The Homeschooled Review

"Secretariat" movie review

2011-01-31T21:01:00.001-05:00

An enjoyable movie for anyone who enjoys horses! The racing action is very exciting, and all the more thrilling for Secretariat having really done it!

The only real downer, to me, was that Penny (Secretariat's owner) seems to put her horse responsibilities above her family responsibilities, and, isn't depicted as having a very close relationship with her husband. They treat each other more like politely kind brother and sister. It's partly the fault of the husband being a very bland actor, I believe, and another of the movie's focus being on her and the horse, thus leaving little time for development and better understanding of her family life. So no real objections, just a sense of dissatisfaction with that aspect. Watch the movie for the horse story, not the human story, and you'll be fine.

As far as genuine objectionable content, all I have to say is that in one sequence, one of the daughters is wearing a pair of pretty short shorts. The movie is rated PG for "brief mild language" but I'm honestly not sure what that refers to. I didn't catch it, wherever it came up.

The cast in the "horse world" is excellent. The trainer, the groom, and the jockey "make the movie" in my opinion! And I was pleased to find out the actor who portrayed the jockey is a Christian! I was told that the director is a Christian, too, but I haven't researched it for myself. Scripture does open the movie! A passage from Job, concerning horses. It is the best movie opening ever! So cool how they did it! You should watch the beginning, if no more. :)

This movie goes down on my "recommended" list, for the sake of the clean content and exciting horse action.

"The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax" by Dorothy Gilman

2011-01-22T10:04:00.004-05:00

I found this book, the first of a series, in our county library and thought it looked very promising. I love Agatha Christie's "Miss Marple" mysteries and this looked similar.

Mrs. Pollifax is tired of her life as an old lady. Her children are grown and moved away, and she lives alone, spending her days volunteering at one charity or another. As she slips toward depression, her doctor recommends that she should do something she always wanted to do, but couldn't, because of family responsibilities. But what Mrs. Pollifax has always wanted to be is a spy! She applies for the job, and through a series of hiccups she is accidentally hired by the department as a courier of secret documents from Mexico. It was supposed to be a very safe and very simple mission. But things go wrong through no fault of Mrs. Pollifax, and she soon lands in a most unexpected situation, and performs in a most unexpected way.

The book would have met with my every favorable expectation if not for the unexpected foul language sprinkled generously throughout. Why the author would have made such a move, effectively crossing children off her target audience, is beyond me. And for myself, that's not something I need to exposing myself to more of, (I can't help hearing it in the real world but I can help reading it). I could overlook a word or two but not in this quantity. There is also no reference to God that is not flippant, and are a couple references to "the gods." I am very sorry to bid Mrs. Pollifax farewell forever, because with a few alterations, the Mrs. Pollifax books could have been a new favorite series of mine. The plot was creative, the writing good, and Mrs. Pollifax quite memorable. But all things considered, I cannot recommend this book.

"Tangled" Movie Review

2010-12-12T19:04:00.003-05:00

An animated story of Rapunzel, with exciting twists and adventures along the way.

I LIKE THIS MOVIE.

It is super funny, and surprisingly clean! It doesn't contain any rude humor that I picked up on, nor inappropriately dressed girls. (The evil old lady's may be a little low at times, but not shockingly so). There were only one or two things that struck me as objectionable. One was a conversation between Rapunzel and Flynn Rider, (a handsome bandit! ;), when Rapunzel is struggling with guilt over disobeying the woman she thinks is her mother, by leaving the tower. Flynn tells her that it's part of growing up, to rebel at a certain age and break your mother's heart. There is an impression that Flynn's advice is not to be trusted at this point, yet the statement is never openly refuted. This is not a good thing for kids to hear, as it makes an excuse for and encourages sin nature. If you watch the movie with children, consider doing some explaining/correcting during this scene. The other possible objection was an emphasis on following your dreams, which isn't all bad, but gets blown out of proportion by Disney all the time.

I definitely do recommend "Tangled," unless you harbor an abhorrence for animated films, or happily-ever-after stories. I personally love both. And I want a horse like Maximus!

Speak Now - Taylor Swift

2010-11-15T00:26:00.001-05:00

Taylor Swift's third album Speak Now, sold 1,047,000 copies in its first week. I was hoping that meant that she was actually improving as a songwriter/singer, so I listened to the album.

"Mine" is comparable to "Love Story" in that they're both cute stories, and not as musically redundant as Swift's music sometimes can be. But "Mine" is not nearly as close to innocent as "Love Story," mentioning "a drawer of my things at your place" among other things.

