This book is an epic.

To my surprise, a lot of people have commented that the book focuses too heavily on the life of the protagonist, Kunta Kinte- particularly before he is captured... apparently, they wanted to read more about the life and times of slaves in the United States. In that the book has a peculiar sense of imbalance because each succeeding generation is described more superficially than the last, I agree. Otherwise, I think that these folks kind of missed the point. The story is fundamentally about a family passing on the story of their African forebear and through this story, being able to connect with their origins as free people. Besides, we (Americans, anyway) already *know* a lot about the plight of the slaves just from sitting in history classes-- but we are not taught that the people who became slaves were real people before their capture. We are just taught that they were "from Africa" and that they were treated very badly on slave ships. Haley helps fill in some of the details which illustrate how "real" captured slaves were.

The story is very engaging, though toward the end, it does get a little thin. (Perhaps it is also somewhat frustrating to get so little literary payoff about times in history with which Americans are more familiar).

The only other thing that I found disturbing about this book was the use of dialect which, to enlightened people, appears to intentionally demean the characters. Whether or not the dialect is accurate, it detracts from the sympathy one is supposed to feel for the family portrayed.

I picked up this book with the expectation that I would be terribly angry until well after I had finished it and it didn't really disappoint me: the United States has a lot of skeletons in its closet and having them spelled out in such explicit detail is kind of sickening.

However, I took issue with one aspect of the book in particular: the author has a tendency to romanticize the Indians and their way of life. I'm not implying that pre-Columbian civilizations were in any way inferior to so-called Western civilizations-- but pre-Columbian peoples were humans, too, and they necessarily had faults. This problem with the book somewhat compromises the author's credibility, although it is true that in the book he writes of "bad Indians" and even of good white men.

There are also some stylistic elements in Brown's writing to which I was not endeared- it is narrated somewhat like a bland work of nonfiction and somewhat in the manner of folklore. However, others might appreciat this style.

...Each time I read it, I would find new layers, new clues... Raskin expertly wove all kinds of seemingly-random details together to provide a great mystery and a very rich story. It is a hilarious book but the characters are so human that it ends up being very real. I highly recommend The Westing Game for kids over nine... and adults will love it too.

Most of the songs were excellent and even artful, but by the end of the album, I felt almost assaulted by the wretched darkness of the music- probably I've outgrown my appreciation for endless pain and cruelty. But anyone who still possesses such tastes will thoroughly enjoy Murder Ballads: nobody but Cave could have performed this material so well.

...but i hated it. I found the movie completely unengaging: the characters were unlikable (with the possible exception of Posey's character) and the mother was so irritating i wanted to reach through the screen and strangle her. (Meara did a great job playing such an awful witch.) For the most part, the movie seemed to have a strong sense of reality about it: with realistic character flaws, unpolished dialogue, and the jagged edges one can expect to encounter in life. There wasn't much plot in the movie, and I suppose it frustrated me so badly because it was too much like real life and not the escape that fiction is supposed to be. The bottom line is that I found The Daytrippers to be realistic and well-made but absolutely intolerable.

Even more fun than 'Flaming Iguanas!!'

Damn, it's so difficult to write about why this book was so good without sounding stilted and phony. It's great because just about everyone can identify with Tomato's revenge fantasies, impulsiveness and goofy melodramatic streak, not to mention her social faux pas. It's lots of fun to get the vicarious thrill of watching her act out her deranged fantasies since most of us are really too inhibited to carry out much more than a low-key stalking of an ex. It's also great to see characters that are as weird as the psychos I come across in the course of my day.

:)

The setting of the movie is idyllic, and it helps the film come off as something of a modern fairy tale, though it has some serious issues it tries to tackle, with limited success. Michael Caine's character is lovable and he does a great job convincing the viewer that a man can be an excellent doctor, a caring man, and also something of a drug addict.

HOWEVER-- the main character is a total cipher. I don't think the expression on his face ever changed. He had the appeal (and personality) of a brick wall. I get the feeling that this may have been intentional. Whatever the case, he was totally unengaging and this put a real damper on the movie... I kept waiting for Michael Caine to reappear and do something interesting.

Last Supper is an extremely dark film about a group of liberal, artistic hippie/yuppies who decide to make the world a better place... by killing people whose opinions they find repugnant at their weekly gourmet dinners. (This is sure to please liberal folks who are too inhibited to do such things.) The movie is really an exploration of morality, with the implication that there is no clear difference between right and wrong- there's an awful lot of muddy in-between territory. The acting was pretty good, although some of the characters seemed a bit, uh, stereotypical.

But this movie isn't for everyone, as there is more talk than plot. (But it is good talk. These folks really do have a lot to talk about.)

Well, it was better than Cat's Eye.

I wish I could like Atwood. This could have been an enjoyable dramatic adventure for the women in the novel... I loved the premise of the book and was hoping for some juicy plot- bloody revenge or something even more sinister. But instead it's another psychodrama, a bunch of women paralyzed by their fear of a villainess whose evil has reached mythical proportions in their minds, when in actuality she is nothing more than a self-serving chick with a bit of a sadistic streak. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to accept their terror at the mere thought of Zenia.

Women can be vicious and cruel to one another, no doubt, but the way Atwood portrays these relationships seems unlikely.

There is a lot to like or hate about it, depending on who you are. It had a lot less, well, plot than I like to see, even in existential-type stories. The pointless murders and sex became tiresome, and the whole proceeding dragged on far too long. But on the positive side, at least it wasn't some formulaic kind of flick where everything is predictable and you've seen variations on that formula a million times. Also, the self-centered foulmouthed wench was just a great character, and before they become rote, the weirdness of the murders and sexcapades is quite appealing. So I guess I lied- at least one person (me) neither loves nor hates this movie.