Getting ready to do the |FRCR Part II. Looking for MCQ books. There are many on the bookshelves. Some are very difficult and some too easy. Some are old and do not cover the latest advancements. This book is quite new and is based on Grainger and Allison's radiology textbook which in itself is almost a gold standard for radiologists. If you read the mcq book you really get the extract of most of the relevant information in the 3 volume Grainger and Allison's book. Buy it before it goes out of stock. A must before the exams.

Killing Me Softly introduces Gideon Lowry, Korean War vet, thrice divorced, pianist, and finally P.I. A "Conch" born and raised in Key West Gideon has fallen on hard times. Too much alcohol and not enough work have brought Gideon closer to the edge than he has ever been before. Then a 40 year old murder case is brought to him by the sister of the murder victim, and Gideon becomes involved in a pursuit that involves the most powerful family in the area and his own brother, now a state senator.

Leslie does a fine job of creating an interesting P.I. in a genre where originality is at a premium. In Lowry, Leslie has created a very human detective, a realistic mystery and a cast of interesting supporting characters. A solid debut.

Very interesting reading written by experts in their fields. One criticism is that there should have been more discussion of unresolved issues.

One cannot review a collection by Robert Leslie Bellem; one has to review the whole of his work.
Bellem is many things: inventive, energetic, fun, exhausting. Some might say bad. But like Hong Kong Cinema and whatever kind of rock music you listened to to rebel against your elders, Bellem's Dan Turner saucy, hard-boiled pulp stories transcend such petty, bourgeois categorizations at good or bad. They are entertainment at its purest, most raw and visceral.

Perhaps he was a hack. After all, he cranked out a million words a year by some accounts. He possessed none of the depth of Chandler, Hammett, Ross Mac, not even of Spillane or Gardiner. Then again he is more compulsively readable than Stockbridge or Daly or any of the others except Chandler. His voice was unique, creating a genre parody only a few years after the genre itself had been created. 40's slang has been called the most vibrant language since The Bard's time. And Bellem used his share of it. Although there is none of Chandler's artistry and care with language and simile (Bellem uses the language like a blunt, inexact science, formulated like an equation to get a rise from readers) it is a wonder to behold, all the same. Some say he was spoofing; others merely that he was lousy. But I tend to think he knew what he was doing. It takes talent to write as he did, and so what if he doesn't delve into the human psyche?

What exactly are his stories like? Well, Dan Turner investigates crimes involving drugs, murder, blackmail and adultery among the elite Babylonians of Hollywood. Only he's not a detective or a PI, he's a skulk or an orb for hire. And he doesn't do leg work because he doesn't have legs; he has sticks or pins. And he torches gaspers, sticking them in his pan or his mush. Women are wrens or pigeons, seldom wear a whole lot and every dame in Turner's universe has all the equipment wink-wink, nudge, nudge. He doesn't call people on the phone, he rings and yodels. Roscoes belch ka-chow and people are bumped by lead pills in acts of killery. He finds one or two per story dead as six buckets of fish bait. Turner would not say, "The heck you say!" He would say, "The heck you utter!" Bellem is not above bludgeoning readers with alliteraton. And, come on, the guy actually uses pig latin! How can you not like stuff like this?

Critics might say that once you've read one Dan Turner plot, you've read them all, or that once you've read six stories, you've read every turn of phrase in Bellem's arsenal. There is an element of truth to that, in the same way there is an element of truth to say Speed was similar to Die Hard. But I watch them each and every time they're on TV and don't grow weary. And I will continue to seek out Bellem fiction.

Bellem wrote primarily for the "spicy" pulps, much frowned-on in the 30's and eventually done away with. At his most prurient Bellem feels fairly scummy. On average he is less so that Spillane. Only one in this collection feels like it was meant solely for the lonely, sweaty under-the-counter market. Although Dan Turner demonstrates his way with the ladies and shows he knows how sometime-heroes make use of ellipses...

Okay, I'm back. And no, I didn't. But I trust you get the idea. Anyway, a faint sense of yuckiness keeps me from bestowing this book a fifth star.

But I heartily recommend it, if you can find it, and any other Bellem stories you can dish out your hard-earned geetus for, get your mitts on and glim.

This book was ok! it was sort of boring though! The characters were very interesting though!

"Halliwell's Film & Video Guide" has always been my favorite guide to films since the first edition came out many years ago. The first thing I noticed about Halliwell was that he used the entire 4-star scale in a consistent way. Most other film guides, while they purport to rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 stars, really just use 2.5 to 4 (with ratings of 0 to 2 all meaning "not recommended" -- but who cares whether a film is rated 1 versus 1.5, if it's not recommended, don't bother). Halliwell's system takes some getting used to, but once you see the value in it (if you give it enough time), the pay-off is worthwhile. And another refreshing aspect is that relatively few films get the highest rating of 4-stars, unlike some critics who give 4-stars to half the films they see, making the rating meaningless.