"Sparks Fly" has several suggestive phrases like "it's just wrong enough to make it feel right" and mentions "you're the kind of reckless that should send me running" and "my mind forgets to remind me you're a bad idea." There are no decent parts to this song.

"Back to December" (supposedly written to "Twilight" star, Taylor Lautner) apologizes for breaking his heart, and seems to be asking for him to take her back. It's kinda catchy, but I can't get past the fact that she's broadcasting this tender little apology to the whole world. If I were Taylor Lautner, I think I would be disgusted. As more of a "wish-I-could-tell-you," anonymous sort of song, though, it's not bad.

"Speak Now" is about a girl barging into her ex-boyfriend's wedding and breaking it up. She talks about the bride "yelling at a bridesmaid... wearing a gown shaped like a pastry" and "her snotty little family." If she's correct about the bride's personality, I guess she did her ex-boyfriend a favor. Again, not bad... pretty funny.

"Dear John" (rumored to be written to singer John Mayer) rants about how he treated her and paints a bleak picture of the aftermath of their age-imbalanced relationship. I didn't enjoy it at all, but there's nothing too objectionable about the lyrics.

"Mean" is a childish song written to a critic who did what critics do: criticized her. At one point Swift says she can see him in bar years from now "drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing." This song would be hilarious except for the fact that a 20-year-old wrote it... and appears to take herself seriously. The word "mean" is extremely over-used, and I think I can see the critic dying of laughter over this song.

"The Story of Us" is just a stereotypical failed happily-ever-after story and seeing each other after the relationship fell apart. Another so-so song with nothing objectionable, and a catchy tune but just a little redundant and boring. And it ends weirdly with a spoken "The End."

"Never Grow Up" is a sweet, sad song about Swift's feelings about getting her own apartment, and what her parents probably felt thinking about her childhood. But the phrase "grow(n) up" is used too many times and you just want to never hear her sing those words again when the song is finally over...

"Enchanted" is about love (or obsession?) at first sight. Swift muses, "the lingering question kept me up 2am, who do you love?" A light-hearted, innocent song about that completely shallow attraction that you can have after barely meeting someone. The line "I was enchanted to meet you" goes down better than "please don't be in love with someone else" though.

"Better Than Revenge" (possibly written to Joe Jonas' next girlfriend) is bursting with childishness that rivals "Mean." She seems to equate the stolen boyfriend with "toys on the playground" and speaks of having the boyfriend "right where I wanted him" when the other girl "stole" him. She also digs into the other girl with an inappropriate line about her reputation.

"Innocent" looks back on childhood innocence and offers forgiveness ("who you are is not what you did") assumedly to Kanye West, who apparently insulted her by interrupting an acceptance speech. Another shallow, slightly boring song, but with a feel-good message... however incorrect (since no one is really innocent...)

"Haunted" is another love story gone wrong, with Swift yearning for an ex, "haunted" by the relationship. Nothing bad here, just another redundant song.

"Last Kiss" is suspected to be written about Joe Jonas. It's a hopeless and depressing song about their breakup. She says she'll "go sit on the floor wearing your clothes" and wishes him well while she wallows in her pain and declares "your name, forever the name on my lips." There's also a hint of a sleepover when she says "like I used to watch you sleep."

"Long Live" is a fun, fairy-tale-esque story about crashing through walls, fighting dragons, moving mountains and ruling the world.

Compared to other teen stars who are "growing up" Taylor Swift's new album isn't as bad as I would imagine Miley Cyrus' album (I only bothered to listen to "Can't Be Tamed".... freaky) but maybe that's because she's just not growing up as fast. The whole album felt very much like something a 14 or 15-year-old might have written, especially since those ages have become targeted by so much more sensuality recently.

Also, Taylor Swift can't sing. I've heard her "live" (though I wasn't actually there, it was on TV) and she's really terrible.

I'm a little scared that 1,047,000 copies of this album sold in the first week.

Inception (PG-13)

2010-08-03T18:37:00.001-04:00

First, my completely biased opinion: one of the most amazing, thought-provoking, well-filmed and fascinating movies that I have ever seen. I immediately wanted to go back into the theater and watch it again. The plot is so detailed and unique. I really enjoyed it. I highly recommend it to the older teen/adult who enjoys that sort of mysterious science-fiction.

