Solid information, but bland, wan execution.
Computers and rogue clones are unlikely to exterminate humanity, but an asteroid might.
Perkowitz (Physics/Emory Univ.; Universal Foam: From Cappuccino to the Cosmos, 2000, etc.) takes the measure of a cross section of Hollywood films that contain scientific content, pointing out what “movie science” gets right and, more frequently, wrong. The author evaluates films about alien life, natural disasters, genetic manipulation and artificial intelligence—the majority of the movies in question are in the science-fiction genre and are largely apocalyptic. Each chapter provides a plot summary of a handful of high-profile films, then presents the real-world possibilities suggested by those films. Perkowitz presents the information in an accessible manner, but the text feels like a high-school science lecture delivered by a teacher eager to engage students with pop-culture relevance. The author projects an obvious enthusiasm for movies, but little discernible critical facility. His objections to 2003’s ludicrous turkey The Core are based largely on the scientific gaffes, rather than the appalling quality of the writing, acting and directing. This perhaps explains his fondness for the egregiously terrible The Saint (1997), whose scientist-heroine, played by the comely Elizabeth Shue, apparently made quite a favorable impression on the author. The book is intermittently interesting: Cloning and robotics are almost always incorrectly portrayed, while cataclysmic stories of meteor collisions and plagues are frighteningly viable. Still, this material would have been better served by a long magazine article or a short documentary. The concluding chapter makes a few perfunctory points about the influence movies can wield—as children, writes the author, many scientists were inspired by sci-fi flicks—and the potential of film as an educational tool.
Solid information, but bland, wan execution.Pub Date: Nov. 1, 2007
ISBN: 978-0-231-14280-9
Page Count: 256
Publisher: Columbia Univ.
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2007
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2026 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
