If you're not familiar with the terms "memes" or "memetics" or havent stumbled onto books by Richard Dawkins this would not be a bad place to figure out what this relatively fresh scientific fuss is about.
A meme is an idea that "seeks" to occupy a brain, use it as a host and then as a tool to spread. Many memes form memeplexes and memeplexes in turn form behaviors. The more powerful a meme is the better its chances to be "hosted" (accepted) and thus spread regardless of its usefullness or not and regardless of its "goodness" or "badness": if it's strong enough it will be replicated and spread.
This, in a nutshell, is the theory about memes and memetics presented in this book.

In my opinion it doesnt take too much convincing for this theory to appear pivotal in the process of understanding the works of the human brain. It is so strikingly obvious that this is exactly what's going on in the every day wars of the minds around "our" world that what is actually interesting is to what extend this process stretches.
And while S.Blackmore does a great job in laying out her theory and explaining memetics she does eventually fall into the great trap such scientific theories are prone to: overgeneralising and dogmatising.
To an extend, memetics do provide an adequate explanation for human behavior, but on the other hand, they leave certain areas as dark as they were before memetics were conceived. For example, memetics do not provide an explanation as to why memes that actually work towards our self-destruction as a species get copied anyway. Stating that they are replicated because "they are strong" is too simplistic because
a) masses of people might not replicate such memes yet they do prevail because of the structure of our societies
b) what does it say about our "intelligence" (the very same intelligence that helps us understand memes) if we do indeed copy self-destructful memes?
It is especially about this second question that this book and in general the theory about memetics fails to be fulfilling the way memetists would wish for.
I would personally have no problem to entertain the idea that our "intelligence" is way overrated and that our brains are majorly flawed but such an idea is not offered to me as an option in this book, and not only that, but the exact opposite is basically at times claimed and at other times implied in the "Meme machine".

Memes do exist (massively so) and do influence what we are and what we do (undeniably so). But where is the line drawn and is there such a line?
Memetists state that such a line probably does not exist and that memes are directly and solely responsible for every human behavior that we see around us. That would be too holistic and too nihilistic at the same time. Why do i say that?
Well, for starters it is actually totally hilarious that we are actually a species that admits it can only use a sorry 5% of its brain and yet with this 5% it claims to understand the other 95% as well. Memetists (and scientists alltogether) seem to somehow overlook this "tiny", "little" detail not only when they examine the human brain but also when they take on other, bigger (??) issues on, such the universe and so forth.
The theory that seems to be a great dogmatic aspect of our current science: "there's only what meets the eye" (and memetics stands on exactly that premise when you analyse it down to its core) is one that never convinced me and actually, the more i read and acquire what little knowledge i can as a human the more inplausible it becomes.

This is not the view of a theist (I'm very far from that) but the view of a realist, whatever realism my personal 5% usage of my brain allows me to.

Understanding what memes are and how they work will help you understand our current predicaments more than anything. The fact that most of the time we imitate without discrimination, without applying judgement is obvious but is it our nature? What if we taught children how to NOT imitate in such a pathetic way or how to filter and process every single thought that goes or gets created in their brains? What would happen then and where would that put the whole memetics theory?

To finish things off, i do recommend this book. I do in no way recommend to accept it in the overwhelmingly dogmatic fashion it presents itself.
Memetics are useful and we need them in our effort to understand. But if we try to turn them into another scientific religion we will achieve the exact opposite.

This is beyond any doubt one of the most overrated films ever made and simoultaneously a classic case of people raving about it only to not be blamed of "not getting it".

Terry Gilliam does a terrible and incredibly vague adaptation of Orwell's "1984" and fails basically on levels:
-Brazil is supposed to be funny and it is, that is if you think that silliness is the same as humour. It's supposed to be a satire and it is if you think that satire equals hysterical exaggerations with no substance
-Brazil is also supposed to be a serious look at a totalitarian and bureaucratic society and in that respect it's supposed to be scary as well. Actually what we live through today is multiple times scarier than "Brazil" and many more times self-satirical. When life outdoes art then art has failed.
-The acting in this film is again hysterical and at the very least annoying. The story (what there is of it) is one that actually leaves you totally uncaring about any character and your only motivation (if you manage to sit through it) is to see it all end.
-the directing is one of the most pompous attempts i've seen by any director to scream through his "film: "look how intellectual i am and how different i can be". Difference does not of course guarantee quality. No wonder that mr-Gilliam went on to direct horrors like "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" (where he butchers yet another book) or "12 monkeys" where he destroys the obviously big potential that script had.

