Movies Books

This is a terrific book with really detailed instructions for building one-of-a-kind pottery. I believe that the ideas generated by the author, along with her instructions will help any beginning potter to put some finesse into their pottery. What it does for someone like me, a potter with 16 years experience, is to give me a little dose of inspiration since I know most of the techniques. However, don't pick up this book and expect to become an expert handbuilding potter.

This a a great resource for the functional potter or ceramic artists. Full of images and inspiration, as well as detailed inspructions of many items. A must have.

Good pottery book for hand building. Some interesting and workable ideas.

I was misled by the cover of this book thinking that the tableware inside would be clean, simple and elegant. I couldn't be more wrong. I find many of the pieces featured looking weird and overly-decorated. Maybe that's what the author means by "distinctive". This is my greatest misgiving about the book. Otherwise, the author did quite a good job explaining the basics of pottery (with helpful tips along the way), guiding the reader on how to make tableware to suit the four seasons, and demonstrating the surface decoration styles of four different artists. There is a glossary at the end of the book and appendices detailing cone-firing ranges and glaze formulas.

The technical information in this book is excellent: well presented, illustrated and explained. While I agree with the other reviewer that most of the actual projects shown are not fitting with my taste, the ideas and techniques presented have proven helpful to me. I also found myself wishing that the cover art was included in the how-to projects (which it is not). My only other criticism is that darting is not covered, but great examples of it are, so the reader never gets the explanation of how such forms are achieved.

Overall, this is one of the best technique books I've come across. I would recommend it, especially for the hobby or beginning potter. If you have a formal education in the ceramic arts you will know most of these tips already and find the suggested projects lacking in sophistication. It may however spark some new ideas for your own work.

Its too bad we don't use Garfield for movie reviews because it would make choosing the right one easier.

I bought this book for my 9-year-old son, and he loves it! He loves recognizing many of the movies mentioned in the book, and we talk about the other movies he doesn't know. This book has given him hours of laughs, and he loves sharing it with his friends.

My 8 year old son wanted this book because he loves Garfield. This is a very good book and it helps him to read different types of letters. My older son (11) read the book and liked it as well. I think it is a very funny book. It does help that we all like Garfield.

I teach second grade that there is no bigger movitater to reading than Garfield books. So I spent a fortune of my classroom funds buying new ones only to have them fall apart and be useless.Not just one Garfield book, but all of the ones I had bought...maybe 4 or 5 of them. When I complained to Amazon they said they had no control over workmanship and it was "too bad" that that had occurred, but there was nothing they could do. Anyone who reads this needs to buy only library bound copies, as the customer has no way of knowing of this malady until it's too late and you have a pile of pages in your classroom library.
Kathy Carbone

This is great! Garfield gives his review of "Garfield Style" movies. I love all the puns and inside jokes. You have to love movies to enjoy this book.

This book helped me to understand the complexities of several of my own struggles. I was able to look up a movie with a similiar theme or situation and use it to see the my situation as an observer.

I encountered this gem as a wannabe text book in 1998.

The author makes a big deal out of using movies as a self help device. The problem I have with this book how the author judges the movies he presents. Get a copy and read "Solomon's" description of your favorite movie. It as if he stretches his views and theory's around a movie that just are not there. A case in point is The Great Santini / The Gift of Fury (1979). A coming of age movie with a dedicated Marine Pilot as the father. Gary Solomon treats this movie as Child Abuse. Gary misses the point completely. Once you begin to actually look at the movies he recommends his Prescription falls flat on its face! It is the same self help mumbo jumbo for a buck that hits the book stores every day. I would go so far as to say this is a Toxic book. Toxic in the same way as using aspirin to grow hair on your head.

If a college instructor hands this book to you hand it back and drop the class.

I was skeptical when I read the book but when I put the author's suggestions into practice I found it to be a great experience. As an added bonus I got to enjoy some movies that I never would have watched otherwise. The key is to follow the author's suggestions about how to use the movies in one's healing process and not just watch the movie(s). I highly recommend the book particularly for those who want to explore relationship issues.