I really don't want to spoil the plot, so unless you're unsure about seeing it and want to know the gory details of all the negatives in the plot, don't read any farther. The first negative is the amount of violence. Much of it is in dreams, so the "people" being "killed" are actually just projections of the dreamers subconscious, and not actually "real" people being killed. It still looks like real violence, though. Second, God's name is abused, and there are several other curse words, but it wasn't the worst language that I remember for a PG-13 movie. Third, there aren't really any good guys, as the main characters are thieves, trespassing in and stealing from people's minds. The main issue for me, though, was the suicide aspect. In dreams, suicide "wakes you up." One character, having experienced the effect of suicide in a dream, comes to believe that real life is still a dream, and to really wake up and see their "real" children, decides to commit suicide again, and tries to convince the spouse to do the same. The character succeeds in suicide, but the spouse doesn't try and tries to save the other character unsuccessfully. As you can imagine, that is tragic. Also, the effect that this movie might have on people of suicidal tendencies or just people in general who might not have a Christian viewpoint on life, death and the afterlife is worrying. However, all that aside, I would still recommend this movie to anyone sane who wouldn't have an issue with the violence and language. It was pretty clean for a PG-13 movie, but I don't recommend it for children under 13 at all.

As a Result of Being Computer-Illiterate...

2010-04-20T22:31:00.003-04:00

To whom it may concern:

This is your furry pal Jessica here, and I am breaking into the reviews to point out that I am not a computer expert. This is why: I have been using an interesting question-asking website called "formspring.me" as a means of attracting different sorts of people by talking about controversial issues, and then subliminally directing them towards a certain new blog of mine. I was attempting, today, to link the questions I answer to my more casual blog, which you can get to by clicking the link on the side that reads "Jessica."

However, since I am also listed as an author for this blog, somehow or another the posts have been ending up here. This is unfortunate, slightly embarrassing, etc. So I want to apologize to anybody who was confused about this, and to anybody who left a comment on these posts, as I have now deleted them as they hold no relevance whatsoever to this blog! Good grief.

However, in keeping with the spirit of this blog: Formspring.me is a very interesting site, where people often ask very interesting questions. Often the questions have to be taken with a grain of salt (or a tablespoon), as there are people out there who will question anything you say or declare a belief in, in ways that are really not very nice. Therefore, in general I recommend it for 15 and up as a way to pass the time. People often ask wonderful questions that really make you think about your answer as well, which I like.

Anyway, that's all for now! Again, I am sorry for the mistake.

Yours,

~Jessica

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

2010-04-06T00:12:00.002-04:00

All the well-known superheros have been revamped, CGI-ed and epic-ified. And so, they moved on to the well-known detective, Sherlock Holmes and his side-kick, Watson. Sherlock was played by Robert Downey Jr. and portrayed in much more of an "awesome" light than ever before.

I thought the movie was very well filmed. I liked the angles, the lighting and the CGI shots (which I guess qualifies as filming?) immensely. It had a good mystery feel, although I thought the plot could have had more depth. There were some disturbing images (involving some scenes that contained apparent witch craft) and one not-so-modest scene, but amazingly, a pretty clean movie.

I recommend it for anyone old enough to deal with witch-crafty stuff. It's not the most fantastic movie I've ever seen, but it's really near the top of my "fun-to-watch-not-really-deep" movies list.

"The Shack" (plot spoiling)

2009-09-08T12:56:00.009-04:00

A friend handed me this book by William Paul Young with the caution that a few things are "out there," but on the whole it's a very good book that will help me understand the Trinity. I read it on the plane trip home from Montana.

From the back of the book: " Mackenzie Allen Philips's youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandonded shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later, in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgement he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever."

***Plot Spoiling Ahead!***

At the shack, Mack finds God in three physical persons. The Holy Ghost is a floaty shimmering lady, Jesus is a non-handsome man, and the Father is a big black lady. I don't question that the Father could reveal himself to someone like that if he chose to, but I found that this was really just the first step of the book's journey to watering God down and making him chummy.