Overall this film is an excruciating experiment on your patience as well as your intelligence. Sure, one can argue that there are a few good and thought provoking cuts in it, but hey, shifting through any garbage can will provide you with the same rewards.
Do yourself a huge favor and either read the masterful "1984" or totally avoid this mess.

With the 3rd part of the series now installed, The Terminator goes the full circle: from groundbreaking (T1) to braindead (T3).
The only question that lingers painfully on after watching this disastrouly bad film is whether it's actually a parody of the previous 2 parts. If it is, then it fails at that too because funny it isn't either.
But, if this is supposed to be taking itself seriously (and i'm afraid it does) then it fails even worse because there's absolutely nothing serious about it oncesoever:
-a childish and sorry excuse for a script that never takes off, goes (inevitably) nowhere and finishes in noman's land..
-acting for which you'd have to conduct some serious search to find it in as bad quality as it's found here
-a braindead explosion-festival that looks like a sony-station game with little ambition, where the good wipe off the bad and vice versa leaving the audience with a functioning brain in total apathy..

This is really a pity considering that T1 which kicked this series of films off was cutting-edge on many levels and T2 did follow up in a respectable manner. This one though is obviously just a cheap vehicle for making money. There is no "edge" here, as all the explosion fair has been seen before countless times, there's no extension of the plot from the previous "Terminators", there's frankly nothing.
There are some things though that are in fact impressive, indeed far more impressive than the "effects" which are actually a bad repetition of those in T2: that would be the fact that "Arnie" seems to speak worse and more unintelligible english the longer he's in America. I cant begin to imagine how that could be possible but several times through this "film" i caught myself thinking "what was that, what did he say???"

It hardly matters of course as there's barely anything of remote importance being uttered in this joke of a film but i'm still wondering.

As for the rest of the cast, I've seen real B-movies with far better acting than this. I'm saying B-movies, cuzz this is what T3 really is. A b-flick destined for the video-club sematary at best, allthough you'b wasting your money even if you simply rented this. As well as your time.
Hopefully he won't "be back".

...and the Hannibal saga goes on. The third installment of this trilogy had a few surprises up its sleeve: notably, the incredible cast, secondly that it's a very worthy continuation of the other two (a lot of people were expecting it to fail dramatically).
This time around it's Lecter back to his coaching methods again as he directs an FBI agent (Edward Norton) to find the "tooth fairy" killer (Ralph Fiennes).
The new elements in this film compared to its predecessors are that it contains more fear, more intimidation, and less dosages of dark humor. All these work in a positive way: they are not overblown out of proportion, in fact the film is superbly balanced throughout.
And, speaking of balance, the biggest trick is balancing big time actors like Harvey Keitel, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and of course Hopkins himself. Indeed, it's not Hopkins that dominates the proceedings here (even though it's impossible to even think of ignoring his presence) but Fiennes portraying the psychoting serial killer that the "doctor" is helping to track down. Fiennes gives a memorable (and tone setting) performance in one of his very best roles of his career.
Fiennes's performance helps shift the focus point from Lecter in an overwhemling way. Aided by Norton's subtle but ultra-convincing acting the whole film becomes a classic not only for fans of the Hannibal trilogy but for fans of the genre in general. Keitel is great in his rather small role and it goes without saying that Hopkins maintains his reputation as one of the all-time classic cinematic psychos.
The script is very well-crafted and maintains the suspense and the "edginess" from beginning to end, but what really does the trick are the dark optics that accompany it particularly the sequences involving Fiennes and his horrifying deeds.
As it has been mentioned already "Red Dragon" can be viewed either as a sequel to "Hannibal" or a prequel to the previous two parts. But even if viewed as a sequel it's actually incredible when you think that it could've been a disaster especially because of the hype prevailing the other two films before it. It's far from that, it's simply a great film.

When someone writes a novel (or develops a theory in a simple conversation) about the future he's not necessarily trying to be a "Nostradamus", "play god" or other such nonsense attributed to Huxley. First of all we all are opinionated about what's to come even in the not so close future. It's natural, it belongs in human sense to try and foresee where we are going because projecting helps us avoid mistakes, or, helps us "correct" our steering.
Huxley, more than half a century ago sees a society heading to a world full of cloned non-individuals who are conditioned with scientific (and horrifying methods) from childhood to behave in specific ways and fulfil specific "social missions" or "assignments". There's no free thought except for inside the frames you have been planned for and the illusion that your thoughts are indeed your own.

