
On this sandy section of the trail can be seen the tread marks of bicycles, boot prints, and even some dog paw prints.


I finally finished this book last Saturday, two weeks after I started reading it. I was made curious to read this book after watching the 1984 movie, starring Bill Murray.
There are some crucial differences between the book and the movie. Just as an example, in the movie, it is Larry who presents the dying Elliott Templeton with a fake party invitation to ease him in his final moments. In the book, it is the first person narrator who does so. The narrator in the book is not present in the movie at all. The book concludes differently (and better).
It was worth watching the movie, but only if you read the book after. The movie gives you a taste of what you’ll find in the book.
The book is well-written, but odd. There are two stories here. One is a sort of parlor-room social drama. Lots of the “action” takes place while people are sitting around drinking tea, having parties, dining out. And this action is, more or less, a sardonic examination of the hypocritical and shallow behavior of the upper-class characters encountered by the narrator. Then there’s Larry’s story itself; his search for an ultimate truth and meaning in life. His story seems weirdly out of place when juxtaposed with the rest. This is not a criticism. I find it interesting, and I wonder if such other-worldly elements appear in anything else by W. Somerset Maugham. I’ve got to try some more of his stuff.
There's an interesting page by "the wanderling" over at angelfire, which makes the claim that "The Razor's Edge" is a true story. Now I know that Maugham begins the story by claiming that it is true, but novelists are known to do this, and I never believe it when I see it. This has got me curious; I've got to do some more digging on this as well.
Boring and obvious. If you’re looking for a more interesting, recent thriller, try The Forgotten with Julianne Moore.
There are some good action sequences in the movie, but I found the premise uncompelling: to stop war, would it be worth eliminating human emotions? I suppose it could be phrased more generally as “would it be worth persecuting/killing a minority in order to eliminate war?” In the movie, it hardly seems like anyone is suffering due to the elimination of emotion. Almost by definition, no one could be, except for the few who refuse to dose themselves with the emotionally deadening medication. (Pets are an exception, apparently; they get slaughtered for having emotional content or emotional temptation or some such thing.)
The movie is inconsistent in keeping to the rather bizarre premise. Characters who are supposed to be dosing themselves frequently display emotion of one sort or another – big grins on the face of Taye Diggs, and Christian Bales’ boss slamming his fist down in anger, are among demonstrations of emotions that should never be seen in such a society.
It’s not really a bad movie, just a bit long. Probably worth watching just to get the concept of “gun katas.”
Good for a couple of workouts; nice mindless action entertainment. Good effects, all-star cast. It’s a long movie but the plot was thick; I wasn’t bored.
I have to say, I’m impressed with Christian Bale in particular, whom I’ve seen in The Machinist and American Psycho. He exhibits remarkable range as an actor.
These are the people that I’m a little afraid I’ll wind up sitting next to when I take the bus.
I didn’t know anything about this movie before watching it, other than it was a Steven Soderbergh film (which is why I rented it). About 15 minutes in I was about ready to give up – bored stiff. For some reason I kept watching, and things finally picked up at about 45 minutes. From then on, I was reasonably entertained. This makes the American mid-West seem a bit weirder and creepier than it is. I hope.
I started reading The Razor’s Edge last night.
After watching the interesting but somewhat confusing movie, I had to read the book to get the full picture.
I picked up my copy of the book at the local library. It’s a 1944 edition. Inside the first few pages there’s a note: “THIS BOOK HAS NOT BEEN CONDENSED. ITS BULK IS LESS BECAUSE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS PROHIBIT USE OF HEAVIER PAPER.” All in caps, yes. McCall and Co would have liked to make the book bulkier; damn that pesky war.
Anyway I’m about 10% into the book and so far so good. Clearly the movie liberally took plot elements from the book and mixed them around. And already something has been made clear: Elliott Templeton (the wealthy chap played by Denholm Elliott in the movie) is an arts dealer. Apparently back in the day this was a bit of a scandalous way to make a living. Anyway, that’s why all those precious items were laying about and getting knocked over in his Paris home; he was buying and selling them. If that was explained in the movie, I must have been napping at the time.
I’m enjoying Maugham’s style but it is a little peculiar. He has a way of describing people which is a little strange. Here’s how we meet Isabel: “She was comely though on the fat side, which I ascribed to her age, and I guessed that she would fine down as she grew older. She had strong, good hands, though they also were a trifle fat, and her legs, displayed by her short skirt, were fat too….” He goes on, but this short bit with “fat-fat-fat” made me laugh out loud.