I liked that part of the book's focus was to show the need for an intimate personal relationship with God. I liked that the other part of it's focus was on forgiveness. But my hackles raised over the portrayal of God as being perfectly harmless. A buddy-buddy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Take this phrase used by him in one of Mack's first interviews with "Papa," (that's what Mack is asked to call God), when Mack unleashed some anger about why Missy got murdered. "Mack, I'm so sorry. I know what a great gulf this has put between us..." "Honey, there's no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I'd use it now. I have no magic wand to wave over you and make it all better. Life takes time and a lot of relationships." That was sympathetic and affectionate, but where's GOD? All-powerful, righteous and sovereign? Imagine God going to Job and saying, "I'm sorry about all your problems, but life takes time and a lot of relationships." ?!?!?! It don't work! Another place, Papa states that he doesn't punish sin. Sin is a punishment of itself. Ahem, excuse me?! What exactly happened to Sodom then? There are more theological errors in the book, and another blatant one that made me gasp was that in the book, Jesus wasn't alone on the cross. The Father and the Holy Ghost were there with him, helping him. He cried, "Why have you forsaken me?" but he wasn't really forsaken. He just felt forsaken. What? So now we are taking scripture and saying, it wasn't like that, he just felt that way? No, that's what made the cross so agonizing, and the cost so high; Christ became sin for us, and on the cross HE BORE THE FATHER'S WRATH!! Not the Father's comfort. There is also a very low view of the church in this book. The church is represented as man's institution, and a rote practice in which God takes little pleasure. This directly contrasts with the scriptural image of the church as His bride. The final thing I'll bring up is that throughout, God is such a servant. Yes, Jesus was a servant, he washed the diciples feet, but to show us how we should then live. In the book, The Father takes constant delight in doing everything for Mack, treating Mack like royalty. It rubbed me backwards. It smelled like a ploy to make people feel good. The whole view of God in "The Shack" is shrunken, dragging him down to a mold that tickles peoples fancies (I see God's depiction as a lady a strongly feminist gesture, despite differing excuses in the book), and can fit into our understanding. Well, Elizabeth Elliot once said that if God were small enough to understand, he wouldn't be big enough to worship, and that's exactly what happens in "The Shack." "Papa" is small enough to understand, but not big enough to worship.

Jane Austen

2009-08-09T19:35:00.006-04:00

I read Pride and Prejudice first at age 12. That was just the kind of thing I did. I am a homeschooler, and my mom began teaching me to read when I was five. She always bragged about my reading skills, and I took pride in reading books that were supposed to be over my head. I usually didn’t understand them on the level they were meant to be understood, but I could grasp the story. Since Pride and Prejudice was a rather long and boring story in my 12-year-old opinion, I didn’t bother reading anything else by Jane Austen. Most people were awed enough by my having read Pride and Prejudice, anyway. However, when I was 13, I watched the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (and that was before the Keira Knightley version was filmed) and decided to read the book again.

By age 14 I had begun to understand the nuances of human interaction enough to be enthralled by Austen’s amazing descriptions and understanding of her characters. They didn’t just come to life, they leapt off the page and turned my world into theirs. I didn’t stop with Pride and Prejudice, I read all her works, and I finished them all too soon. I watched the movies, but couldn’t enjoy them unless every detail was as she’d described it.

I went with trepidation to see the “new” Pride and Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. I was certain they couldn’t possibly have done Austen’s work justice, but I was wondering how horribly it had been butchered. At the conclusion, I determined that it completely destroyed Jane Austen's story; it had been turned into just another sappy romantic movie that wasn’t for intellectuals, but for females who needed something to watch while they sipped sodas, munched popcorn and devoured chocolate.

But then, on April 1st, 2009, the worst disgrace of all was released. “Pride and Prejudice and ZOMBIES?!?!?!” I screamed, “ZOMBIES?! Really?!?!?” How could anyone so maliciously disgrace Jane Austen’s most popular novel by mixing ZOMBIES in with her classic, genteel story? Some of my friends read it, and tried to tell me about it, but I couldn’t listen.

That’s when I declared myself what I have been, and always will be: A loyal Jane Austen devotee.

Austen’s stories are not romantic stories; they are studies of human character. She understood people, and she describes the reasons behind her characters’ behaviors clearly. So clearly that you realize you’ve seen the same behavior in people that you are around, and your vague feeling about their motivations is exactly explained by Austen’s gently mocking narration.

The very first sentence of Pride and Prejudice is the well-known line “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man of good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Out of context, that first sentence appears to be Austen’s own view of single men of good fortune. But the very next sentence reads, “However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering the neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” If you do not instantly comprehend the sarcasm overflowing from Jane’s pen, then you don’t deserve to read another word of her book.

Jane Austen did not write flat, surface stories, like many novels are today. There’s the story, and then there’s the development of her characters, the intricacies of the plot, and her own sardonic explanations of the way life was “supposed to be.” And yes, they all contain romances, because romance is a big part of living. And the hero and heroine get a happy ending because it’s supposed to be entertainment… and what good is entertainment if you end up sad? But the point of the story is not the romance; the point is seeing Lizzy overcome her prejudice and Darcy overcome his pride. Or watching Emma learn the problems with matchmaking, Catherine growing up and Elinor trying to take care of her family after her father's death. And that is what makes every Jane Austen worth reading at least 3 times.

~Lizzie

"Fairest," by Gail Carson Levine

2009-04-26T19:40:00.003-04:00

I was so excited when I found this book at our county library, since I really liked the author’s “Ella Enchanted” and her collection of “Princess Tales.” In most, if not all of her books, Gail Carson Levine’s style is to take a well known fairy tale and build a slightly twisted but still recognizable story around it. I know, that’s nothing new! But I think she does it well. Pretty obviously, “Fairest” is her take on Snow White.

