Masterpiece?  Hardly...
341606
This is one that, like Fist of the North Star, most anime beginners like until they see more.  The animation is quite stiff, and the plot and characters are just dull.  I think it's certainly an interesting concept, having an anime based upon Dracula, but the final execution just was not very good.  Basically, I've always felt it was lots of wasted potential - the underlying ideas of the movie are far better than anything actually in it.
2596068
My first Tibn read. If this is his masterpiece then he is a weak writer. Perhaps you need to be a child of the 40s to get excited by it. I can see why it was made into a move though. Perhaps it was write with screen in mind.
4416319
Vincente Minnelli took on the tumultuous life of famed painter Vincent Van Gogh in this acclaimed 1956 film, `Lust for Life'.  I was extremely excited by the promise this movie held and settled in, finally, to watching it over the weekend.  What I found was a disappointment of sorts, a film that never really capitalized on that said `passion' and produced a film that felt uneven and surprisingly un-textured; a plain almost flaccid depiction of a life lived to the full (but not in a necessarily `good' kind of way).

Kirk Douglas tries to find shades of Van Gogh's madness but winds up coming across like a mere caricature, lost in the segments that are not as clearly defined or strung together as they needed to be.  The film is also admittedly NOT a direct biopic, decidedly fudging facts and delivering a fictional portrait of the man.  This fact makes the film even more disappointing, for it really had the liberties to go all out and make the most of the film's title.  It didn't.  For a guy who loves the biopic, `Lust for Life' nearly bored me to tears.  The way that the subject was handled feels so lazy and uninspired.

Thank god for Anthony Quinn who does nothing of real note and yet at least struts his stuff in a scene or two and captures our attention.  His Oscar win is a joke, especially when you consider that Robert Stack was also a nominee, but at least he was fun.

The visual grainy nature of the film takes away from the overall impact and also contradicts the visual allure (or should I say `mental allure') of a film about a painter such as Van Gogh.  I was also surprised at how little depth this film offered, giving us little reason to invest in Van Gogh's life and really no reason to care much for how it all panned out.  It was an exercise in mediocrity that failed to live up to the expectations I had for it.
1761254
I loved The Emperor of Ocean Park.  A fine literary work with mystery as its theme. I had high hopes that this one would be its equal.  It's not.  It's a poor mystery that fails as literature for precisely that reason.  I noted that the author mentioned his admiration for LeCarre's works, and it would seem he had hoped to succeed in this venture along those same lines.  But his grasp of the trade-craft required for the skills supposedly possessed and successfully wielded by the various protagonists is far from making that mark.  And perhaps I'm too severe a critic because of actually being in the intelligence business at the time (and at most of the same places) these quasi-fictional events were to have occurred, but at least I know that Le Carre's fiction had the true nature of the craft as its underpinning.  Thus those stories rang true on many levels, and this one simply doesn't.  And it's not only in the craft, but in the nature of the fictional conspiracy the craft was designed to protect.  And in the fatuousness of the goals of the supposedly worldly wise conspirators themselves.  But yes, I gave it three stars, if only for the tremendous effort involved here to establish what might be labeled the glory of its promise, making the failure of that promise all the more significant.  Hey, there's still something of the profound to be gained from the more resounding of failures.
4343964
You are not going to believe this folks, out there in Amazon land. But I had a little problem with this film. It certainly does not have the intensity of say: Kurosawa's "Ran". Although it does have a brief battle sequence. And I would like to refer to other reviews on Amazon. By the way, by the number of reviews, it seems people have been waiting a long time to see this film. I gather it was never available on VHS? One reviewer on Amazon, "Amazonian", says: if you are looking for "plot driven" films. And another, "Thomas Plotkin", calls it: "nuanced". But moreover, I had a problem with another legendary, and long film, none other than-"La Dolce Vita". Am I the type of person who prefers films like: "Il Bidone" (The Swindle) or "Nights of Cabiria" to "La Dolce Vita"? So is my problem with "The Leopard" analogous to my problem with "La Dolce Vita"? Do I prefer the eroticism of "Senso" to the plodding of "The Leopard"? Although, this is funny because I enjoy reading long books, and enjoy other long films. Furthermore, to address some concrete issues. I felt Burt Lancaster looked too old at times. And I also had a problem with the ending. Prince Salina literally is becoming ill at the end? So he is not only the emblem of a dying era, he is dying himself? And Cowie's commentary does not help here. So get back to me. Share your thoughts. Thank You
964972
Compared to the usual extremely positive review this album gets, my review is quite negative. In reality, though, I see my view of this album is being pretty fair. I don't say it's a "bad" album simply because I'm annoyed at the praise it receives. That wouldn't wouldn't be the truth, because it's certainly not bad. But is it good? At times, but it doesn't approach greatness and it certainly doesn't approach being the greatest record of all-time.

