You come to a movie like this, if you are like me, thinking that it is another propaganda attempt by the left, trying to convince you that Christians with bibles are loonies that go around blowing up stuff. Thankfully Mark Pellington (Director) opted for something more realistic than that stereotypical portrayal.

There are no madmen, in the conventional sense, in this film, just ordinary people with grudges. People who have been hurt by the government and want to get back at it for what they perceive to be injustices. Pellington also reminds us that we are so quick to find scapegoats to blame because it gives us a sense of relief, a feeling that all is once again right with the world, and that acts of terrorism can only be carried out by 'others' not by people like us. I don't want to give you the wrong impression however, because this is certainly not a didactic movie.

As to the movie itself, the plot is cleverly written and you definitely feel the tension and suspense building as the movie progresses. The characters are believable and frightening because of their normality. Joan Cusack was perfectly cast as the wife of the half-sane, half mad terrorist. I still can't get forget that sinister smile of hers. Tim Robbin's character was credible, with the right balance of insanity and reason. He definitely wasn't the 'typical villain.' As for Bridges, he was the one who made this whole movie work, without him the movie would have flopped.

I would highly recommend this movie, I don't give too many movies 5 stars but this one definitely deserved it. Arlington Road has a great cast, a great storyline, but best of all, it gets you to thinking about terrorism and what motivates terrorists. This is a very relevant movie, especially after the events of 9/11.

I saw 'A fish called Wanda' a while back but didn't know there was a sequel. You can imagine my joy when I found out that Cleese, Curtis, Kline & Palin had teamed up again.

I won't bore you with the details of the plot as it will just be a rehash of what previous reviewers have said. The main thing you must be wondering if you've seen the first film is: Is this movie funnier? Or if you haven't seen "A fish called Wanda," Is it worth watching? The answer to both questions is yes.

However it depends to a large extent on what you consider to be comedy. If you like Monty Python, Yes Minister, Fawlty towers, BlackAdder (generally British humor) etc...then this movie will definitely appeal to you. If you are more into the American-style 'action-comedies' this movie may not be as funny to you.

Although most people think Kleese was the funniest, I liked Michael Palin as the loquacious know-it-all the best. I had to press pause a couple of times so that I could stop laughing before I continued with the movie. As in most other comedies there are the 'dry' parts, fortunately though, this movie has very few of those.

My only gripe was that Kline's accent sounded more Australian than New Zealand, and he was supposed to be a Kiwi. This is not noticeable to those unfamiliar with these two accents, but it would be like having an American (U.S) actor use a Southern accent when playing a Canadian.

Even with that petty 'grievance' I would highly recommend this movie. If you can, you should also watch "A fish called Wanda" which is equally funny.

I'm not a football fan. In fact all I know about the game is that there is a ball that must be moved from one end of a rectangular field to the other. Stone decided to draw parallels between this modern game and the gladiators in Ancient Rome. The suggestions were anything but subtle, what with the grunting, clashing sounds, the numerous shots of Ben Hur and the actual references in the film you couldn't help but notice.

Although this movie is ostensibly about football, I came away from it learning a bit more about life. The movie is about an old coach (Al Pacino) whose love of the game has blinded him to life's real pleasures, an injured QB (Quaid) who is easily manipulated by others to continue playing even if it is detrimental to his health. The daughter (Diaz) of a dead football 'baron', who seeks to fulfill her father's lost hope for a son, and a rising star (Foxx) who is blind to everything but his own gratification. From these cast of characters Stone creates drama.

This movie is exciting even for those, like me, who aren't too interested in football. The game scenes seem more like gladiatorial battles than actual football games, and you are left wondering if we have really changed from those Romans thousands of years ago, the way 'we' love these slugfests.

As some earlier reviewers mentioned, Stone appears to be slightly biased in his portrayal of the management of these teams. They are definitely out to make money, but I doubt they are as ruthless as they were made out to be. He should have had some perspective in this movie so as not to make it seem like the management were the 'baddies' and the players hapless pawns.

Overall, this was a great movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes drama. For those with kids, you might want to watch it beforehand as it has some sexual scenes, nudity and quite a lot of obscene language.

