Excessive Violence Erases Its Own Remedy.
353847
Director Mark Burson is highly creative and in this debut feature there are many moments that reveal the energy of an auteur, but Burson's fondness for shock cinema eventually causes the film to collapse into near chaos.  The work begins with a voiceover by immigrant Joe Dekko (Colin Gray O'Hara), his text indicating inner turmoil, while he and two crime partners prepare for a robbery of two drug dealers.  Dekko craves a more responsible life but any chance of achieving it is slim as it is soon apparent that Joe consistently makes poor decisions.  These generally involve his criminal peers although his donation of his share of the drug rip-off loot to a friend as an investment in the latter's computer business only backfires when the treacherous fellow blackmails Joe.  Revenge then becomes the film's cardinal motif as Joe, along with his cohorts and his enemies, all go on the attack during scenes of wildly escalating violence.  The eponymous Dekko, with a bullet reposing in his skull, and with a proclivity for extreme self-abuse, ostensibly has also an iron constitution, as he struts along his path of vengeance with unalloyed intensity.  Prominent upon Burson's cinematic agenda is development of scenes for their sensationalist value, including repugnant violence, heroin use and stylized sexual activity; unfortunately, few of these advance the storyline and none has narrative worth.  However, he uses his players very capably, deriving strong performances from many of the cast, the charismatic Glaswegian O'Hara impressive with his turn, and with his versatility, as well, contributing the music performed during the closing credits.  Multifaceted, too, is Burson, as for this low-budget affair, shot in Ohio and released in 2000, he produces, directs, and edits, with more naked force than most directors within any genre; it is a pity that his penchant for frenzied grotesquerie is not a minor imperfection; Mark Burson - - thy name is excess.
1223046
He has many of his "facts" incorrect and makes many wild incorrect assumptions leading to a view point that does absolutely nothing to combat gun violence.

Criminals and psychopaths will be violent even if guns never existed.  By definition, a criminal does not obey the law and will use whatever tools he can get, whether legally or illegally.  Guns are not the problem.
3217648
So a few reviewers were "appalled," "shocked," and "disgusted" with the violence contained in this book. For those of us familiar with it, this seems laughable.

The claim is that the mere presence of words like bite, kick, whip, and KILL is enough to either traumatize a child or, what's worse, persuade them that violence is appropriate or acceptable.

Methinks people need to be reminded how words work--namely, that it's not so much the mere presence of words like these (or the concepts of death, violence, and fear that they evoke), it's their *use* that's problematic. In other books. Looked at in this way, even after half a century, this book seems all the more appropriate with regard to violence.

Is the protagonist violent? Is anyone violent in this book? On the contrary, the boy has a keen sense of justice. Worried for the well-being of all the animals he sees, he is absolutely opposed to violence. No biting or eating or killing or whipping occurs. The boy talks to a cow that is terrified for her calf's safety--fears that he might be killed--and the boy confronts the would-be assassin courageously. He does not strike the fox, but reprimands it for pursuing the cow. He does threaten to whip the fox, but this was only in the context of saving a life. And after the fox expresses his own fears (the hunter), the boy quickly befriends the fox, seeking his justice as well. The boy volunteers to involve himself in the plight of a whole menagerie of animals afraid of violence and death, and expects nothing in return. Their happiness is its own reward, and he returns to sit by the lake and look at the sky.

Rather than censoring ANY reference to violence and death in your children's literature, maybe you should employ books like these to teach your children to stand up to injustice (particular for the sake of others!), and to stand up to bullies and to fear. I know whose children will be better off.
594800
I found that this book, although promising a fresh look at the age old problems of adult children of abuse, falls short in the long run. Adults who experienced abuse as children are usually well aware of that abuse. This book deals with uncovering the abuse, and then takes, in my opinion, controversial steps at therapy. Those steps include a "reconstruction of the past" in essence fabricating lies and letting those lies replace the truths of the abuse. I, for one, was looking for a way to defeat the anger I feel, not reconstruct my past into some idyllic existence. For me, living a lie where I remember parents who never existed would only be compounding the problem.

So, I cannot recommend this book as part of an affective regimen of therapy.
1384832
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Santayana's seminal quote, while often dismissed as trite, has the ring of truth to carry it forward.  Rebecca Gordons newest book is an attempt to give us, as a nation, an opportunity to remember a past that wed much rather forget.

While I initially had some measure of discomfort with the evocation of the Nuremberg Trials, mainly because of the scope of the Holocaust seems so much greater than that of the so-called War on Terror, Gordons thorough and meticulous account of the multitude of crimes committed by nearly a generations worth of American politicians was incredibly persuasive.  She has clearly done her homework - as evidenced by her ability to not only cite chapter and verse of applicable International Law, but also to guide the reader through her argument with documented facts and, in many cases, the words of the accused themselves.

She pulls no punches and spares no one.  Even the current administration is called to account for its advocation of drone strikes as a cleaner method to fight our own Dirty War.  It is particularly dismaying to realize that what could have been a legacy of renewal for the Obama administration, after two terms of bitter political divide and the weariness of nearly a decade of war, will be forever marred by a continuation, if not escalation, of the mistakes of its predecessors.