If I wasn't aware of the tremendous praise this album receives, I'd literally never be able to guess it. For something so universally-acclaimed, the listening experience is thoroughly ordinary. Forget the complaints that Thom Yorke sounds "whiny", or that it's "too depressing". My criticisms are not as superficial as that, and such complaints really should be ignored. My main problem is that there is a lack of substance to this record. Basically, this is slightly more intelligent pop music for people who have a bit more interest in music than your average listener. Comparisons to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" are fairly well-justified in that both records are not particularly interesting from a creative standpoint, but have the kind of blend of musical competence and style that makes them extremely popular with the mainstream music press (and therefore with their readers).

After all, both are exceedingly accessible records. Unless you're seriously unaccustomed to any type of music that isn't played on the blandest of radio stations, it can't be said that OK Computer ever delves into any sort of challenging territory. While that's not a requirement for a record, I do think it's a requirement if the record is to be taken seriously as a true work of art, a masterpiece, and one of the "greatest ever". There are records from the 60s (hell, even the 50s, if we count jazz) that are likely to surprise you more than this album ever could. And if your mind is open, those are the type of surprises that win you over and reward you the most in the end, I think. Listen to Pere Ubu's "The Modern Dance" from 1978 and ask yourself, which album surprised you more often? It may surprise you so much that you hate it, or you may only hate it at first. But the beauty is that you may come around to appreciate its willingness to shock you for the sake of a purer form of expression.

So, in conclusion, OK Computer is by no means a bad record. It's a totally competent, easily-accessible pop album that is sort of a victim of its own incredible success. I don't "hate" it, and I don't complain that the singer sounds whiny, or that the lyrics are "depressing", or anything like that. I just don't think it's done anything to deserve its status, and at least at the time, it doesn't sound like Thom Yorke did either: "We write pop songs ... there was no intention of it being 'art'."
1435806
How about a review of the book for what it is?
This is not much of a novel.  Compared to other pieces Wilber has written, it is not much of a book.  Wilber still has fascinating ideas all over the place, but fascinating ideas abounding doesn't make a book into a novel.  What about plot, conflict, characterization -- the basics of novels?
Ezra Pound notes in ABC of Reading: "One definition of beauty is aptness to purpose. Whether it is a good definition or not, you can readily see that a good deal of BAD criticism has been written by men who assume that an author is trying to do what he is NOT trying to do."
I had to skim the surfaces of this one ... which is uncharacteristic of the way I've read other things Wilber has written --
1518501
The book is a masterpiece. This is not. Jack O'Connell is miscast as the hero, Louis Zamperini (his hair is also dreadfully mishandled ... no one outside the Adams Family has hair THAT dark). And we don't ever really get to grips with his nemesis, The Bird. That said, some great sequences involving sharks (worth 3 stars alone), and some fairly impressive aviation set pieces kept me occupied.

