As is typical of many of the current trough of poorly written "true crime" books, Sudden Fury begins by almost immediately letting you know "who done it". After that, it becomes just a dry recitation of the facts, including the background of the "abused" murderer. It leaves the reader wondering why she would bother writing a book when a simple magazine article could give almost as much factual information.

Of course, in the author's view, the victims' requiring their adopted sons to make decent grades, not steal, and obey society's rules is "abuse". The constant whining theme of "he just needs love" conveniently whitewashes the fact that the parents, though flawed themselves, adopted the children with the idea of doing just that, and the boys continually and willfully did wrong, often for no purpose other than to just show they could. Although it sounds like the father had a bad temper, even a patient parent would eventually get sick and tired of the antisocial behavior they were dealing with from two kids who, typical of adopted children, wanted "unconditional love" and continually pushed the limits to make their adoptive parents "prove" their love. (If you believe in "unconditional love", try cheating on or stealing from your spouse repeatedly, and then demand it.) These kids had free will, a great 2nd chance in life, and they stupidly threw it away with their selfish and sociopathic behavior. Not once does the author bring up the topic of "evil" or even mention in passing that perhaps if the young lad were so unhappy, he should have asked someone at his school to get him removed from that house.

Other incidents of "abuse" the author describes are: 1. not paying for his drivers ed class, and not letting him drive unless he passed all his courses. (Oh the horror!) 2. discouraging him from dating any girl more than once at 15-16 years of age to avoid problems with sex. (with over 60% of births now out of wedlock, not such an unwise idea at his age, and certainly not "abuse") 3. The father getting angry the night of the murder because the boy and his friends had ruined a computer disk containing countless hours of his father's accounting work and programming. I wonder what the author would say to her 16 y/o child if he had trashed her only copy of this book's manuscript after months of work. I'm sure she'd just smile and buy him an ice cream cone.

This "boy" will be getting out of jail before he's 30, probably, and god help the people who come accross him then. Unlike the theory of one person in the book, his problem wasn't his adoptive parents, it was his inability to understand that being adopted and having a tough childhood isn't carte blanche to vicimize the rest of us. If you want to prevent tradgedies like this, start making people who recklessly have children out of wedlock pay the price.

The victims' families should sue the author for libel, if they already haven't. Though perhaps overly rigid and imperfect, they were trying to help these kids, and the author used primarly the MURDERER'S point of view and that of their INSTITUTIONALIZED CRIMINAL older son to assasinate their character.

The final fact is, this "boy" CHOSE to murder two people because he didn't like their rules and "felt bad". Society is better off without such people and their excuse mongers as well.

Coming from someone who grew up in the neighborhood where this crime happened and knowing the murderer, I found this book chilling. For those of us who knew him, Larry was anything but antisocial. He tried hard to please. I think the book depicted the case in very factual details. It's difficult to read even now many years after the incident.

Not your typical whodunnit, Sudden Fury is one of the better true crime books I've read. It's an emotional whodunnit of sorts, a chilling account of a boy abandoned into the foster care system who grew up to be violent. I especially liked the alternating story lines--the present-tense crime investigation alternating with the child's upbringing. I found the writing style objective in a way that made it compelling. The tragedy, I felt, was heightened by the fact the adoptive parents were so well meaning, however misguided they may have been. I felt the author struck a delicate balance between blaming the adoptive parents, the boy and the social welfare system for the horrible outcome. While depressing, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the psychology of violence.

"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).

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.