Reading this book helped me see into an issue that perplexed me in life: why helping others could be my way of using others to meet my own needs. By watching When A Man Loves a Woman, I could see how a 'fixer' needs someone to fix to feel 'good,' even if that means wanting/needing someone else to stay broken.

It was a painful truth I could not see about myself when it was explained to me, but one I could see clearly by watching this film and using the cues offered in this wonderful book.

Of the many valuable insights I gained about myself from this book, one other stands out. I'd spent a lifetime listening to ernest friends explaining why my esoteric, off the wall humor was 'off-putting' to people who didn't know me. Watching a film with a character who sat in the background making esoteric, off the wall comments, I finally understood in a deep, clear, embarassing way what my friends had been trying to tell me: I was unintentionally coming across as strange and

disconnected to others.

I believe this book does a great service by bringing therapeutic insights and healing to people who cannot afford therapy. In my case, it also offered a way for me to learn about myself in a quiet way, without feeling a need to defend, explain or justify myself: I was just watching a movie.

As a character comments in When A Man Loves a Woman, 'Denial's not just a river in Egypt.' With the help of this book, I could see truths I'd denied about myself.

I recommend this book heartily to others struggling with life issues.

Many counselors and therapists may informally make use of movies to help people explore important psychological issues. "The Motion Picture Prescription" lists "200 Movies to Help You Heal Life's Problems", as the subtitle puts it, with brief synopses of the films, short lists of "healing themes" in them, and comments about the key story elements.

For example, Solomon writes about "Rain Man" (with Dustin Hoffman as the autistic savant brother to Tom Cruise, unknown to him for decades): "Some families keep secrets that eventually come to light, leaving those who are still alive to deal with the legacy of the family lies. There's no room for secrets in a loving relationship... Can you see Charlie [Cruise] was taking his anger out on Raymond [Hoffman] when he was really feeling hurt and sad over his father's abandoning him?"

Also included is a chapter with specific, usually common-sense suggestions, and an index of the 200 films in various theme categories.

Excellent book, with a fantastic, well-told industry history section. Some of the tone is a bit interesting - David Puttnam was head of Columbia Pictures, which is interesting to take into account when absorbing his views.

Some of the details of the late history are off, particularly those surrounding the GATT talks which led to such a violent French-US disagreement, but overall the book should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the industry, film policy, and what makes Hollywood tick at a high level.

David Puttnam has written a sometimes very boring book about the so called war between Europe and US. He tells the story by going through the history of film cronologically, and leave much to be desired for.

This book does not have scandalous stories about stars and troubled film productions...if you're looking for those types of stories William Goldman and Peters Bart & Gruber have excellent titles that will give you insite into film and satisfy your pop culture curiosities.

What Puttnam achieves is a detailed history of film that shows the struggle that filmmakers on both sides of the Atlantic attaining a balance between art and commodity. Puttnam offers great insights and introduction to film's early years. Coming from the unique view of a European who became a Hollywood insider, he's able to interpret history in a way that few others saw.

Casual readers should look elsewhere, but people interested in the business of film and it's history on both sides of the Atlantic will find this book interesting and accessible.

For insider David Puttnam, Europe who invented the movie, lost the movie industry battle due to external (two World Wars), but mostly internal causes:
1. Europe, unlike the US, didn't see the movie industry as a totality (control of production + distribution + theatres)
2. Europe didn't want to understand the market (the consumer demand) and the power of marketing.
3. the suicidal movie theorization by the left. As an example, J.L. Godard claimed that his struggle against the commercial imperialism of Hollywood was analogous to the eternal struggle of the working class against monopoly capitalism. Yet he was forced to acknowledge that 'workers don't come to see my films'.
4. the vanity of the European film critics, who supported selfregarding movies, while the public went out to see US films.
5. social causes: Hollywood defied the wishes of the US cultural elite and made 'popular' movies.

The movie industry in Europe has still not fundamentally changed since the publication of the book, but all inter- and subventions of the EEC commission will be wasted money, unless there is a big change of mind.
The author gives implicitly some obvious measures for a revival:
- take into account the consumer market.
- a big part of the movie budget should be spent on marketing and promotion.
More, there should be coproductions with TV channels and movie theatre companies on a European, or better, world scale. The market of each European country is not big enough to create a profitable movie industry.
European big budget movies should be shot in English.
It is easier said than done, but CANAL+ for instance has understood the challenge.
Puttnam's book is absolutely not boring, but a must read for every European film maker.