If you haven't read the book, I expect you'll get more from this. If you have read the book, save your money.
2678823
This book presents Bells one-sided view of what makes a painting or other art object "Art". I think there is some validity in his assertion that the formal aspect of painting (color and shape)is all important and the content (subject matter)is irrelevant. But this, I would contend, is only from the strictly aesthetic and theoretical perspective. He completely discounts any other aspect of visual art as irrelevant or detrimental to true Art. He claims to be uninfluenced at all by any content in so far as he is moved to a state of aesthetic "ecstasy". I find this difficult to believe  since he also claims to find primitive art and Cezanne so moving and this art has rather strong content; how can we, or he himself, be sure that there is no influence of content there? He does claim to be move to aesthetic ecstasy by Persian carpets and pottery as well, and I imagine that he would soon be swooning over the non-objective art arriving the same year that his book was published, but I can't help doubting that when content is present he is unaffected by it in any way other than negatively. Be that as it may, if he is so completely able to remain abstract in his visual perception I envy his sensitivity but also pity it. He is ignoring the many other riches that come with feeling the content of art intermingling with the abstract form of art.
I suspect that he is not immune to such feelings but rather, like many a critic before and after his time,he is out to defend his taste and his brilliant new theoretical discovery about what constitutes real Art. Like most philosophical writing that is worth reading (with the possible exception of Aristotle?) his book is full of outrageous claims and self-contradictions. Bell presents his theory with much wit and in spite of being a rather narrow definition of Art, he makes a point well worth considering.
2631652
A novel within the novel seems half intended to disarm Coupland's audience: "... see, there is an unappreciative audience here, look at them making fun of the mediocre writing... look in the mirror, were you pooh-poohing my writing?".

Coupland delivers a novel at times amusing, but often disappointing. It's a decent read, leading you to want to finish. But I confess the finishing was half the pleasure.

There are promises at times that things would tie together, a la the mastery of Milan Kundera's "Immortality", but alas, they never do get tied together, indeed many threads are left at loose ends at novel's close.

Some may defend Coupland against a charge that his novel lacks profundity by declaring his style to be triviality examined. But, two decades on from "Generation X" most of us have grown up a bit. I expected some of that maturity (something profound) from one of my generation's spokesmen. I didn't find it in "Gum Thief".
3451328
This is more of a puzzle than a joy. Reviews to the contrary, there is little joy, less enlightenment, more of a chore and continual wonder how or why the reviews praised it so.

If you like reading a cloud, quite beautiful from afar- the reviewers- but thoroughly lacking substance ebyond the th countless droplets of water....then go for it.
3935990
It really could have been a masterpiece... if only it wasn't called The Vampire Lestat and settled for The Vampire Marcus or The Vampire John or The Vampire George or whatever...

The person we follow in this story is simply not Lestat. It is a beefed up version of Louis. Rice goes to great distances to make us believe that it is the same Lestat, but fails miserably. She even takes a puke on Interview With The Vampire by saying that Louis was utterly wrong on at least three important points and that all those innocent people Lestat killed for fun were actualy murderers, thiefs and scoundrels.

And why? So that it could say The Vampire Lestat on the book cover? I truly don't know and don't care if it is a cash in or not. I just wanted the real Lestat back.

It is still a good, fun book with lots of great characters and an above-average plot. But it is all clouded by the fact our narrator is not an egoistical, stupid, vain and utterly evil person he was in Interview With The Vampire, but some miserable copy of Louis. If he was the person he was in Interview, it would've truly made for an unique experience. Unfortunately, it took away a huge chunk of fun and interest and turned a great book into a merely above-average one.
899647
A Midsummer Night's Dream by the great William Shakespear enjoys a reprisal in this lavish American production. The movie's strong points are its rich costumes, beautiful music, and pretty decent acting. However, this is not enough to offset its weak points. These include nearly incomprehensible, and if I may be pardoned for this, phony acents; historical anarchronisms, and the lack of connection between the first part of the movie (the love story) and the second part (the performance of the play at the royal palace). Although the acting is polished, I somehow lacked the feeling of sympathy for the characters: they just did not convince me their emotions were genuine. This movie is neither a classic adaptation of Shakespear, nor a classic in its own right, but is definitely scores points for the magnificence of its production
376044
"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good." 3 John 1:11 (NKJV)

Extending Pride and Prejudice, that monumentally subtle masterpiece, would be more than a handful of writers should even think about doing. Adding a murder mystery element to such an extension, perhaps that will have to await for a new Jane Austen to arise.