This book has particular relevance today, in the heat of an unprecedented level of bellicose campaign rhetoric and an increasing frequency of attacks in Europe and the Middle East.  Our next president will have to make a choice on how to deal with ISIS, whether or not to take us into a third decade of an undefined war, and whether or not to bring an end to an indefensible treatment of fellow human beings.  I would hope that each and every candidate for elected office, from municipal to federal level, takes a few hours to read this book and think hard about how far we have removed ourselves from our humanity.  Because while our elected officials are, indeed, responsible for their own actions, we are the ones that not only put them there - we are the ones that keep them there.

I look forward to a new Nuremberg.
362107
The default position of much social science has been that the societies existing prior to human history were largely peaceful and cooperative.  When they did fight with one another the `fighting' was more a kind of ritual or rough play.  Ultra-violence was something practiced by modern, `civilized' man.  Hobbes's views were, in effect, trumped by Rousseau's.

Lawrence H. Keeley's book was written to counter that view and it does so with hard facts and common sense.  Not only was the warfare of prehistory often nearly constant; it was extremely violent and vast in its effects.  The percentage of a population that could be obliterated was far greater than the percentages resulting from modern, `civilized' warfare.

To tell his story, Keeley utilizes a worldwide canvas, studying warfare from New Guinea to the American northern plains.  He discusses the anthropology of war, the prevalence of war and its importance, the tactics and weapons employed in war, the forms of combat, the differences between primitive and civilized war, casualty rates, profits and losses, the potential causes of war, the desirability and fragility of peace and the manner in which the ancient images and ethnographic evidence have been transmuted by contemporary (and earlier) social science.  Subsidiary material such as cannibalism is also given due attention.

The book is readable, the evidence compelling.  This is a book that should be part of the repertoire of every practicing social scientist and every political commentator.  I became aware of it when one of the latter recommended it on a news broadcast.  This is not a screed or a half-baked bit of special pleading.  This is an extensive, nearly exhaustive Oxford University Press monograph.  Check it out.
4825046
The violence starts from the first pages and only gets worse as the narrative progresses. At first, it gives the impression that it is violence for violence's sake; however, it does culminate into a very deep insight into human nature. Society, under normal circumstances, limits the acceptable level of interpersonal violence. When the normal order is altered, anything becomes possible and the inner demons come out. The brutal acts described in the book seem fantastical, but really are not much different than anything seen on the evening news.

As someone who has never "fit in" and has always been an outsider, I related to the unnamed narrator on a personal level.

As to the question of whether the book is autobiographical, I do not think there is much of a question about it. I think it is obvious that some of it is inspired by the author's real life experiences, and some from other survivors' stories that he had heard, but the story is clearly fiction.
595626
And we wonder why children are being bullied, couples no longer feel the need to honor commitment and demonstrate "give and take" .. and  thus create another generation of emotionally damaged citizens... There is enough garbage in everyday life in today's world... we don't need more of it on the screen.  The bar is set low enough as it is for young generations.  Hope they deep six this one.
1739421
Interesting, but a bit weird. Excessive violence.
3456103
The book shows, Insights into why violence is so attractive,
and so repulsive at the same time.
39 year old English Professor watches a MMA gym open up
across the street from his office, and starts on a journey to
end up in a cage, testing himself, and takes us along with him.
At first his wife thought he was nuts, but even she found herself
caught up in this violent side of society, as she told her husband,
 to go and fight in Vegas.
So, why do men fight, and why do so many people like to watch the
so called, "Monkey Dance", that is a ritual, with planned steps, that
we call a FIGHT?
A man can live his whole life without ever  knowing whether he is a
a coward.
And there is always that fear, of really being a coward, and having no
honor.
Many men have met up with the "bully", and sad to say, bullying is a part
of human nature, as bigger always gets what they want, and smaller always
gets things taken away.
The bully will always seek out the "rabbit", and we all know when it is all said,
the rabbit, is nothing but food.
It all starts with the, Staredown, sustained eye contact, a non verbal element,
and the first one to look away, has already lost.
But if you don't look away, the level of violence just went up.
As Masculinity must be won, and won at a cost.
So, go on and find out if the mild meek college English Professor, has, The
Right Stuff, or is he just another rabbit.
Which one are you.......
977052
This is an excellent read, and I would have rated it 5 stars except for the constant justification by Connelly of why it's okay for any segment of the population to riot, loot, burn, destroy and kill, supposedly all in the name of anger and lack of hope. Baloney. The mystery, the excitement of the chase, the anticipation of the unraveling of clues all get constantly interrupted by Connelly's whining about why everyone should just accept the reasons for the animal-like behavior of the mob mentality. I realize the backdrop of riots was crucial to this book but not the shove-it-down-your-throat preaching that was a constant theme in this book. The media can justify that kind of behavior all they want--most of us don't buy it.
2617187
This movie was grossly violent. Violence can have it's place if it teaches some sort of lesson. That wasn't the case in this movie. Ky-mani's character kills at the end and walks away with millions of dollars.
4255171
Colin Broderick, a young lad,and an Irish Catholic, has described his life in Ireland during the "troubles. He grew-up with a very strong ethos : Hate the British, Hate all Protestants. The story is interesting, of course the British ran rampant through Northern Ireland, killing and destroying. But, the IRA and Sinn Fein were no angels.