David Puttnam (with Neil Watson) has written a book that has a different, and often very personal, perspective from the usual film histories. It is a broader, more international examination into the reasons for Hollywood gaining world wide dominance of the film industry. This is not about movies per se but is, instead, about the business and politics of making movies. It includes many anecdotes, told in a basically chronological format, from the beginning of the industry to the recent times. Much of this information was new to me as most film histories concentrate on the movies and the men and women who create these works. This one concentrates on the men who finance these works. An interesting book for those interested in the deals behind the deals that make the movies we love.

The first reviewer takes film far too seriously. Modern cinema is most decidedly not "our greatest art form." Sheesh! Most of what comes out of Hollywood these days is mindless pap. That's not to say that a lot of it is not entertaining. Even some of the stupid stuff entertains some Friday nights after a long week's work. There are still even a few great films out there, and Roeper acknowledges this.

Guess what, critics are supposed to be critical, not sycophantic. I enjoyed the sarcastic wit of this book a lot more than I enjoyed some of the movies I've seen.

Richard Roeper is the worst thing to happen to movies since the corporate take-over of the studios in the 1980's. He cares far more about celebrities, his own image, and behind the scenes gossip than he does for any film. Whereas a good critic would find ways to help people love movies (or any artform) more, Roeper almost never does this, choosing instead to focus on the most negative elements of many of the films he writes about. Even the descriptions above, by the publisher, highlight this fact: he writes about "Reviews of Hollywood finance." (Rather than encouraging people to care more about the story than the budget.)
"Actors who appear in television commercials." Does Roeper want us to focus on who does commercials, or focus on each movie, and decide whether its story is told well or not? Citing two unsuccessful films, Roeper proposes a "moratorium on pet projects." But Roeper wants to oversimplify films so he can snarkily make his point, when he ignores the reality that many, many successful (i.e., well-told) films are "pet projects." Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, or Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ are two strong (and very different) examples. But Roeper just wants to dumb everything down (including the movies and movie audience) for his jokey complaints. I do believe that this very shallow man loves movies, but he uses a tremendous amount of power and energy encouraging and teaching people to utterly dismiss entire movies because of one or two irrelevant elements. A quick example: When the film "Chicago" was in theatres, Roeper nearly bent himself double complaining fiercely about the fact that the movie wasn't filmed in Chicago - EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN. I heard him being interviewed on a radio show, and the host was scoffing at "Chicago," saying that he wouldn't go see a musical. Rather than stepping into the role of film critic and defending the film as sexy and fun (Roeper gave a thumbs up to it), Roeper merely complained about the location of the shoot again, and never said another word about it. Disgraceful. This book is NOT, "a love letter to film." It is a course in learning how to diminish and dismiss film, our greatest artform.

The interesting part about Richard Roeper is that he seems to me to be a critic that speaks his mind, even at his angriest. While Roger Ebert would call a bad movie, well, a bad movie, Roeper opens up his insult box and would, at the very least, call it a disgusting piece of garbage, or something along those lines. The fact is, the world needs more critics like Richard Roeper. His accuracy is amazing to the point that it's insanely funny. Though he does not make his political views known on the show (he doesn't hide them either), he lets it all fly in Schlock Value. He takes aim at everyone from Joel Siegel (on his positive review of Cat in the Hat), to idiot liberal-hater Ann Coulter, to Wireless Magazine's Earl Dittman. Roeper leaves no holds barred and points out the idiocy of some of Hollywood's worst. One of my favorite sections in the book is Roeper's attack on "Quote Sl*ts" like Earl Dittman, the completely braindead Shawn Edwards (Fox-TV), and Mark S. Allen. The only critic that he left out that I wish he would have taken down was Jeffrey Lyons of NBC-TV. Find me an awful movie and I will show you that the only people to give it good reviews are these critics. Roeper also takes aim at the complications of the Academy Awards, especially regarding the long speeches of the lesser winners ("All due respect to these people, but nobody knows who you are and nobody has seen your work and nobody knows anyone you're thanking."). Roeper ranges from career "batting averages" to "Most Disappointing Careers After Winning the Academy Award," a list that includes F. Murry Abraham, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, and Cuba Gooding Jr. Roeper is insanely funny, yet he is insanely accurate. Nobody points out the obvious better than he does.