But it wasn’t anything like it! Okay, there’s a magic mirror. And the bad Queen Ivi is obsessed with being fairest. Maid Aza, our heroine, is considered by others and even more so by herself, ugly. Her dream is to be beautiful. She’s nuts about it. In the end of the book, she realizes that outward beauty is not what’s important, and that’s the moral of the story. The plot had great potential! But I don’t think the author spent quite enough time on the work. The character development of everyone except Aza was rushed, as was the romance part. I didn’t feel like I knew the prince at all! What’s more, Aza herself was so petty about her personal appearance, (until the end), that I didn’t get to like as well as I was probably intended to.

But despite those short comings, I did enjoy the book! I was disappointed by said short comings, and the lack of Snow-White-ness, but it held my attention. I would recommend it as a fun read, nothing deep but something to devour on a rainy day, or on a trip as long as reading in the car doesn’t bother you. One really cool thing about the book is that it invents a little society with neat ways and customs, which adds a lot to the book. I don’t think you’ll be sorry you read it, as long as you don’t make my mistake and expect it to be like its mother fairy tale. THERE ISN’T A SINGLE DWARF! So tragic. :P

Marley and Me

2009-04-20T21:17:00.003-04:00

I watched this a couple of weeks ago, on DVD. My guess is that most everyone has already seen it, but I am going to write a review anyways, whether you like it or not. It just took a while to get the time to do it, and then figure out exactly what I am going to say. Actually, I'm still not sure exactly. Oh, well. Here goes nothing!

WARNING: MANY, MANY SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

The Plot:

Owen Wilson plays John Grogan, a married man who was not prepared for his new wife's ticking biological clock. To hold off Jennifer Grogan's (Jennifer Aniston) longing for a child, John takes her to go pick out a new puppy at a local farm, as suggested by John's bachelor, womanizing friend Sebastian (Eric Dane). The puppy they end up taking home was the "clearance puppy", the one who was significantly cheaper than all the rest. They soon learn why. The dog, Marley, has behavior problems from the start, and grows into a very large, completely untrained Labrador Retriever. Meanwhile, John, a reporter, gets a job offer at his local Florida paper - his boss offers him a column, believing his writing style to better fit that of a columnist. John slightly reluctantly accepts, but soon learns to love his new position and uses Marley as the inspiration for many of his pieces. After a while, the Grogans resolve that they are ready to have children. Unfortunately, their first success ends in a devastating miscarriage, but soon Jennifer becomes pregnant again, and gives birth to a baby boy named Patrick. They go on to have two more children, Conor and Colleen. There are many difficulties at first, a lot which Marley seems to be at the bottom of, and throughout the beginning there are fights and avoidances and everything you could expect to find any couple going through. One day, John gets a job offer at a paper in Pennsylvania, and after discussing it with his wife, they uproot and make the move to a big, old house on a beautiful piece of land right outside of the city. There John truly grows into a family man, even when he is put down by his old friend Sebastian when he runs into him one day on the way back from work. But, as all dogs do, Marley is getting old. After years of destroying everything in sight, making as much noise as possible, romping around uncontrollably, and all around being the "world's worst dog", Marley is slowing down significantly. After a repeated case of Marley needing surgery, John finally makes the decision that his beloved family dog must be put down. Marley is, and the family mourns, knowing that Marley has a special place in their hearts and has made a big impact on their family, for the better, even if he was, as John called him, "the world's worst dog."

What I liked:

It was realisticly written. I found out just now, doing a little research to remember the people's names, that the movie is actually based off of an autobiography of the same title, by the same John Grogan. Jennifer Aniston actually did not annoy me too much with her acting. I liked how it pushed the idea of family and purposefully made John's friend Sebastian's way of life look unfulfilling and purposeless, unlike most Hollywood films, which do just the opposite.

What I didn't like:

I did not really like, in the beginning, how John Grogan had just gotten married, and here he was trying to manipulate his wife into waiting a year or two to have kids! And it worked! And everyone was fine! I really, really detest that Sebastian guy...what a loser. First of all I am quite adament about couples talking about "when to have children" before getting married so that there is no misunderstanding, and secondly, I really hate it when guys are portrayed like that. It is the norm, possibly, but that kind of gives the impression that it is manly to want to still be independant and not tied down after marriage, and that is not the case. There are guys who agree with me....right?

