Posted by Erin
Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:03:14 GMT
I can't decide how much I liked this book. On the one hand, I enjoyed getting a perspective I don't think I've ever had before--the narrator, like the author, is an African-American law professor at a prestigious law school. He is firmly entrenched in the black upper middle class, which apparently is pretty elitist. The book is very well-written and has lots of interesting characters, including a pro-life libertarian lesbian. Descriptions of the different but overlapping worlds of law professors, D.C. lawers and judges, black Baptist preachers, shadowy, unscrupulous mob types, and an extended family with various hang-ups and quirks are detailed and believable.
Basically, though, it's a very long murder mystery (although part of the mystery is whether or not the dead person at the beginning was really murdered), and I'm not a big fan of mysteries. This novel has much more going on than your typical mystery, but there were times, especially near the end, when I thought, "Isn't this over yet? Did I have to witness that entire conversation that didn't reveal any new information?" The book is over 600 pages long; maybe some of it could have been cut?
I think it would be really fun for a law student to read, or someone who really loves chess (there's a lot of chess talk). I guess I liked it, but I didn't love it.
Posted in Books | no comments
Posted by Erin
Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:16:00 GMT
This is an incredible book. I borrowed it from a friend, read it in a few days, then went and bought it at our local bookstore and made Jon read it. He read it in about 24 hours. It's about Dr. Paul Farmer, medical doctor and anthropologist, who practices at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, teaches at Harvard Medical School, and influences international health policies. But mostly he lives in Haiti, where's he's been providing basic medical services to the extremely poor and fighting drug-resistant tuberculosis and AIDS for about 20 years now. He's one of the most fascinating people I've read about for a long time.
Farmer's way of looking at poverty, medical care, and life in general is enlightening, to say the least. There were several times while reading when I probably should have made some notes about ideas of mine that were challenged, but I just wanted to keep reading. I'm planning to read it again in the near future, because I don't want to forget what I've learned. Or I want to make sure I really learned it.
It's inspiring to read about people who are so extreme. Crazy, even. Farmer knows what is most important to him; his life is totally dedicated to his ideal--getting competent medical care to the poor. He's amazing. This is a lame review. But it's a great book, and you should read it! And I am officially inviting Jon to write about it, too.
Posted in Books | no comments
Posted by Erin
Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:07:47 GMT
I think it's fair to say that I hated this movie. Maybe it's not as bad as I think, but it was recommended to us, and I can't figure out why. The screenplay was horrible, the acting also, and while the filmmakers tried to make things look authentic for Arkansas in 1935, there were just too many oversights. All the tenant farmers were wearing the same brand-new overalls. Some fastened only one shoulder strap, but they were still the same overalls! I think some of them had been ripped, and they were dirty sometimes, but they still looked too new. The inside walls of their house/shack were papered with ... paper. I've seen old cabins papered in newspaper, and maybe that's what this was. But it was way too bright inside, what with the bright white paper and lots of overhead lighting. Maybe they had overhead kerosene lanterns? Also, they keep talking about "gettin' a handle on these crops" and "bringin' in the crops," but all we see is the men hoeing in a big field of dirt, and the women scattering what looks like dust. I think it's supposed to be the dust bowl, but it just looks confusing and weird.
Did I say the acting was bad? And the screenplay? Several of the characters made furious, defensive speeches, apparently provoked by ... nothing. Or maybe the provocation was that almost sullen look given by that other person.
Apparently this won best feature film at Telluride in 1999, which is completely baffling to me. Some reviews that I found on the internet mentioned beautiful cinematography, but if it was good, I was blinded by the rest of it. The more I think about it, the more I hate it. There are plenty of other ways to learn about the South in the 1930s.
Posted in Films | no comments
Posted by Erin
Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:02:38 GMT
Every time I go to my sister's house (Hi, Ivy!), we briefly consider watching Shanghai Knights, but then we don't because I haven't seen Shanghai Noon yet. Well, now I have! It was pretty funny sometimes. My favorite part: a dusty pioneer couple gazes in astonishment at the three Chinese Imperial Guards in their strange get-up, practicing sword play. The wife says, "They're not like any Injuns I ever seen, Jedediah!" and he says, "That's because they're not Injuns, woman. They're Jews!"
I think I would have liked it better if I'd seen it when it was still new, but Jon and I had already gone through our Jackie Chan phase when it came out. (At least a couple of times, we took our two babies to a movie theater, hoped they'd fall asleep, and watched some Jackie Chan movie.) My exposure to martial arts films is extremely limited, but Jackie Chan is fun and easy to watch. And of course, I love that he does his own stunts.
Owen Wilson is funny, but by now, his method of funny-ness (funniness?) is not as surprising and refreshing as it probably was six years ago.
I enjoyed watching it. Sometimes I think I might be getting too old for the sillier comedies, though, which makes me kind of sad. Maybe I'll appreciate them again when my boys get a little older.