After Halliwell died, John Walker took over. He almost immediately 'updated' many of Halliwell's ratings (e.g., "Persona," which used to rank a 2-star rating, was upgraded to 4-stars). I agree with most of Walkers updates, though he has a slight tendency to over-rate, in my opinion.

Many film entries are peppered with quotes from other critics, often going against Halliwell's and Walker's assessment and offering an alternate evaluation -- this shows that these gentleman have an open mind.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable, incredibly well-researched book. Worth every penny. But stay with it -- it's a goldmine if you take the time to delve in.

This is truly one of the finest and most invaluable film guides available on the market today; it is also one of the first of its kind, but the years have been very nice to this perennial favorite which hasn't lost a bit of its spark. The synopsis given for each film is generally brief, but always concise! Of course, you may find yourself in conflict with the reviewer's overall opinion of the film, but let's face it, that's gonna happen sooner or later with any movie guide you buy! Admittedley, Halliwell's book is one of the most aggressively opinionated film guides out there(one can turn pages and pages without spotting a film that rates four, even three stars), but the quips, even the most disparaging of them, are undeniably clever and amusing. Halliwell's Film Guide is also unique in that it often includes a movie's slogan above the title of the film. Yes, Leonard Maltin is one of the country's most knowledgable and rightfully respected film critics of today, but Leslie Halliwell was the great man who pretty much set the standard for the many other movie and video guides out there, including Leonard's. Although Halliwell's guide is pricier than most of the other movie reference books, the payoff is immeasurable, as the book provides page after page and hour after hour of endless reading pleasure. Whether you are looking to be informed or entertained or perhaps both, Halliwell's Film Guide is the book for you! Those who like it will also appreciate Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies.

"Halliwell's Film & Video Guide" has always been my favorite guide to films since the first edition came out many years ago. The first thing I noticed about Halliwell was that he used the entire 4-star scale in a consistent way. Most other film guides, while they purport to rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 stars, really just use 2.5 to 4. It takes some getting used to, but once you see the value in his system (if you give it enough time), the pay-off is worthwhile.

After Halliwell died, John Walker took over. He almost immediately 'updated' many of Halliwell's ratings (e.g., "Persona," which used to rank a 2-star rating, was upgraded to 4-stars). I agree with most of Walkers updates, though he has a slight tendency to over-rate.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable, incredibly well-researched book. Worth every penny. But stay with it -- it's a goldmine if you take the time to delve in. Judging by some of the other reviews I've read here, many people gave up (perhaps too soon).

I can be brief. It is astonishing how even brilliant minds, like Professor Penrose can go astray. There was this housewife from Pennsylvania who within weeks hit the jackpot twice on the same ticket. The papers were quick to report that this was a one to 17 billion long shot. Not true! Or only true if no one else but Ms Johnes is supposed to be the winner. But if just SOMEBODY is supposed to win, then, given the number of participants, the odds are something in the order of 1:30. Neither evolution nor the universe are partial about us, only WE have this bias. But given size and duration of available worlds, SOMETHING is bound to happen, if not here than somewhere else, if not life then some other oddity. As it happened it was life and it was us. Personally I don't believe in Big Bang and all this nonsense, so there is plenty of time for something to happen anyway, but this is not my point: even given the limitations and strictures most seem to believe can be observed out there, the one universe there is, is still big enough for something to occur. Besides evolution is the mechanism gradually to improve the odds. Again: evolution has no intentions to end up with weird critters like us. But it proceeds in a way that makes us possible: not necessary, but possible. The whole 'anthropic principle,' is just an other exercise in human vanity. If we can't be the necessary fruit of events, we want at least to be an impossibly rare specimen. We are neither folks, and that is all there is to it.

Not believing in Darwinian evolution, I find the Anthropic Principle (the core concept of the book) compelling - it does seem to me that the Universe has been fine-tuned for life. And some of the examples were quite pertinent. However, I quit reading about 1/3 of the way through the book for three reasons. 1) I found that the same facts and arguments seemed to be repeated over and over. 2) I found the book to be a "hard read" - the logic did not seem easy to follow (this may be because I have a "scientific" mind rather than a "philosophic" mind and most of the arguments are presented from a philosophical reference). 3) Multiple universes with different laws of nature, which the author believes to exist, are needed to explain the fine-tuning of our Universe only because scientists refuse to accept an "intelligent desinger" because "He" can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured, and is not constrained by the laws of nature as we know them. Yet, these same scientists have no problem believing in other universes that can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured , and which do not follow the laws of nature as we know them. For those who are looking for scientific arguments against Darwinian evolution, I suggest these recent works by two Ph.D.'s: DARWIN'S BLACK BOX;THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION and THE SCIENCE OF GOD:THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM.

