BOOK: Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind (1994)

Category: Nonfiction
Subcategory: Anthropology

Description: Richard Leakey, of the famous Leakey family who have been responsible for many key anthropological finds, summarizes in this slim book the state of our current understanding of the evolution of human beings. In a friendly and clear voice, he walks the reader through historical ideas, modern excavations, archaeology, genetics, how scientists interpretations of the physical evidence often differs, and what the "tree" (or "bush") of our evolution may look like given the evidence current at the time of publication.

Reading level: Easy. Very little jargon used and when it is, it's explained well.
Writing quality: Above Average. Clear and concise, with a friendly voice.
Content: Excellent and well organized; As an overview, lacks purposely in depth.

Meta-comments: Recommended for beginning your anthrolpological education or just for a few hours of interesting and thoughtful fun. A bit like an Asimov nonfiction book, Leakey has a very relaxed manner about his prose, and yet manages to squeeze a lot of relevant information into a fairly slim volume while keeping it all organized and understandable. He's not afraid to state his own opinions on controversial matters, but gives equal time to opposing views. And just occasionally, he rises above the mechanistic description of basic anthropology and waxes philosophical (even spiritual), most notably in the chapter about the cave paintings at Lascaux (and ones like them in Altamira and elsewhere). There we discover Leakey the romantic, a man with a true passion for his work and a real desire to connect to our species' past. That chapter and other bits of the book, where one suddenly remembers that the author is one of the pre-eminent experts in his field and not some mere science journalist (a fact you might not otherwise catch as he never waves it in your face), stuck with me and make this book, for me, one of those little gems: easy to read, compact, yet written in a deceptively masterful way that makes it difficult to forget. Even if you go on read many more technically sophisticated anthropology books (and I encourage you to - there are a wealth of really good ones available), you'll probably always remember this little one and happily recommended to a friend who expresses curiousity in the discipline. Even as a person who was by no means new to physical anthropology, I still enjoyed Leakey's comforting little summary of this fascinating field and have recommended it myself to several others. This is part of series called "Science Masters" which all aim to be succinct yet not superficial, and are all written by leaders in their respective fields: Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Marvin Minsky, Paul Davies, Stephen Gould, et al. It probably won't be the last in that series I'll review here.

Overall: Highly Recommended.

Decided to review films AND books.

And I've come up with formats for doing each type, quickly, so I don't have to think about what to say first or about being consistant - it will sort-of be built in.

For FILMS.
Title:
Genre(s):
Director:
Actors:

[Brief plot summary, minimal spoilers]

Visuals*: 1-5 stars
Audio**: 1-5 stars
Acting***: 1-5 stars
Direction: 1-5 stars
Screenplay: 1-5 stars

[Brief review, noting particular hightlights/lowlights]
Overall: 1-10 stars [to eliminate need for half stars]

----

For BOOKS
Category: [Nonfiction, Fiction]
Subcategories: [e.g. For NONF: Geology; For FICT: Drama, Romance, Victorian]

[Brief description, minimal spoilers]

Reading level: [Easy, Medium, Challenging]****
Writing quality: Poor, Average, Above Average, Excellent*****
Content: Poor, Average, Above Average, Excellent
Tilt: A subjective statement about the book as a whole.

[Meta-comments: Explain the tilt, basically. What did I like or dislike most? And so on; most of the subjective 'review' goes here.]

----

Footnotes:
*Includes cinematography, costuming, CG, animation - anything visual.
**Likewise includes soundtrack, sound quality, sound effects, foley work.
***Overall acting. Individual performances can be notes in meta-comments.
****Based on an adult who reads fairly often. Pre-teens and PhDs in English will likely find the scale needs to be shifted, but should hold relative to itself.
*****Includes command of language, style, clarity, effectiveness, charisma.

----
OK, enough of the preliminary stuff. Let's knock out some reviews, eh?

Music reviews and ratings too?

I am toying with the idea (now, before this even gets going) of reviewing music CDs on this site as well. Just freely interspersed with the movies, and hopefully not taking anything away from the movie effort.

What do you think of that? I could take requests just like for movies, but chances are I will review and rate more of the type of music I like, simply because of interest and access.

I would try to keep it interesting to as many readers as possible, but not at the sake of boring myself or not reviewing some of my favorite personal albums (from all decades and genres). That's just the nature of the beast.

First!

Hah, I get to say that with confidence since I am the mastermind and creator of this blog and you are not!

The important idea to get across in any first post is what the blog will be about, and maybe how it's different from other blogs that are covering nearly the exact same material.

This is too bad, because first of all, nobody actually goes back and reads the first post after it's hit the archives, and all expect the blog's Raison d'être to announce itself in the framework of the site rather than lie buried somewhere in the content, for God's sake.

I've cleverly addressed this issue with massive foresight by putting the "Welcome!" box over in the right-hand sidebar.

Secondly, as a movie review site, that most cliché construct of all, I literally cannot think of anything that would make this particular review site different or special.

Except for the fact, that is, that I'm writing it, and I know what you are thinking better than you do most of the time, and even when we disagree, it's nearly always scientifically provable that I'm right and you aren't.

So I guess what I'm saying is, if you want one source which will tell you exactly how to think about a wide offering of movies past and present, then you are a total sheep. On the other hand, you'll probably agree with me due to my sheer powers of persuasion.

That and the fact that I'm objectively and demonstrably correct at all times.