I have always liked Richard Roeper's column. He is a normal, reasonable, sensible guy who is also one of the most influential critics in the country. In general I don't pay much attention to most critics because they are more full of themselves than politicians on average, and have no more real-world knowledge or sense than anyone else I come across in a typical day. Roeper is different because he grew up from centrist Midwestern, roots, and doesn't hide from that history as if it was a skeleton in the closet.

This book is wonderful at pointing out the wretched excesses and self-centeredness of Hollywood and much of the critical world. I am particularly amused by the observations from Aspen, and never tire of Roeper exposing self-serving, hypocritical talking heads for the shallow hacks they are. Don't get me wrong, neither Roeper or I believe in censoring anyone's right to free speech, but we both believe that if a celebrity says something absolutely asinine, it deserves to be exposed as surely as if someone else said it.

I actually prefer Roeper's daily columns to his books, but I found this book an entertaining expose that was fun to read, and was not a bit self-serving. Best of all, Roeper is still a normal guy with a normal ego, and I can't tell you how wonderful I find that to be.

I've been watching Roger Ebert's show since the early PBS days in the 70's. Have rarely missed a week. Agree or disagree with them, it is one of the only shows on TV with serious discussion about movies. So, I have been following Richard Roeper since he began on the show a few years ago. While I've watched him, I'll be honest, I've never read his column in the Sun Times.

While in a bookstore, I saw SCHLOCK VALUE on the shelf. After being plugged on the show for the past few months, I decided to pick it up and look at it. I immediately brought it to the checkout counter to buy.

What a great book!

Among the topics covered in the book, an analysis of the top "movie stars" and what percentage of bad films they make, a look at the faulty obsession with box office grosses, the Oscars, the Golden Globes and why they shouldn't be taken seriously, bloopers in films, how critical blurbs work (the quotes in movie ads), a behind the scenes look at the Ebert and Roeper show (including a sample schedule of screenings for the week), politics and film stars, and (in the best section of the book) a description of Lost films, films that never played theatres, playing on video or never released in any way.

The only problems with the book, at times, it seems a little disorganized. He bounces around from one topic to the next, even in the same chapter. Plus, a couple times he repeats himself, saying the same thing in different chapters. And, most of all, it is too short. The book is 210 pages, but it is the size of a TV Guide. I read it in one night. I wish the Lost Films section was an entire book on its own.

The book is a lot of fun. Roeper is more movie fan than film scholar and his writing shows that. He loves what he does.

Now, I'm going to have to read his columns more.

Horror movies these days are hard to sit through. Most of them have a "cool" teen cast with a soundtrack with the latest bands on the rock charts, and oh yeah, we need to throw some screams into this horror picture!!!
Well, this book ignored these so-called horror movies! Not only did these three writers discuss the forgotten horror flicks, they did it with a touch of humor and according to the preface, they reviewed these 21 movies in only 48 hours!!!???!!! When I read that, I said to myself, these guys must be twisted or they are real horror movie freaks!
I really liked that the reviews were done with humor, making it different than most dull movie books. Since these were low budget movies that were discussed, you will find yourself looking for some of these gems (for me, I discovered THE STEPFATHER). I was very pleased they included the underrated "The Hitcher"!
All three writers seemed to make you laugh and remember these movies in their own way. When you get this book, be sure to study Tom Scalzo's "What I learned in this movie" lists. They just might save you someday if you just happen to be chased by a crazed serial killer!!!!