This book is truly wonderful. Not only that, it is perhaps the only book that I know of that is endorsed by BOTH atheists and theists alike. Yep, that's right boys and girls. Quentin Smith is one of the most die hard atheists on the planet and Peter Van Inwagen of the university of Nortre Dame is one of the biggest defenders of theism. Both rave about this book and their comments can be read on the back cover. So, what is this book all about, you ask? Well, it's something known as the Anthropic Principle. It was first introduced in the early 1970s by a physicist by the name of Brandon Carter. It basically states that we are not just lucky to be here, but rather we are REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky to be here. Why? Because from the first instant of the big bang onward, an incredible and highly improbable slew of things HAD to go right in order for the possibility for life to exist anywhere in the universe. So much so that it seems that the universe was "fine tuned" just for life. Sir Fred Hoyle (an atheist) was led to comment that the universe looks like a "put up job." Now, this set of circumstances led to a ressurection of the Argument from Design by the theists with renewed vehemence. Meanwhile, the atheists have their own responses, which basically take up two camps. First Response (also known as the Weak Anthropic Principle or WAP): "Of course the universe has laws which allow life to exist. If they didn't we would not be here. Therefore, the odds are irrelevant except perhaps for some latenight philosophic mental gymnastics." Now, there is a problem with this response in that it is nothing more than a tautology. That is to say, it does not EXPLAIN why the universe supports life despite so many constricted laws of physics and chemistry. It is like someone asking why the Dallas Cowboys won the superbowl and having a person respond "because they scored more points than the other team." That answers nothing. The question is: WHY did they win? Were they better than the other team? Did they get lucky? Did they have a better coach? Did the other team have injuries? Were turnovers a factor? etc. etc. Saying that "they scored more points" only states the obvious: "of course they scored more points, or else they would not have won the game..." Now, the second camp is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and it goes something like this: "Since the odds of our existing in a universe with the PRECISE physical laws necessary for us to do so are so slim as to be intellectually unacceptable (in the order of 10^10^123 according to Roger Penrose) there must then be a whole slew of other universes (perhaps an infinite number) to JUSTIFY this one. That is to say, in an infinite number of universes, virtually anything can happen. The majority of them would have random, weird laws of physics and be lifeless but EVERY SO OFTEN you would get one which could support life (in some form or another)." Now, this is an interesting argument, but it has a fatal flaw. There is not a SHRED of evidence that even one other universe exists besides our (much less an infinte number of them). Yet they seem to HAVE to exist in order for the numbers to come out right. Hence, if one chooses to believe in these alternate universes (no matter what his scientific credentials) he MUST do so on faith alone. Obviously, most atheists are not comfortable with this conclusion, but that is the way it goes. Leslie's book engages the subject objectively and he tells wonderful, fun stories that offer both the atheist (multiple universe) and theistic (one universe with a designer) perceptions of the debate. A remarkable book. I think that Mr. Pierson missed the point when he read it as it is not about Darwinian evolution at all (nor does Leslie ever say it is). It is well worth reading the whole thing, too. What Mr. Pierson said about atheists being willing to believe in multiple universes but are not willing to believe in God is precisely one of Leslie's points. However, I also would endorse the other books that Mr. Pierson recommended as I have read them too. Also, I would suggest for those who like this book Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith and William Craig Lane.

On the positive side, this is perhaps the most comprehensive of film guides available. Not only do Halliwell and Walker cover most films released on the western market, but they also give more production details than any other similar volume. As a reference work, it is definitely worth having at hand.

The reviews themselves are interesting, though each is limited to one or two sentences, and the opportunity for comment is too often squandered away on petty sarcasms that miss the mark. There are a few inconsistencies apparent. Some films are awarded two or three stars (out of a maximum of 4) with little rationale offered. For example, A Room with a View is alotted 3 stars before being (apparently) dismissed by a description of it as a lacklustre drama that might have been made for TV, but which might be enjoyed by those starved of entertainment. The lamentable 'Independence Day' is given one star, whilst the comparable, yet far superior, Armageddon is awarded none. One of the great British pictures of the 1960s, Billy Liar, is given a well-deserved three stars (so far so good), which then threatens to become almost meaningless when the grossly inferior (though still worthy) British comedy of the same decade, Carry On Up the Khyber, is given the same. Why these inconsistencies? Perhaps the last of those can be explained by the fact that Halliwell himself didn't even think that the Carry On films were decent enough to warrant individual entries, whereas Walker later reneged on his behalf and not only gave them their own reviews, but awarded many of them one or two stars (quite insane, on the whole, given some of the excellent films not even considered worthy of a single star).