And another thing. This movie, though PG-rated, contained way more sexual implications than it should have, dialogue and otherwise. Sure, it was all between a husband and wife, but that stuff should still be kept between married people and not broadcast for the entire non-married population to see, especially kids that parents thought they were bringing to a family movie. Fortunately, I watched this with my grandma, screening it before everyone else in my family, who, from my oral reviews, have decided not to watch it. Still, it was too much than even a simple scene or two that could be fast-forwarded; it was prominent in the plot and kept coming back.

The last thing I did not like about it was that it contained a bit of crude humor here and there, some not appropriate for anyone under the age of 15 or so. I know the screenwriters just threw it in there for a few easy laughs, so it bugged me.

My Overall Impression:

It made me laugh at most of the "right" parts and definitely did a good job a drawing tears. Altoghether a very well done film, really. I just did not find it as appropriate for a family audience as I had hoped, as I had gone into Blockbuster that afternoon looking for something that would specifically allow me to watch it through without having to keep my hand on the remote the entire time and fastforward half of it, and I thought that "Marley and Me" was the ticket. It would have been fine, I think, had it not been so littered with sexual innuendos and whatnot. A real tear-jerker, though. If you don't want to be sad and/or cry uncontrolably, don't watch it. :)

“Death From the Skies! These Are the Ways the World Will End”, Philip Plait, Ph.D.

2009-04-17T23:05:00.005-04:00

Yes, this is still Jos– I have just lost the last two letters of my online name. Please call me if you find them. The explanation for the change is on my profile.

I discovered this book while reading the author's blog, and promptly borrowed a copy from the library. I have now finally gotten around to writing about it. Without further ado, I present the first review of a nonfiction book on the Homeschool Review… [according to my spellchecker, ‘homeschool’ is not a word, but ‘homeschooler’ and ‘homeschooled’ are. What gives? (More spellchecker gripes below.)]

Background Info:

Death From the Skies! was written by Dr. Philip Plait, aka the Bad Astronomer, and published in fall of 2008.

Subject Matter:

The book deals with the ever-cheery subject of the destruction of the world due to cosmic events. Asteroids, Gamma-Ray Bursts, Supernovae, and other such fun items. All presented with a somewhat jovial air, in an easily accessible style. (Jovial might not be the right word, as Jupiter doesn’t figure much. :) Each chapter begins with a little fictional piece that shows what happens in the event that is being dealt with.

My Notes:

I just love end-of-the-world scenarios. They’re very interesting to contemplate, and make for some interesting novels. (I like me my post-apocalyptic science fiction — there isn’t much in the way of post-apocalyptic nonfiction stories to be had, thankfully.) I enjoyed this book immensely. I will probably get it out of the library again some time soon, assuming you lot don’t beat me to it.

Some of you are thinking, “That is a science book! It will be full of sciencey [sp? my spellchecker doesn’t like it and doesn’t have any helpful suggestions] stuff which I don’t understand! I’m not reading it.” Fear not! For Dr. Plait is not just good at science — he is also good at writing. Unless you make a conscious effort to not understand, any homeschool student of the age most of my readers are should be able to understand quite well. And you can always use a good reliable encyclopedia to fill in any gaps. ;)

I Didn’t Like: (This goes for Dr. Plait’s excellent blog also)

Dr. Plait is an evolutionist. I am fine with the evolutionist part – I just take everything with a pinch of salt. Certain people may have a few issues with the science in here, because he uses Hubble time as the age of the universe, like the majority of astrophysics. I agree with that, and I am not going to discuss it here. This is a review. I just want you to know that what I am fine with science-wise may not sit well with you and this should be taken into account. This goes double for his blog, which I read and enjoy. (And often disagree with.)

Conclusion:

It’s a good book, I enjoyed it immensely. Some people may take issue with some of the science; the majority I found to be sound. Enjoy.

If you have already read this book, make sure to say what you thought of it in the comments below. If you read the book, feel free to come back and add your tuppence worth. [There we go again! That spellchecker doesn’t think ‘tuppence’ is a word.]

PS- I have tagged this as "Death From the Skies", without a '!'. This is because this particular piece of punctuation is forbidden in tags, which I discovered after 5 minutes of wondering why Windows Live Writer refused to upload this post. I hope this piece of useful information saves someone 5 minutes in some way or another.

“The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare”, G. K. Chesterton

2009-03-30T10:55:00.001-04:00

For those of you who don’t know, I like old books… this is less of a review and more of a go-read-this-book-now-or-else directive. Actually critiquing the work of such masters is beyond my ken. :-) Since this book is out of copyright, you can get it as a free eBook here, or if you prefer, a free audiobook here. If you don’t like eBooks (like me), you can print it off, get it from the library, or even actually buy a copy.

Background Info:

The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare was written by G. K. Chesterton and first published in 1908.