OK, first and foremost, I will start my review by saying that I thought the premise for this review guide was pure genius. Who wouldn't enjoy hanging out with your truly twisted friends for 48 hours and watching some of the most mind numbingly awful horror movies and then during your various stages of exhaustion, review them and see how unique they could become? Problem is, in this book, these guys essentially take the easy way out and spew out the entire plot to the film, and then call it their review. Most of them start out with something akin to, "I hated this movie..." or "This movie is better than..." and then proceed to regurgitate the entire film plot (sometimes incorrectly.) One tip I could give to the author's right off the bat, give spoiler alerts! Some people reading this book may actually want to know your views in order to choose a future film. Don't ruin it by informing them of the identity of the mystery killer!! Another issue I have with this book is that the author's call themselves true horror fans. I am a horror fan and know numerous horror fans. All of whom have seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes and The Re-Animator. These are horror staples and are considered by most, mandatory viewing. Please do your homework before you do a genre piece. The authors mention in their reviews of the sequels to the aforementioned films that they haven't even seen the originals. Why watch the sequel when you have no grasp on the evolving storyline or have no familiarity with the original characters. One issue I could not stand is the issue with having three people reviewing the exact same movie. Most of the movie reviews covered the same basic guidelines and discussed the same highlights. So reading the three reviews was really a waste of time, one would have been enough. Out of the three reviewers, Tom Scalzo's reviews were the most entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed his "Things I learned..." and "Things to Watch for..." lists and thought they were the only redeeming value for this otherwise pointless book. All you true horror fans, please do not waste your time nor your money. It's not as cool as one might think!! Oh, and one more thing, the "gang member" from Sleepaway Camp 3 did not have a firecracker shoved in his mouth, it was up his nose and it was freakin' awesome. And the "old man" having a tryst in that film was the legendary Michael J. Pollard.

For every thousand horror film review books that only review the obvious mainstream films or the classics, there is one or two that dares to review the, well, less-than-mainstream ones.
How many times have you passed the box cover art for The Worm Eaters in your local video store's horror section, wondering, "Wow, who would ever rent this?"
Well, Matt Farley, Charlie Roxburgh and Tom Scalzo have rented that film, plus twenty more obscure to not-too-obscure horror films, for an experiment they have dreamed up. They have done what all of us, at some point, have always thought about doing: subject themselves to film after tortuous horror film to see what would happen. Luckily they lived to tell their tale, the results being Shockdecember.
All three contributors take turns mocking, criticizing, hating, loving, laughing and, at times, sleeping through some real juicy films. It's like a night of you and your friends just sitting around cracking jokes. You get the sense that they really had fun in the creation process for this book.
Good clean fun. Highly recommended.

ShockDecember is a very good book to sit back and laugh at all the very cheesy horror films that have come out over the years. The authors have a very good knowledge of horror films and even point out things to watch out for during each film (Do not run into the ocean to get away from a killer). Shockdecember is a very enjoyable read if you love horror films. Even if you are not the biggest fan in the world of these types of films it is still an enjoyable read because you can tell the authors had a very enoyable time seeing so many cheese ball films in a short period of time.

in SHOCKDECEMBER, charles roxburgh and company share their amazingly analytical and often humorous insights into some of the greatest of the worst horror movies ever made! it's an incredible testament to the human spirit of endurance, that these young men are still able to function in society after having witnessed so many bad movies in so short a time span. things i learned from this book:
- girls who look like marylyn monroe are stupid
- shortcuts are bad
- if you accidentally kill a sorority mother, just push her into the swimming pool
and "slumber party massacre 3" is required viewing
do yourself a favor and read SHOCKDECEMBER today! then do the world a favor by renting all the movies contained within its pages and burn them in a massive bonfire, while roasting marshmallows and possibly running from the authorities after you've accidentally killed your neighbors dog and zombies rise from the earth to eat your step-sister's best friend.

I found the various filmmakers stories to be very interesting. I would recommend this book.

George Alexander's book is a winner! Two thumbs up. One of the best books on Black film available. Look for Alexander to becoming the next great film reviewer. Take it from me - buy this book. You will enjoy it!