The verdict: useful reference book; always interesting to read other people's opinions, but many of the opinions expressed in here are severely off the mark; lastly, I suspect most of the flaws can be attributed to John Walker's editing following Halliwell's death.

This lowers a 5-star recommendation given in an earlier review based on a previous edition of this guide. The latest edition leaves intact Mr. Halliwell's reviews for films before 1965 and these remain invaluable. But Mr. Walker's tampering with later reviews is now extensive and has added only pretentiousness and poor judgment to the product. The work remains exceptional for Golden Age movies; otherwise, caveat emptor.

The previous reviewer from England pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding what has happened to this film guide over the
years. I think it's only reasonable to assume that once Halliwell died someone new, with a different set of criteria would be writing synopsis and reviews for movies. This in itself is not a problem. What is inexcusable is the way the editor who took over (John Walker) went back and changed the ratings on most of the films in the book in order to keep it more aligned with what he sees as the current popular view. So a movie like Blue Velvet which got zero stars in the original now has two stars or Battle of Algiers which had one star now has four stars. Compounding the confusion is the fact that the original synopsis written by Halliwell have NOT been changed. Therefore you can read pans of movies by Halliwell (such as BV) and then see it highly recommended with Walkers star ratings. Hmm.

One thing that wasn't mentioned was the typeface. The older
editions used to be printed on very crisp white paper with dark easily readable typeface. Now it is printed on cheaper paper with microscopic typeface that anyone without very good vision is recommended to purchase a magnifying glass for. While I find it tolerable for looking up a few films it certainly dissuades one from just kicking back and browsing through it for any length of time.

Lastly, all the way through the 1997 edition Halliwell's Guide was always available in a sturdy hardcover edition as well as a paperback. Now paperback is the only option one gets.

This guide gets three stars because it's still a useful book but
it is truly discouraging the way that it has been ruthlessly altered by the new editor to the point that it is a mere shadow of its former self.

i don't know what the hell was going on. those damn yanks don't know what they're talking about. i could write a better book than this with my toes.

I was ensnared into reading this book by the promising name of the author. While I do not regret having read this book, I do not think that this does measure up to the 'Tin Drum'. If you are planning to read Grass for the first time, tehn this is not the book to get started with.

Some people, especially those who can not find fault with anything, least of all with literature, might say that the humor here is subtle as compared with the humor of the 'Tin Drum' where it was more ribald. To use the word 'subtle' in that sense would be more a misuse of the term than anything else. The humor remains dark here. The background remains war and nazi Germany. But still the main the theme is that of an adolescent hero (Mahlke) and hero-worship by the narrator (Pilenz) and others.

It would be a fair asumption that most of us have had some heroes during our school days. Therefore it is not too difficult to identify with the theme and the narrator of this book. The narrator here is Pilenz and his hero is Joachim Mahlke. Mahlke is a catholic teenager with an abnormally protruding Adams apple. He is a year older than the rest of the group. He is the best swimmer and diver and he often spends his time in a barge nearby the shore that went down during the war. He has the largest penis in the group and he is the most prolific masturbator. But he generally stays away from adulation. After a daring stealing act whereby he stole a nazi-German officer who was visiting his school, he gets expelled from his and the narrator's school. Later he joins the army and becomes a tanker. There also, he becomes a hero all of which is told in a 3rd persons voice. After his first furlough, he decides not to turn up for his military work again. Then an intrusting climax.

Throughout the novel, you have the nazi Germany and the unmentionable fuhrer as the background. The cruelty of that age is not explicitly stated here. It is amazing now for us , blessed with the advantage of hind sight, to observe that most of the Germans of that age did not recognize the fundamental evil of what they were supporting. They still had cold winters, they still had flowers bloom in spring, they still had wonderful swimming seasons in summer. The nazi youth's childhood was as naughty and gloomy as ours. Nothing was different, yet everything was fundamentally different. It is equally important in this context to note that the very reason for which our hero turns a deserter was not that he found out that he found war to be evil. It was more due to a combination of fear and boredom.

The prose here is at most times banal, unimaginative and boring. Compare that with the wit and intelligence of 'Tin Drum'. Only the descriptions of the church rituals and the sentences where all words are combined without period, commas etc remain the same.

I would recommend this book to someone who has already read Grass. If you are a first timer to Grass, start with the ' Tin Drum'. Otherwise, you would develop an 'anti Grass ' syndrome. Finally I must admit to be a Grass admirer.

This book is a bunch of cartoons with no answers to the questions. To understand the book you have to have a sense of imagination. The author gets too personal with his pictures instead of teaching about phyical science.