I can well understand the hatred towards another country which is occupying your country. But, it is hard to condone the massive violence, death, and murder, from EITHER side. The book leaves one with a great feeling of sadness. The many Irish lads who grew-up accepting, and involving themselves with the murderous groups is such a loss to the Irish community.

Instead of raising generations of haters, perhaps a few could have gone further with their education. Instead, so many were killed, driven by an almost insane desire to kill, and to seek revenge. So many lives were wasted d the troubles, but the lives most eliciting sympathy were those of the young boys. The had poor educations, the schools do not seem to have been adequate, and the boys assigned their hero worship to Sinn Fein, the IRA, and other militant. As the boys grew, they seem to have led aimless lives, smoking, drinking, etc. There existed a type of hero worship for the militant Catholic groups, and a strong desire to somehow become a part of then.

This author lived a hellish life, not helped by his lack of education, alcoholism, and drugs. The aimlessness of his life led him to all types of trouble. His life and the lives of so many others had no point to them. They had very low-level jobs, broke every law imaginable, and many died far to young.

This is a sad book, it is painful to read of the violence, and the self-destruction of the men. It is repugnant to read of the British behavior in Ireland, and that of the militant Protestant groups. There is so much waste here, on all sides. But, the most difficult to observe is the boys progressions to a life of aimless drifting.

This s quite an interesting book, a very unique viewpoint from the Irish Catholics. Now, I wish that someone would write a book from the angle of the Irish Protestant view of the troubles.

This is a very well-done book, it should be recommended reading for many groups within divisive countries. Perhaps some of the many groups fighting each other, could learn something from the book.

P.S. I am deliberately deleting the final chapter of the book from my review. It would would be a spoiler, and it is better that each reader discover the honesty and love of that chapter described in that chapter. I will mention that there are attempts to avoid a life of sheer desperation, hatred, violence, and murder.
710085
Children under 3 years of age have been repeatedly proven incapable of associating the strike of a parent with the behavior that has displeased the parent.  Instead, all they see is that the person they love and trust more than anyone else has just turned dangerous and intentionally hurt them.  It's clearly child abuse.  If a child is too young to understand the association between the spanking and the action discouraged, it's clear based on simple logic that another method of teaching must be used.  This book advocates child abuse in its worst form:  bullying those who can not speak up against it or defend themselves, or even understand why it is happening.  That isn't "psychobabble," it's common sense.

The legal definitions of assault, which do not penalize those who should be legally entitled to protection by the definition based on age, dependency upon an assaulter, or relationship to an assaulter, state that not only is any intentionally or negligently inflicted bodily harm to be considered criminal assault, but even the threat of it is.  If I threaten to hit a neighbor, for example, it's criminal assault.  If I threaten to hit a grandparent, for example, it's not only assault but it's socially considered "elder abuse."  The same MUST be extended to children.  Books like these take us backwards in the progression of human development and understanding, not forward into a more developed and civilized society.  Shame on the author!
4839673
Given all the praise for this "wonderful book" on the benefits of violence, does this book considers the effects of violence in a present-day society of unstable family life? The violence of my generation [age 50] (esp. in cartoons) was buffered by a strong family life, moral values, and a society supported by a responsible-corporate America - which is not the case today. [Money seems to be the only important thing in America and to hell with the children.] Are we suppose to believe that with the high percentages of youth engaged in drug/alcohol abuse, crime, STD-infections, effects of divorce and other societal ills, that the steady-diet of violence targeted at them has little or no affect?
3163818
This movie shows how a profession or a class/group of people can completly change a person's character for the worse.  It's unfortunate that Henry had to become a victom of a violent act inorder to revert back to his better self.
2334983
Donna Yaklich was a woman who was subject to years of horrific physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her twisted husband. Because her husband was a cop, the police protected him and shrugged her off when she sought help. As the abuse and threats escalated and the reality of the mysterious death of her husband's first wife became clear, Donna realized she had two choices: kill or be killed. Not wanting her toddler son to grow up without a mother, she chose the former, enlisting the help of two men. Unfortunately, Donna was ultimately separated from her son after she was convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison - the maximum sentence.

Her story demonstrates the grotesque sexism and misogyny that are entrenched in the American "justice" system and culture, in which men are not even charged for battering their wives, yet women are sentenced to decades in prison for defending themselves. The very title of this book is a glaring example of such sexism and double standards. The murders of wives by husbands are commonly referred to as "crimes of passion" that were "done out of love," yet the murders of husbands by wives are almost always referred to as devious plots committed by greedy, conniving "husband killers" who were looking to cash in on life insurance, regardless of the unique circumstances of each case. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude in the United States of America is that men are innocent, angelic do-gooders, while women are evil, conniving liars. Until these attitudes change, battered women will continue to be let down by the justice system.