Flashback to 1974. That was the year movie critic Donald Bogle wrote his seminal book, "Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks", and suggested that these five African-American stereotypes were used everyday in the mass media and in particular in the cinema. Bogle's five main stereotypes were based on his research of the images that white Hollywood directors and movie audiences advanced about African-Americans. Now fast forward to 2003. Today many of these same images are still reinforced, reshaped and even rewind by black filmmakers, many of whom were interviewed in George Alexander's fine book, "Why We Make Movies: Black Filmmakers Talk About the Magic of Cinema." Still I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in understanding the philosophies and perseverance strategies of this creative colony of artists, activists and scholars. Lots of war stories. And for the most part, they did not shy away from discussing racism in Hollywood. The book is easy to read, and although not billed as a scholarly treatise, wears very well its key words of film and African American/African studies. In fact media and communication scholars will have little problem finding examples of agenda setting theory, propaganda, social responsibility theory and spiral of silence. But even more important, laypersons, movie goers and aspiring filmmakers will enjoy Alexander's ability to present these filmmakers and artists as approachable and genuinely a part of the larger African world community. I am an "index person" and "summary person," therefore, I think these two elements would have added greatly to this book. But I appreciated the fact that whenever a movie was mentioned, the date was included. Journalist George Alexander likes movies and his book provides us with a nice snapshot of many of the industry's black participants as scholars, mainstream filmmakers, documentarians and just plain old entertainers - flaws and all.

It is always a treat to read a work by an author who masters his subject and yet is very humble about his achievement. George Alexander's knowledge of movies comes from exposure to the magic of film at a young age, but also through learning the craft of screenwriting, and filmmaking in general, after college. His book is a gold mine as far as learning about black filmmakers and black filmmaking is concerned; it is almost an alternative, outsider's take on the American Film Industry and beyond. What makes it invaluable though is more that the reader is granted access both to the "Usual Suspects" of black filmmaking fame and the talented, less well-known and upcoming black filmmakers. Furthermore, one of Alexander's major achievements is to have managed to create a space where these two categories of black filmmakers could give us "a master class" in filmmaking.

Given the dynamism, diversity, and ever growing number of black filmmakers making movies successfully nowadays, it was always going to be difficult for Alexander to decide who would be featured in "Why We Make Movies": no criticism focused on why he did not include so and so cannot be taken seriously. But how do you conceptualise such a book? Alexander does a brilliant job here because he manages to propose a structure based on chronology, genre, filmmaking potential, filmmaking achievement, and crossing over, to name but a few. Yet Alexander seems to have no other ambition than taking the reader on "an odyssey across the plains of Black America's contributions to the magic of cinema".

The inclusion of Prof. Manthia Diwawara as the exception that confirms the rule in Alexander's book is more than justified. It is beyond the scope of this review to elaborate on Diawara's extraordinary body of work, e.g. his contributions to African/Black Diapora Studies. However, I would say that with Diawara, Haile Gerima, and Euzhan Palcy featured in "Why We Make Movies", for future editions Alexander might want to widen its concept so as to cater for Black Diaspora Cinema more strongly, and to refocus its central thesis in order to make it less casual. I am putting forward this latter point because "Why We Make Movies" is already a scholarly book, yet one in a position to be improved a great deal. No one interested in (black) cinema can afford to miss it: "that's the truth rruth".

Lovers of film, and especially those individuals who are interested in the behind-the-scenes action of movie making, will be thrilled by George Alexander's Why We Make Movies. Not only does the book get up close and personal with 35 or so of the most notable filmmakers of our time, it also serves as a historical context for black film, and provides information not commonly known about our favorite actors (including how Tupac got his first role in Juice), scripts, budgets, television productions, and the many problems encountered and conquered when it comes to filmmakers such as Spike Lee, George Tillman, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Robert Townsend, John Singleton, and many more.

The book is upfront about the racial and discriminatory issues that plague the industry and how, perhaps, one should approach filmmaking once they are aware of all the long standing issues. You get to read which scene Spike Lee regrets out of the dozens of movies he's made; you get to read what kind of power, if any, do successful black filmmakers have; you get to know their feelings about the current slate of movies that are being released, how directors prepare for shoots, just a wealth of vital information and tidbits that will broaden your knowledge about the industry.

Although the age range, gender, and backgrounds of the interviewees vary, one common bond is their love for film. Why We Make Movies is an important, eye-opening account that will cause your view of the magic of films to be enhanced.