Here’s the discussion of Gray Maturin: he was “striking rather than handsome. He had a rugged, unfinished look; a short blunt nose, a sensual mouth and the florid Irish complexion; a great quantity of raven black hair, very sleek, and under heavy eyebrows clear, very blue eyes. Though built on so large a scale he was finely proportioned, and stripped he must have been a fine figure of a man. He was obviously very powerful. His virility was impressive….” Doesn’t this passage make you want to giggle? Later we hear that he “strained his heart playing football” so he couldn’t get into the army to fight in WWI. Gee and I thought things like that only happened during the Vietnam war!
In making these descriptions, was Maugham planning out who would play the characters on the big screen (and yes there was a 1946 movie version of The Razor’s Edge, starring Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney, which I now feel compelled to consume as well)? I’d swear this is done by many best-selling authors these days, but I guess I’m a little surprised if it was being done back in the forties already.
Yes, this is a silly movie. Unplug your brain and enjoy!
This book is hardly worth a review. Suffice it to say, "Digital Fortress" is not nearly as interesting as "The Da Vinci Code". The plot here is much less compelling, with fewer twists and turns. The book might have been interesting at half the length; as it is, so many scenes were drawn out that I kept thinking “will this ever end?”
Sydney Pollack does a good job with The Interpreter, a story of corruption and justice. It was suspenseful and twisty enough that I was never quite sure what was going to happen, and not disappointed with what did. Sean Penn does a fine job as the emotionally wounded, gruff cop; Nicole Kidman is ok as the traumatized PTSD-suffering interpreter. Notable performances among the cast: Yvan Attal, Earl Cameron.
Absolutely worth the watch; a good solid thriller, revolving around real-world issues. As a bonus there's all that great footage of NYC.
I watched the first half of Flightplan during my rowing workout last night, and it kept my attention. I ran over my preset rowing time without noticing. But I found the second half of the movie sort of disappointing – it didn’t carry through on the suspenseful buildup. Jodie Foster and the rest of the cast were all great; the plot was too far out, and I couldn’t suspend my disbelief.
It’s light material, probably be a good movie to watch when you’re sick, working out, etc.
I watched The Razor’s Edge with a friend over the weekend. It’s the story of a somewhat shallow guy who acts as an ambulance driver in WWI, is shocked by the experience, and finds his life dramatically altered. He is unable to continue on the path waiting for him when he gets back home, and goes off to find the meaning of life.
The movie has flaws. There are several points in the film where I wasn’t sure exactly what was going on – motivations were not clear or well-developed. I plan to read the book, which I’m hoping will be better.
Nevertheless, the cast was very good. I find Bill Murray a fascinating actor, and his job here is quite good. If you liked him in Broken Flowers or Steve Zissou, you should like this. There are also fine performances by Catherine Hicks (who currently plays Mrs. Camden in Seventh Heaven), Theresa Russell, and Denholm Elliott.
My friend found the ending unsatisfying – she wanted to know what happened to everyone, and didn’t feel that the lead character showed much change after going on his quest for meaning. I disagree, though; I feel like it was a pretty realistic picture of what can happen on such a quest. Definitely worth the watch, for me.
I actually did finish reading "Trading with the Enemy: Seduction and Betrayal on Jim Cramer’s Wall Street" by Nicholas W. Maier in February. Check out my review.
Years ago, I read "Liar’s Poker", by Michael Lewis, and "Burn Rate" by Michael Wolff. Both very enjoyable books.
"Trading with the Enemy" is in a similar vein, but not as well done as either of those books. Nicholas W. Maier needed a good editor, or he should have put more work into this book himself. It’s just not well put together and at some points it gets a bit boring. The problem could be that there’s simply not enough story to tell and he tried to stretch it out.
Despite all that, there’s the core of a good story in here, and it is worth the read. I wouldn’t recommend buying it; check it out from the library if you can.
Overall, this is an interesting account of the author Sorrel Wilby’s 1900-mile trek across Tibet, circa 1986, most of it done on foot. It’s an impressive story, and worth the read for anyone with a love of adventure travel or an interest in Tibet.
I have a quibble though. I find both Wilby’s writing style and her attitude a bit irritating. It’s a little difficult to pinpoint exactly why that is, without giving away details of her story, but I’ll try.
She comes across as a somewhat shallow and flighty personality, quick to jump to conclusions and lacking in forethought of any kind; given all that, I find it remarkable that she was able to achieve what she did. It may be that she was trying to write her story in a humorous fashion, but if so, I just don’t “get” her sense of humor (contrast this with Bill Bryson’s adventure stories, which I find hilarious). She relates several circumstances in which she was so ill as to be close to death, but it never seems serious because of the way that she tells it. In the cases where she is clearly trying to be serious, she often comes across as trite and sentimental. Again this is in contrast to a book like “Touching the Void”, by Joe Simpson – a well-crafted life-and-death story without a pinch of sentimentality.
Despite those problems, the book is worth reading, because what she did is a remarkable achievement.