I got this movie, expecting to see a thriller based on fact. What I got instead was a teen-flick that seemed more like Scream than a movie about the powerful elite that (purportedly) runs countries and continents. Don't get me wrong however, this movie is definitely a thriller but it isn't sinister enough. The Skulls seem more like a group of spoilt brats than a highly efficient secret organization filled with the best minds.

The story was not very credible, how do a group of teenagers bring down such a secretive society that is said to span the globe? Surely the Skulls are not so incompetent as to allow a teen-journalist to enter their most sacred chambers with such ease and steal all their secrets.

There must be better movies about the skulls out there because this one was a real disappointment. I can only recommend this movie to those who like thrillers, just don't get this movie if you are expecting an expose on the skulls.

There was one reviewer who said he would have liked to see Jackson and Walker more physically involved with each other. It amazes me that there are such deviants who watch these movies to fulfill their perverted fantasies. The movie was about the Skulls not about homoerotic fantasies.

Ronald Coase, apart from his economic genius, is an excellent writer. In this series of essays Coase traverses a wide range of topics in the discipline from what part economists should play in public policy to who Alfred Marshall's Uncle was.

As the title of the book suggests, the first seven essays deal with economics, and Coase's views on it. The essays are short, witty (some of them) and never dull. What Coase has to say on "How should Economists choose" is a must read as he deals with 'truth' in the discipline. Is economics the 'King' of the social sciences? Coase has something to say on that as well in "Economics and Contiguous Disciplines" and there are 5 other essays in this section.

The next part deals with the lives of some economists, mostly those whom Coase knew personally from England: Marshall, Plant, Black, Pigou & Stigler. The first two essays in this section deal with Marshall's ancestry and are the least interesting essays in the whole book as Coase becomes Sherlock Holmes, seeking out Marshall's true origins. Not particularly interesting stuff. The other essays in this section dealing with economists and the LSE are far more interesting as they give you glimpses of the lives of these great thinkers.

A good short read, recommended.

Nature's numbers is the work of the Panel on Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting chaired by William Nordhaus (Economist) to "address the question of whether the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) should be broadened to include activities involving natural resources and the environment" p.1.

The book has five sections, the Introduction, a brief history of NIPA and its application to the environment, accounting for subsoil mineral resources, accounting for renewable and environmental resources and an overall appraisal. It also includes useful appendices giving data sources, mathematical formulae for forestry accounting and an explanation of the Output-sustainability correspondence principle.

This book is very accessible, and requires only minimal familiarity with national income accounting, and environmental economics. Chapter 1 is a short history of national income accounts. Chapter 2 discusses the deficiencies of the traditional measures and how economists are trying to incorporate non-economic forms of capital into the accounting framework. Chapter 3 is a brief discussion of how to account for subsoil minerals and what the current problems are that face those who try to measure these resources, not only measurement problems, but conceptual as well, such as appropriate discount rates when valuing mineral stocks. Chapter 4 discusses renewable and environmental resources focusing on forests and air quality; again the authors discuss the valuation issues both within the U.S (B.E.A) and also overseas. The final chapter deals with recommendations from the panel about what the B.E.A should do, and not surprisingly requests extra funding for the B.E.A to carry out this task. Among the other recommendations, the panel suggests that the B.E.A should work on a comprehensive set of accounts rather than the staged-approach that it had previously followed till it was ordered to cease work on its task.

Those who would find this book useful are mostly students of economics and/or the environment. It is quite informative and gives the flavor of what it is those involved in the collection, interpretation and distribution of statistics are involved in. There is not much math (for the math averse) and whatever math is involved is in the Appendix.

For those of us who did not have the opportunity to learn an instrument at an early age, and who have always considered playing one but have put it off or thought we were too old, Robilliard's book is a great encouragement. No one is too old to learn the piano, (according to her) and she gives examples of people who have started learning it at an advanced age and who have become quite accomplished, even octogenarians (or nonagenarians) can start learning to play the piano and make good progress. Remember that just before his death; Socrates learned to play the flute. It's never too late to learn anything.

Robilliard is realistic however and she asks us to look at our ability and aim for goals that are within our reach. Even though one can go on to become a Richter, most of us wont and so we shouldn't compare ourselves with these people but with others similar to us in ability. She dispels the myth that the older one gets the less able one is.