From the very beginning of the television show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Nicolas Brendan has played the role of Xander Harris, the only character on the entire show that didn't have super-powers, yet was surrounded by Slayers, witches, werewolves, Watchers, demons and mystical balls of energy placed in human form. Xander however, was just Xander.

In this second volume of "The Xander Years" three more episodes are transcribed from teleplays into novel form by Jeff Mariotte. They are taken one each from the first three seasons and are "The Pack" by Matt Kiene and Joe Reinkemeyer, "Go Fish" by David Fury and Elin Hampton, and "The Zeppo" by Dan Vebber. They are framed by short introductions in which Xander drives around Sunnydale in his car pondering on the landmarks and his involvement in Buffy's life, and thankfully each episode actually centers on Xander. Often these 'trilogies' based on a character have nothing to do with the character involved ("The Willow Files" for example included "Dead Man's Party", an episode that didn't really concern her character specifically). Here however, a Xander fan can find pure-concentrated Xander.

In "The Pack", the ingenious writers of the show highlight the theme of high-school bullying and cruelty by having five of its students possessed by the spirits of hyenas. Unfortunately Xander is one of them, and Willow, Buffy and Giles create a plan to remove the spirit from him - whilst being hunted by the Pack themselves.

"Go Fish" concerns the Sunnydale High swim team, who are disappearing one by one. To watch the remaining team members more closely Xander volunteers to join the team, and is soon exposed to the swim coach's secret. This story is of special significance since it is one of the few times he gets to save Buffy's life instead of the other way around.

Finally "The Zeppo" is the quintessential Xander episode, possibly of the entire seven season run of the show. In just one night Xander gets a car, resurrects the dead, looses his virginity, is held at knife-point, takes on three zombies and faces down a bomb-toting lunatic - all whilst the rest of the gang battles the Apocalypse. It is his episode above any others, and best displays his role within the group: the unspoken hero that simply does his job without demanding recognition. It also gives us the phrase "The Zeppo", which baffled me when I first heard it, but Mariotte explains its meaning within the narrative.

Xander's other trademark characteristic is his uncanny ability to attract demon women, which oddly doesn't come much into these three stories (unless you count Cordelia), so if you want some of that try volume one of "The Xander Years". Mariotte has a brisk, clear style that highlights Xander's virtues and shortcomings, and like all these character-based books has four double-sided pages of coloured photographs.

I've always had a soft spot for Xander, and out of all the relationships/friendships on the show it was the connection between Xander and Buffy that fascinated me the most. Although I have nothing to back this up, I've always been of the opinion that his failure with women was simply because he never really gave up his love for Buffy. But that belongs in a fan fiction, whilst this is a great item for any Xander-fan, as is volume one. Is a third volume forthcoming?

This addition to the Buffy series and to the Xander-centeredXander Years part of the series captures the true essence of thecharacter Xander.From his hyena stage in his sophomore year (The Pack) to his experienceas with swimmers-turned-fish (Go Fish) to being the odd man out (The Zeppo), this book is an overall celebration of Xander's true self.

This was another good Buffy book. Even if you have seen the three episodes novelized here (The Pack, Go Fish, and The Zeppo) this book adds something. Anyway, I reccomend this if you like the show Buffy, especially if you are a Xander fan.

The novelization of these three particular teleplays creates a wonderful coming of age story. Xander grows from a 16 year old with raging hormones to an 18 year old discovering his own worth. Mr. Mariotte's back story is excellent. It bridges stories from the first, second and third seasons skillfully. Even if a person had not seen the television series they could follow the progression of events from one story to the next. It is a fun read and a must read for Xander fans.

Like the first volume of this "sub-series," these are truly episodes that focus on the troubled life of Xander Harris. "The Zeppo" is my favorite, mainly because it strikes my funny bone head-on to think that Coredlia actually knows about the Marx Brothers. Actually, I figured that particular allusion went over the heads of the vast majority of the Buffy audience. But it is nice that Joss tosses a bone to us older fans every once in a while. Anyhow, for my money this is one of the better Buffy novelizations.

