believe the film only managed US box office of $27 million upon its original theatrical release. It's cult status was almost immediate along with the rise of home video and eventually DVD. The various cuts of the film and the vast and minor differences between them can make the meaning of the film quite different depending on how you interpret it.
The argument whether or not Deckard is a replicant could really depend on which version of the film you have seen or what you choose to believe.
Nevertheless, the film still stands the test of time as a sci fi classic and one of the most visually stunning films ever made!
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2086 KP) rated Death of a Crabby Cook (Food Festival Mystery #1) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
Darcy has taken a job helping her aunt in her San Francisco food truck. On her first day, Aunt Abby gets into an argument with the chef at a nearby restaurant who wants the food trucks, which he views as competition, gone. When he is murdered that night, Abby becomes the chief suspect.
This was a wonderful debut. The characters were real and fun to spend time with. I absolutely love how the romance is already progressing. The plot is strong with plenty of twists and turns that kept me guessing right until the very end. I'm already hungry for the sequel.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2014/08/book-review-death-of-crabby-cook-by.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
This was a wonderful debut. The characters were real and fun to spend time with. I absolutely love how the romance is already progressing. The plot is strong with plenty of twists and turns that kept me guessing right until the very end. I'm already hungry for the sequel.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2014/08/book-review-death-of-crabby-cook-by.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Lorene Scafaria recommended Friends With Money (2006) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
Not the first R-rated superhero movie, nor the first superhero comedy film, nor even the first movie to feature Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson, but it does a good job of appearing to do something new and different, and has lots of good jokes. Garrulous mercenary volunteers for special procedure in attempt to fend off terminal illness; basically ends up with cancer as a super-power.
The plot is really very secondary to the style of the film, anyway, which is all about being very irreverent and transgressive towards the perceived conventions of the superhero movie; there's a bit of a straw man argument being made here, but the action is well staged and it is, as mentioned, very funny. Not the future of the genre, no matter what people may say, but a well-crafted piece of entertainment nevertheless.
The plot is really very secondary to the style of the film, anyway, which is all about being very irreverent and transgressive towards the perceived conventions of the superhero movie; there's a bit of a straw man argument being made here, but the action is well staged and it is, as mentioned, very funny. Not the future of the genre, no matter what people may say, but a well-crafted piece of entertainment nevertheless.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Oct 21, 2018
Sci-fi horror at its finest
A simple concept of a group of astronauts returning from a far away mission and awakened prematurely by their computer to investigate an unknown signal so thy can investigate. What they find within the hostile environment of the strange planet started an entire new genre of sci-fi horror which has not been equaled even to this day.
You can make an argument which is better Alien or Aliens; however, Aliens is an action film whereas the original Alien is claustrophobic, uneasy, foreboding and a masterpiece.
The stunning visuals accompanied by a stellar cast and a masterful look and feel make Alien a true one-of-a-kind and something that has been mimicked and copied over the years with varying degrees of success without equaling the original.
You can make an argument which is better Alien or Aliens; however, Aliens is an action film whereas the original Alien is claustrophobic, uneasy, foreboding and a masterpiece.
The stunning visuals accompanied by a stellar cast and a masterful look and feel make Alien a true one-of-a-kind and something that has been mimicked and copied over the years with varying degrees of success without equaling the original.