People (or the clones that inhabit Huxley's Brave New World) are born and kept into chambers where messages are repeated to them 100s or 1000s of times until these messages become a mentality that the clone sees as his own. Arts have been reduced to more scientific propaganda where there is no message to be conveyed except for the "feel good" effect that keeps things "quiet", there is no objections and no critique because as the clones are very well convinced "what is there to criticize".
For those with the occasional lapse in "reasoning" there is 'Soma' , a wonder drug which everyone takes and which soothes down your tendencies of questioning or depression. The uniformity is ruthless and anyone who (somehow) manages to step out of line is sent "away", usually in some place with rebels similar to him where conditions are harsh and opportunities for survival are scarce.
This is summarily Brave New World as seen by Huxley and if we try, or as we keep trying to see whether he did indeed have a point we can only compare with what we currently got. This is the only safe passage to a "safe" conclusion.
In that respect Huxley proves to be frightengly right even if the current methods dont seem similar to the ones described in his book (but who's to say they wont become such?).
While uniformity in today's society might not seem all-encompassing it's not in Huxley's book either. Today, people might not be conditioned from birth in chambers with countless repeated messages but they are conditioned through a uniform school system with uniformed dogmas. They then keep being conditioned with centrally controlled media and any objection or tendency for questioning is similarly thrashed by the weight of "public opinion" which is of course not the product of individual thought.
And as for the wonder-drug 'Soma'?

While we might not have a wonder-drug (yet) we have a plethora of other drugs which we all (or almost all) take for exactly the same reasons may those be alcohol, cigarettes, softer drugs, or harder or even the omnipresent anti-depressants which are becoming as common in use as alcohol.
What about the feel good arts, the 'feelies' as they are descibed in Huxley's book? Go into any record store and look at the charts. If you still have any objectional, individual thought in you, you wont see anything but message-less, critique-less, thoughtless art that only wishes to calm you down, to soothe you like a 'feelie' would. Sure, music that doesnt fit those lows exist but are you "trained" to find it or are you "conditioned" to understand it? The same applies for books or for movies.
Being that this is a review for a book and not a sociological analysis (which would probably take not one but many other books to start with) I'll keep it simple:
Huxley is indeed accurate in what he foresees based on his times. And while this development is not (or is it?) fully developed yet, while it will probably get a lot worse before it ever gets any better, the point remains the same. Had Huxley been living today and tried to write the same book i dont see how it could've been any different. If anything it would only be more scary or more discouraging concerning our course as a species what with cloning now being reality and not sci-fi anymore and with science being even more a servant to those that pull the strings for "our own good".

Some reviewers here say that the author is not charismatic or that literally looking at it he's a mediocre writer that has a powerful idea but doesnt know how to lay it out well. There might be a degree of truth in all of these claims but, in my humble opinion, with such books this is totally besides the point.
Huxley wants to express a fear, an angst, that not only he has, but many of us, before him, and after him. This is strikingly obvious. In in that "mission" of his he succeeds beyond any doubt because the present serves as hardcore evidence for his claims.

Along with '1984' by Orwell this book is not simply a "dystopian" classic but a great sociological analysis disguised as a novel. Its value is more than meets the eye especially when one thinks that our eye is not trained to meet much.

The long hard road to irrelevancy continues for Korn. Frankly, it couldnt have been any different simply because this group have since long adopted the recipe of simply repeating themselves to death.
I did not willingly listen to this, to me it's a given that there was nothing to expect here, but working in a record store i was submitted to the horror of having it go through my ears.
In the name of precision, I'll say that this album is not worse than the previous Korn LP. Nor the previous one to that either. It's simply just as bad or just as boring.

We've heard all this before, we know the "trick" by now and of course it cant work any more unless:
-you're a die hard Korn or nu-metal fan in general
-you're young enough not to know that this is by no means "new"..

In any case, it becomes utterly pathetic to hear for the millionth time the same "oh i had such a bitter childhood" lyrics and all the whining noone takes seriously anymore coupled with the same stop-go riffs and the same growls. Repeat 14 times cuzz that's how many the songs are.
Korn did cut a niche with their debut album and are responsible for a subgenre that was once fresh: nu-metal. But the meat has long gone stale.
An absolutely awful downward route to nowhere except album sales. But hey, Celine Dion sells lots of records. Mariah Carey does too. Michael Jackson as well. Don't mean they have quality. Neither does Korn.