Plot Intro:

Gabriel Syme, a poet, arrives in Saffron Park (a town, not a park), and gets into an argument with the resident poet, Lucian Gregory, about the meaning of poetry. Gregory becomes irritated with Syme after Syme says that Gregory is not a serious anarchist. Gregory then takes Syme to the secret headquarters of the “serious anarchists” to prove him wrong.

My Notes:

Unfortunately, my little intro gives you no idea of the premise of the story; but to give you an idea of the premise of the story, I would have to ruin the first three chapters of the book, and that wouldn’t be fun for anyone, least of all me. Just go read the book. There’s mystery, some very funny moments (despite the title), and allegory to spare.

I Didn’t Like:

Well, this is one of my favorite books, but there are a few little gotchas. The main one is that there is some language (the usual; “bloody”, “damn”, “hell”, and a few variants; nothing worse than that) [was I supposed to put stars in those? It’s not like I’m using them, but I’m not sure what the convention is.]

Unless you are not allowed to read books with swear words in them, go and read this book now. If you’ve already read it, you are of course encouraged to post your take on it in the comments.

Inkheart by Cornelia Funke

2009-03-28T16:09:00.004-04:00

Inkheart has recently been made into a movie, and it sounds like an interesting plot: a man who can read characters out of books and into our world discovers his talent when he accidentally reads two bad men and one "good" man into our world. And thus the battle between good and evil begins.

I didn't like it.

The plot idea is good, but I don't like the author's style that much. Her simile's don't make sense, and all of her characters are annoying. Including the hero, his daughter and other "good guys." The story is WAY too long, by the middle of the book I was ready for the good characters to die, ANYTHING to end the endless story! And when it finally did end, it was a sudden, unsatisfactory ending, which obviously is supposed to have the sequels the author has written. I don't know if I'm going to bother with the next two books. The good news is that the movie has a chance of being better than the book it's based on (which hardly ever happens with GOOD books).

Also, the book is written in a style that seems to be for children (8-12 in my opinion) but at the same time is way over their heads (and also kind of scary in places). I don't recommend it for anyone.

However, just in case you want to read it and form your own opinion:
There are a few cuss words but otherwise it's clean.
There is no mention of God, but the "bad guys" spread stories about the devil to help with their cover.
There is a abandoned church used by the bad guys as a meeting place. They painted the walls blood-red and put a throne (of sorts) for the main villain in place of the altar.
There is a mention of witchcraft, although no signs that there are any real witches or magic (other than the magic of reading characters out of books, anyway).

But in spite of all that, I plan to see the movie if I ever get a nice, inexpensive opportunity. The movie will likely be shorter, and since I expect it to be something as cheesy as Eragon or the Spiderwick Chronicles, I probably won't be disappointed.

~Lizzie

"The Legend of the Seeker"

2009-03-26T20:35:00.004-04:00

Note: There have been seventeen episodes released. I, however, have only seen the first ten and this review is based on them.

This is a new TV series, (premiered last November), that is a bit like a “Princess Bride meet Lord of the Rings.” Magic plays a significant role in it, so stay away if you can’t stand the unrealistic!

My impression: It is very well acted, and the plot is appealing. Richard Cypher is a young, (very handsome of course!), farmer boy who’s happy world gets shattered when he simultaneously learns that he is the one spoken of in an ancient prophecy, (to be the wielder of the Sword of Truth, to seek out and fight evil wherever it is found, and to ultimately kill the tyrant of the Midlands, Darken Rahl); and that Darken Rahl is sending an army to kill him. Richard is joined by an old wizard named Zeddicus and a lovely young Confessor named Kahlan, (kay-lin), who are to aide him in his quest against all forces of evil. As a Confessor, Kahlan’s touch can make anyone confess the truth and do whatever she bids.

Richard and Kahlan are thoroughly likable and their characters are very well developed! You feel like you really know them. Zedd is generally very amusing, but some of his doings are going to show up in my “don’t like” list below. Warning: THIS THING IS ADDICTING!! You get so attached to the people, and each episode is so exciting, that you get… quite frankly… addicted. There is also humor sprinkled throughout, along with touches of romance. I assume it’s a PG rating; there is blood but not in excessiveness. I don’t recall any foul language. It was filmed in New Zealand, so the scenery is awesome!

What I don’t like: First, the morality in the fantasy world portrayed is rather loose. Your nose isn’t rubbed in it, but there are occasional references to “so-and-so’s lover.” Also, Zedd was apparently quite a ladies’ man in his younger days and in one of the episodes, a woman shows up claiming that he has a son which leads to some awkward conversations. Secondly, in the first scene in which Zedd appears, (poor Zedd, sorry to pick on you buddy but it can’t be helped), he lacks clothing. It’s dark, and at first all you see is a silhouette and you can’t really tell, and when he turns around he’s shielded with a, umm, chicken, but it’s still rather shocking if you aren’t expecting it! At least that scene is very brief.