"...an adult can inhibit his ability to learn by regarding himself as being unduly handicapped as compared with the child. Society, too largely identifies the activity of learning with childhood and adolescence (though this is a social convention dependent on economic factors), and thus the adult assumes that this association is a fact of life"...p.20

This book is not an instruction manual, or a "Teach yourself piano" book, it is more like a quick 'pep talk' which gently affirms your choice to take up the piano at whatever age, and it serves that purpose well.

The book was published in 1967, so some of the recommended material is dated. There is obviously no reference to CDs, MDs, and computer aids etc... There are many forums and websites on the Internet for the adult piano learner and after reading this book, I would recommend you search those out.

There are excellent reviews here about this movie, most of them rate it highly, and rightly so. It is no accident that this DVD is on average (at the time of writing) around 4.5 stars.
I must confess I did not know about Peter Sellers before watching this movie. I was recommended the movie by an 'artsy' friend - you know, the type of guy that thinks Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made - so I wasn't expecting too much, knowing how these types prefer style over substance.

I was pleasantly surprised. This is the type of film anybody can enjoy, it's seriously funny. It will probably have more meaning if you are familiar with the Cold War and the arms race, but if you don't know too much about that, the extras are a great help. There is one extra that deals with the making of the film, and how at the time of its production there was some subtle opposition to its release. Subtle in that the Air force was unwilling to lend it's expertise in the design of the B-52 bomber used in the film, and there was fear that its release at the time of J.F.K's death might have been seen as unpatriotic.

Well that's all behind us now, and we don't have to worry about the bomb so we can enjoy it more as a comedy than as a political message presented as satire. I must say that Peter Sellers is a genius; I couldn't tell when I first watched it that he was playing three roles! There are so many funny parts in the film and I don't want to spoil it for you by mentioning any. George C. Scott is also excellent and has some very memorable lines.

A bonus for me was that there was a language soundtrack in five languages; German, Italian, French, Spanish and English (off course) plus there were subtitles in more languages which is great for anyone trying to learn a new language.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who loves satire and who appreciates jokes that aren't always below the belt.

Victor Anderson's 'Alternative Economic Indicators' is a short introduction into why economic indicators as presently used by most Economists (such as the GNP, GDP and even the NNP) are inadequate as measures for the progress a nation makes.

He takes into account arguments by the pro-growth and the anti-growth groups, and then tries to work a synthesis that takes both sides views into account. While it would be admirable for us to go back to nature, the majority of people in this world are not content with such a lifestyle and so we must be pragmatic. This book is not a 'what we should do' book however. It deals with a very narrow, but quite possibly one of the most important contributions to this whole debate, and that is the indicators that are used to measure 'progress' however we define it.

He states that we should describe the economy in three ways, financially (as is done presently) from the human or social point of view and lastly the natural world. He then goes on to list what would make good indicators and using his criteria selects a number of present indicators that should be used and given greater prominence.

Most of the indicators that he mentions are not new, the old problems that plague statisticians are still present and he admits this, especially lack of data in countries that desperately need to keep data and he argues toward the end (pg. 94) that 'there should be financial assistance to Third World countries, through the United Nations, for the development of more adequate systems for collecting and processing statistical information'.

All in all, quite an informative book and it would make a great supplement to traditional economic texts or as an introduction to the need for broader measures of man's economic progress.

After having read Durant's 'The story of Philosophy' I was hooked. This author had made the main ideas that had troubled philosophers accessible to the non-Philosopher; to the average Joe that wanted to know what Philosophy was all about. So when I found out he had written a book about "The greatest minds and ideas of all times" I knew I had to get it.

This book is really short, so you know straight away that he wont be going into too much detail and that the book will have to be really selective about who it discusses. It was unfortunate, to me at least, that Durant had to spend so many pages justifying his selection and thus making the actual discussion of the people and ideas much shorter. Some people received only 2 pages which was a disappointment. It would have been better had Durant instead of justifying himself, written more about those people and ideas which would have justified themselves to the reader.

As he admits readily, many of the greatest poets are his favorites, so I think it would be fair to say that his choice of greatest peoples and ideas are not as objective as one might like them to be, but can such a 'top 10' or 'top 12' list ever be wholly objective?

That said, I would still recommend this book to those wanting to know what Durant thought was important to human civilization over its thousands of years of history.

The selection of book Durant gives is quite good, although personally I prefer Mortimer Adler's, which you can get from the Internet or his book "How to read a book: - Appendix A".