A couple of notes before my thoughts about the film:

1. There's an ongoing barrage of comments in the reviews here in Amazon with people saying that the original Japanese version (Ringu) is better or more subtle and that you "should see that one first" or that the American version is inferior etc. etc. etc. Sorry people, but this is totally besides the point. What matters is whether this version works or not(in my opinion it totally does) and not whow it fares in comparison.

2. Lots of reviewers talk about plotholes and unanswered questions (most of them without mentioning even where these plotholes are and why they consider them "holes" to begin with)...Uhm, sorry again, but maybe you didn't notice that this is a film about the paranormal???? And, as such, it is by definition "allowed" NOT to follow your understanding of reality??? If it did, it would then have to do with something other than the peranormal! Comprende?

Ok, onto the film then. Needless to tell more about the story, it's been written in full detail by many others.
The Ring is the first thriller-horror film in a long while that has a superb storyline, a brilliant script, and very good to stunning acting performances as well as a great directorial effort.
Even though there have been recent great films in the genre (notably The Sixth Sense and The Others) the Ring goes one step further because of its frantic pace that doesnt let up for a single minute. That's a paradox really, and simoultaneously the Ring's claim to greatness because as you see it creates the impression that it's rather slow, but, there's constantly clues added as you watch, constantly the story evolves and the film doesnt sag at all at any given point.
On top of that, there are so many ingenius ideas that work to the benefit of the whole plot (the fly that comes alive through the screen, the tape lacking a number print, and of course the fact that it's a paranormal story which finds its outlet through modern technology).

The doom-ladden atmosphere is devoid of banality, particualarly the island setting in the film and the brilliant use of the murky weather backround, but overall the director has seriously worked on intimidating the viewers without resorting to cheap "boo!" tactics.
Sequences like the one on the ferry with the horse that goes wild will stay on peoples' minds for a long time but the Ring is actually full of disturbing optics that you keep with you long after you've exited the movie theater. The curse-carrying tape on its own is nothing short of an art-piece, surely one that will (hopefully) inspire more films in that direction.

Extra kudos for the casting of the film: the kid is a return to the 60s faces in the genre with its almost possesed look in his eyes, as is the girl herself with her tragic grimace, but where the film could have blown it and -thankfully- didn't is with the use of the "beautiful blonde" but she does an admittedly very good job in her part and contribution as does everybody in the Ring in general.

Not since the Shining (and that over 2 decades ago) have i come across a thriller that kept me edged throughout as this one did. That, i think, is a heavy compliment to this flick. The Ring is not to be missed by fans of the horror-thriller scene or by viewers who like intelligent well made films no matter what the genre.
Another thing that should be pointed out, is that Ring is also an allegory on television, or rather, becomes one whether it's intended to or not. At one point the reporter is standing on her balcony having a panoramic view in other apartment buldings and what their inhabitants are doing inside and sees everywhere a switched on television set. That, along with the fact that evil chooses to use the TV set as its entrance to our world is indicative of what i mean. But, it's not merely indicative, unless you -somehow- think that TV is NOT evil.....
Instant classic.

Possibly one of the most original alternative films I've seen in the past years, Donnie Darko is a powerful mind stimulator.
A brilliant deep-cutting script combined with intimidating acting and careful directing is what you get here but the more thoughtful viewers will also be awarded with valuable and out of the mainstream questions.
A young teen diagnosed with bordeline schizophrenia starts having weird meetings with a human size rabbit who looks part alien, part reptile, part artificial, and who carries a message of doom for Donnie Darko (the boy, and yes, that's his name)..Donnie begins to take the message very seriously but simoultaneously he begins paying attention to the world around him and in him. He understands with the help of his "friend" that nothing you see and observe is accidental.

Predictably, he comes at odds with the people he tries to convey this message to ("the world will end in 28 days"), he discovers that most people out there live on the surface of reality and not only they wouldnt dare take a dive underneath but wouldnt even consider there's something constantly eluding their awareness. Probably because their awareness is, hmm, defective?

Donnie Darko, inspired by his visions ( or his deeper glimpse of reality) begins a personal trek of questioning, redifining and re-interpeting. The strange "Grandma of Death" (an old woman who years ago had written a book about time travel and spends her time ever since waiting for a "message" herself) becomes a focal point for Donnie. But Donnie tries also to squeeze as much information about the puzzle of reality from other people around him, most notably certain teachers, he attempts to piece things together and bond all these realities that appear before his eyes and mind together.

The film is, as others have noted too, incredibly hard to classify. Viewers with a particular liking in the "alternative" will adore it as it encompasses loads of hints and direct references not only to time travel, but to parallel universes, telepathy and astral projection to mention but a few. But if the "paranormal" spooks you it has strong dosages of the "normal" reality most people experience too even if that is portrayed as a dull and depressing one. Which is yet another asset of the movie: it is as frank and honest as it gets.