Posted in Films | 3 comments
Posted by Erin
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:08:25 GMT
Okay, I admit that I sort of skimmed the last couple of chapters of this book
. Also, while I was halfheartedly trying out some of the techniques in the book, trying to get my youngest to sleep better (she's 13 months old! It's time!), she seemed to get worse and worse, until she was waking up every hour and expecting to sleep on me. So I did something more drastic, not "no-cry" but also not "cry it out." And it's working well. (Rejoice!)
I don't mean to disparage the book, though. I think it's a great alternative to the two prevailing ideas out there right now: let your baby "cry it out"; or buck and up and let the baby wake up as much as he/she wants to. I think if I'd been more consistent with Pantley's ideas, I could have been successful. She uses a lot of the techniques I used on my first few but was too tired to remember. And she has it systematically arranged, with worksheets and logs, so you can see how well her system is working. Worth looking into if you don't want to listen to your baby cry, but the all-night waking is making you crazy.
It helped me because after spending $15 on a book, I was more motivated to finally get my baby to sleep through the night. And now, instead of waking every 1-2 hours, she's waking up once (usually) or twice (occasionally) a night. Again, I say rejoice!
Posted in Books | no comments
Posted by Erin
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:26:09 GMT
Kathy Bates, Dan Akroyd, Rupert Everett, Jonathon Pryce, Julie Andrews, Barry Manilow, etc. Kind of a bizarre movie, but Kathy Bates is a joy to watch. I've loved her ever since seeing Misery. (I went with a friend, who was pretty freaked out by the movie, and later, it was so fun to call his house and leave messages for him from Annie Wilkes.) She is really a great actress. She sings in this movie, too, and her voice is great. All of the acting in this movie was very good, actually.
Not necessarily recommended viewing, but it was entertaining.
Posted in Films | no comments
Posted by Erin
Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:49:27 GMT
This is a fun classic novel. Alfred Hitchcock made it into a movie in 1940. I haven't seen it for a very long time, but I think it was his first American movie, or something like that. He probably played up the spookiness a lot, but the book is just spooky enough to be fun. (For me, I mean. I don't have much tolerance for scary stuff.)
I've read it before, possibly twice, but I really enjoyed it this time around. I knew what was going to happen, of course (Jon and I watched a long Masterpiece Theatre production of it fairly recently, which had reminded me of forgotten details). But the writing is delightfully descriptive, and this time I noticed how much of the story happens in the narrator's head, as she imagines different scenarios. In fact, her swings from euphoric happiness to deep despair reminded me of Bridget Jones's Diary--silly, uniquely female, somewhat immature, and totally believable. It's really fun to read.
Posted in Books | no comments
Posted by Erin
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:48:00 GMT
I don't think I liked this movie. I don't mean to be indecisive, but it was kind of weird. There were several subplots and extra characters who turn out to be pretty important, but they overshadowed the main plot, if it was indeed the main plot. I don't think it should be called a "romantic comedy," either. I guess there was romance if you think it's romantic to watch a young, hip American girl (Kate Hudson) sleeping around--towards the beginning of the movie, she meets a French guy, Yves, and they shake hands and make eye contact, and in the very next scene, they are watching TV together in bed, half dressed. And that's it for that romance! Then she becomes someone's mistress. While continuing to carry on with Yves.
There were some interesting contrasts between French and American culture, which made the movie a nice companion to a book I recently read called Almost French by Sarah Turnbull. Also funny and disturbing to watch the English guy towards the end eating and talking disparagingly about the French.
It seems like everything with Kate Hudson in it features her in an infinite number of extremely hip, endlessly varying outfits, as if she's not a real person, but a life-size doll/chameleon who tempts the costume people way too much. Tailored suit and heels? Yes! Flowing hippy skirt and scarves? Yes! Jeans, T-shirt and over-sized sweater? Yes! And let's change her hair in every scene! She is pretty beautiful, though. And cute. Beautiful and cute!
In general, the movie wasn't funny. It was more of a drama. It had beautiful people and scenery, interesting characters, intelligent dialogue, art and food, lots of French, which I enjoy trying to understand. But I still didn't like it that much. It may be that it was just too amoral for me. Or just immoral. I don't know.
Posted in Films | no comments
Posted by Erin
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:53:48 GMT
Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks play fathers whose son and daughter are about to get married. It's mildly funny, but just an okay movie. I like Ryan Reynolds, who plays the groom-to-be. Albert Brooks is also funny, though in a whiny, annoying way, kind of like Woody Allen. I'm not a fan of Candice Bergen, who plays the ex-wife of Michael Douglas' character. Yep, pretty much run-of-the-mill.
Posted in Films | no comments
Posted by Erin
Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:27:44 GMT
The subtitle of
this book is "The Inspiring Journey of a Woman Who Turned Personal Tragedy into Triumph Over Obesity," and it is inspiring. After losing two babies at birth and dealing with the serious diseases of two of her daughters, the author took control of something she
did have control over and lost 100 pounds. While she was losing the last 60 pounds, she trained for a marathon. In nine months, she went from running ten steps during her by-then habitual walks to 26.2 miles. Amazing and inspiring.
Posted in Books | 1 comment