The good things: -covers C4D (and screen shots of other apps) -offers great tuts in terms of making your own shaders and such. -the animation section is clearly written and a joy to follow -leads the newbie and intermediate 3D'r by the hand so you don't get lost.

The not so good: (*none* of which are the fault of Adam Watkins but rather the publisher) -all b/w but for a small 4 color insert -the b/w screen captures are a bit muddyand small making it difficult to make out details However, mention is made that there are full color pics of ALL book illustrations on the enclosed CD. -in the radiosity section (Pp 289) where a wireframe should be is the same grayscale photo just underneath...thereby making it tough to figure out the scene setup.

There are excellant examples of things we all have seen and some stuff we haven't from Alec Syme,Chad Griffiths, Ryan Crippen and of course Adam Watkins, to mention a few. Oh, and a couple "3d" pics from Phil McNally's Pump Action...you'll need your own set of red ans green lens 3D glasses for these pics.

Though there are many tuts for how to do this and that ... there are things like the metaballs pic by Alec that were not covered for a how to. That's just me though...I see a pic and want to know how'd he do that?

All in all the book is a must for your library... you'll go back and revisit it often.

This is the best 3d overview book I've seen yet. The examples reference C4D, Lightwave, and Strata but most of the material would be relevant to almost any 3d application. I really enjoyed the lighting chapter (turns out ideas from stage lighting apply to 3D). There's a lot of good stuff in this book.

Maybe 3 years ago it would have been a good choice, but now - don't bother.

3D Animation: From Models To Movies is a complete introduction to the creation of professional quality computer generated animation imaging. Key features included comprehensive coverage of fundamental 3D graphics required for animation; exercises to develop and hone computer animation skills; detailed tutorials for cover modeling, texturing, rendering, lighting, animation, and special effects; a color gallery displaying the work of talented students and artists; and an informative survey of cross-platform issues with explanations of how to apply animation techniques to a variety of software applications. 3D Animation is a complete course under one cover, and it's accompanying CD runs on either Windows or Mac, features a demo version of Maxon's Cinema 4D XLv6, a complete version of Strata 3D; all book images in full color, and tutorial support files.

If you are going for an advanced degree, you definitely need this
book.

Absolutely amazing! I never knew Braveheart was based on a poem and I was captivated by the description of all the different versions of the legend. I totally disagree with the other review, the Labyrinth chapter was fantastic! Who knew there was this weird internet culture obsessing over a kid flick? The Harry Potter debate gave a really good overview of the controversy surrounding the books and I really liked the quotes from people around the world debating it. The chapter on Wicca was phenomenal and I have a whole new view of witches. Even the chapter on Willa Cather fit in really nicely. Never a big fan of Cather, but I think that the author's approach to the novels was really radical and I think English teachers around the world should take note. I learned so much reading this book! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!

OK, I normally like books that review and give opinions on movies and books. Being a fan of quite a few works that she wrote on, I was disappointed. On the Labyrinth topic, she totally bashed on fanfiction. I agree that the original ending to the movie is fine the way it is, but she needs to realize that these people are just playing make believe, sorta like Sarah. I didn't agree with quite a few things that this writer proposed, but buy if you want to. My advice is don't.

I wrote a review of this before, but it somehow didn't end up on the site. I thought the topics were fascinating. I thought she covered them in an interesting way. I thought the piece on the Labyrinth was particualarly good. I thought the feminist perspective was something people rarely look at with the movie. I also think the debate on Harry Potter was great. And the Essay on William Wallace was thought provoking.

It's a great book for a Communication Studies major. I think it seems like something a professor might want for their class. Having taken many Comm Studies courses myself, I am able to see what approach the author has taken with many of the essays. If I had examples like that when I was in college a few years ago, I think it would have been easier to understand how to write the papers, because much of the material I was given to read in many classes was extremely boring.

I think it's a great read whether for academic reasons or not. Probably the weakest article is the one on Wicca merely because Wicca isn't a structured thing. The author did a great job with it considering the nature of the subject. My favorites were the Labyrinth and William Wallace pieces. I would recommend the book, for anyone in the mood for scholarly reading that isn't boring. (Which is pretty rare, so heads up to the author who makes it interesting).