The young actor who plays Donnie Darko is utterly convincing allthough he has his show stolen by his mother who adds the necessary down-to-earthness to it all with her refreshing performance. But there is no actor involved in this film who goes unnoticed and I'd have to think hard to find a parallel in that respect.
Lastly, this is an emotional rollercoaster of a film, it goes from scary to sad to funny and thought provoking to intimidating and back to melancholy in an stunningly effortless way (kudos to the script writer).

An absolute must-see.

Judging from most of the reviews here I'm obviously going against the flow, which is bizzare since one of the reasons i decided to read Heller's book was exactly the fact that most reviewers are raving about it. Oh well, there's a lesson to be learned here somewhere.

"Catch 22" is considered a classic but in my mind "classics" are books of the caliber of "1984" or "Brave New World" or "The Stand", books that hold up in time and deliver their message in a way that isnt anachronistic. "Catch 22" does not belong in such an "elite" category.
It's supposedly "hilarious" but that's a very emphatic statement to make about humour and, hmm, i hardly laughed with it. Sure, humour is (as are many concepts) just a matter of perspective but from my angle of the world this was hardly enough to make you grin. Another paradox is that many readers claim you "have to be well read" to like this or (even stranger) you "have to read this if you want to be well read".
This is absolutely untrue. What is actually true is that the more you've read the less the chances become you'll be thrilled by "Catch 22" and if you are not "well read" (which is hard to define anyway) "Catch 22" wont add too much to your thinking arsenal except in my opinion the obvious.

So what is the obvious here?

Heller goes into an overlengthy diatribe to deliver an antiwar message decorated with philosophy bits and some provocative thoughts. While he tries to bring forth the insanity of war he does so by using incredibly underdeveloped characters, a totally ineffective plot (if one can call this a plot) and humour that tries to be subtle sarcasm but fails completely as:
-if it's subtle i`t's so subtle it's almost invisible, and
- if it's sarcasm it's so harmless that it causes little concern to its targets.

I wont go into the story or the characters as many other reviewers have covered that in 1000s of reviews here. What i will add is this: "Catch 22" is painfully boring to read, it becomes almost a task as you go through the first 50-100 pages and you find the same concepts over and over repeated and what is supposed to be a "storyline" thinnning continuously until it almost dissapears. If all "classics" were like this my take is that literature could easily become mental torture.

What i find even sadder is that Heller fails while actually delivering an important message. This only drives home the fact that you might have the right thoughts but this doesnt mean you can express them in a literary way. Heller would be probably better off had he written a straight philosophical book which would have been way more in his element. As it is he takes a shot at literature and doesnt miss as he hits the target head on and the victim expires.
All a matter of perspective as i said, but i would advise you to take a good look at both the negative and the positive reviews about "Catch 22" before you decide whether to read it or not. You'll be surprised how completely contradicting they are. Hilarious and boring dont exactly go together. If, however, you do go on and read it dont be surprised if you find that you're forcing yourself through it.

Sting victimises himself with his own formula and it's not even the first time. This is a songwriter with a truly grand potential as he's proven in the past with brilliant albums like "Ten Summoner's Tales" or "Nothing Like the Sun". But almost systematically lately he's been releasing one after the other boring albums that fail to capture the listener, let alone reach the caliber of previous outings.

For fans who hoped that "Brand new day" (for example) was just a "bad moment" his new LP "Sacred love" will only do for renewed dissapointment. That's all it was for me.
This is really nothing that will go down as even close to memorable but rather a forgettable record with flat songs, lazy vocals and (uncharacteristically for Sting) empty lyrics. The music in particular sounds maybe apt for car or detergent commercials but hardly anything more ambitional than that.
There's not one single song here that grabs you, not one that makes your head turn or demands your attention. I work in a record store and as i heard it being played by a colleague the other day i thought this must be some "B-sides" release or someone with a stunningly similar voice to Sting but lacking the talent. Nope, it was Sting himself.

It might be (as can be the case with any artist) that the inspiration tank has run empty. It might also be (as is again often the case) that this is just a "professional fulfilment" (contracts etc) but, whichever the case, this is really a very mediocre album.

Sting keeps selling albums based on the momentum of former brilliance but he's also losing fans in hordes, especially the older ones who've heard him in way better times than his current ones. I'm starting to feel certain that those better times are not likely to return....