Baroness James deserves an A for effort, and perhaps some words of caution about trying to do too much . . . but not an audience for this book.

Unless your curiosity has to be quenched, I don't see much advantage to reading Death Comes to Pemberley. The imitation of Jane Austen's style sticks out so much that it feels artificial rather than pleasant. The mystery itself is more of a crime story than a mystery. There's not much realistic chance that you'll figure it all out before it is revealed. When all is revealed, you may feel (as I did) that the crime is a bit thin in its plotting.

Perhaps the most candid thing I can say without spoiling the story is that Elizabeth isn't the fascinating heroine that she is in Pride and Prejudice. Instead, she comes across as Darcy's appendage. Yuck!
19113
Funny thing, memory...I "remembered" this as being more straight forward and synth based, along the lines of other horror soundtracks from the same era. My memory was wrong, dead wrong... Michael Hoening, one of the "shining lights" from the German Berlin School of electronica, obviously put a lot of effort and craft into this, but be forewarned that it doesn't sound much like his solo work. No, this is much farther reaching but comes across as bombastic and somewhat overblown - it is too orchestrated for my tastes and rather bloated (much like the film's namesake so maybe that was intentional!). The problem here is, in this context, it is, IMHO, not much fun as stand alone entertainment. In other words I can appreciate the artistry involved and its effectiveness up on the "big screen", but I won't be spinning this in the CD player much...
1673470
I have read a TON of Iceberg Slim novels...and although it's been years, it simply cannot be that my tasted in reading material has "matured" that much.  From almost the very first page it was patently clear to me that this novel was not of the quality of the his previous novels.  Although the cover information may lure in true Slim fans, most know that he has been deceased for over 20 years.  I was actually hoping that this was possibly some of his "found" work..which it claims to be.....but this simply cannot be the case.  Although I applaud the effort, this novel is missing the "voice" of the original, who actually lived the life and created masterpieces of street fiction based upon those experiences.  This novel tries to hard....appears to me as contrived (which it is) and just doesn't resonate with authenticity (which it can't).

For those wishing to experience the real Iceberg Slim....this is not the novel to read.

DYB
3105041
That the materials affect the art seems to be the theme that tries to tie together the disparate parts of this rambling volume.

We sometimes assume that at least since the middle ages artists have been able to paint in an almost infinite number of colors, and that at least until modern times they always tried to use colors that reproduced reality as closely as possible. As Ball explains, neither assumption is true. Even as recently as 100 years or so ago, artists' palettes were constrained by the inability to produce reliable pigment of any desired color. Medieval painters had relatively few paints and tended -- as modern artists at times also have -- to select colors based on their cost.  Only the development of artificial dies and pigments, primarily in the nineteenth century, has freed artists to create almost any color they wish -- and has helped turn the focus of art from form to color. The book illustrates these points with a number of well-reproduced color plates.

Ball also includes chapters on the techniques of printing, photography, and art conservation. While these are interesting, they wander from the major subject of the book and the discussion of photography, especially, is somewhat technical and tedious.

But this is not overall a technical treatise. Ball's real interest is art and his book is at heart an art appreciation course. This is both its strength and its weakness. That it tells the history of pigments in the context of the history of art and of artists is what makes it of interest to someone other than an industrial chemist. Unfortunately, from the time he reaches the Impressionists Ball talks more and more about art, less and less about pigments, until the book becomes almost pure art appreciation. We get extended discussions of the Impressionists and the Fauvists and the this-ists and that-ists, lists of many paintings very few of which are available in the color plates, but only passing mention of pigments and materials. Judged on an art basis alone this is not a particularly good book. Its art appreciation is of the gushing, exhibition-catalog sort; you know things are going downhill when you read a sentence like "Impressionism was a movement motivated by the ineluctability of artistic integrity and by the artist's need to search rather than slavishly to follow." (In fairness, Ball's prose is generally pretty good, which makes the occasional klunker like that stand out.)

The story of art materials is an interesting one, though, and is well told for much of the book. "Bright Earth" deserves three-and-a-half stars but since I have to choose it seems closer to four than to three.