Overall: The good outweighs the bad!! All the episodes made so far are available for free watching at legendoftheseeker.com. They do have commercials, but only like 30 seconds worth every now and then. That is where my siblings and I watch them. There aren’t grand earth shattering lessons to be learned from “The Legend of the Seeker,” but its theme is good against evil and good always wins!

"Day of the Triffids", John Wyndham

2009-03-24T11:28:00.005-04:00

Background info:

Day of the Triffids was written in 1951 by John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris, under the pseudonym John Wyndham (taken from his ample supply of middle names). This was the first book that he wrote under this pen name. Just so everyone knows, John Wyndham is my absolute favorite science fiction (SF) author, and I have enjoyed all of his books (and short stories) that I have read so far.

Plot Intro:

The book is set in England, at an unknown date (probably in the future). It begins in London, where the main character William Masen is hospitalized, with his eyes bandaged over. During this time, a strange green meteor shower occurs, which leaves everyone who saw it blind. This causes a mass panic and disorder.

Masen soon meets up with another sighted person, named Josella Playton. The two decide that they have a better chance of surviving if they stick together.

They soon join up with a larger group of sighted people who plan on re-building society.

At the beginning of the story, a species of plant called the Triffid is introduced. Due to its usefulness, it is planted and farmed all around the world. Triffids are carnivorous, mobile plants with whiplash poison tongues. When the populace in general is struck blind, the triffids escape and begin to feed off the blind people.

My Notes:

I love Wyndham's books. Of course, one has to bear in mind that he has a naturalistic point of view, so I would take any ideas with an extra pinch of salt. (Yes, of course you can get ideas from SF...) He writes well, the story has a plot, the characters have character, and so on. The plot is developed well, and you are always wondering if the main characters will actually survive (because, while in a series we can say "Dr. Jackson is mentioned in the blurb for the next episode, he's still going to be around at the end of this one", this is not so with a book. While many authors prefer not to kill their main characters, some don't mind killing them off), creating suspense... which we all love.

Of course, I could do an actual literary analysis, but that would be spoiler city, and it would be an essay. So I shall say this: the book is awesome, well worth the read, assuming that you don't hate post-apocalyptic SF and light romance.

I Didn't Like:

• Wyndham's books are restricted in my household (i.e., you need to be at a certain level of maturity before you're allowed to read them.). These books are written for adults, but are probably milder than some of the things you'll find in the YA section in your library. If you are eight, don't go read this book, and if you do, don't mention me to your parents... please?

• The word 'hell' is used several times (as a swear word).

• Yes, there is some romance in the book, but not a great deal, for those of you who avoid such things.

• Christianity is represented as old-fashioned, inapplicable, and a unreasonable in the circumstances.

• Several minor characters commit suicide.

• The portrayal of the triffids is somewhat disturbing. This is mainly in hindsight, since I read this right after The Lord of the Flies, which is very disturbing to say the least... but that's another review, of course.

All these warnings aside, an excellent book. Just keep it away from your 13-year-old little brother.

"Kiss" by Ted Dekker

2009-03-23T22:20:00.001-04:00

I admit, the title made me arch my eyebrows and give it a questioning look. "'Kiss'?? Really, Dekker? This better not be a sappy romance." It isn't. Although there is a bit of mild kissing (but nothing more).

I read this book, in spite of the title, because I've read some of Ted Dekker's books before, and I really like his style. This book was no exception, and possibly my favorite of his so far. The plot was fantastic, the mystery quite mysterious and the characters engaging and real. His writing style makes the story come alive for me, more than any other author I've ever read. I can SEE the places, his characters; everything is so real, it could have been a movie.

I can't say more, because any information would spoil the story. All I can say is, don't let the title fool you, this is an amazing book. Do yourself a favor and read it!

~Lizzie

The Introductory Post

2009-03-23T20:37:00.000-04:00

I decided to start this blog because I did so many reviews on my personal blog that I figured they merited their own blog. And I also thought that some of my friends (or even people that I may not know!) would like to contribute as well. Since this is The Homeschooled Review (title subject to random and witty changes), to be an author you must be currently homeschooled, a homeschool graduate, or homeschooled at some point in your life. Please send me (or post in the comments) an example of your writing. Please use correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. no txt tlk plz!!

Welcome to The Homeschooled Review!

~Lizzie