Writing A Contrast Essay Sample

Writing A Contrast Essay SampleThe contrast essay sample is a good idea to get your point across without doing any repetitive research. A contrast essay sample will help you make the most of what you have learned about the subject by giving you a number of great ideas that you can use in your own writing.It is not a time to repeat what you have learned in class. The best thing to do is to write an essay, outline the lesson you would like to convey, give it a title, and then write and submit it. This will give you enough time to revise again.Good things, though, to keep in mind: research has no place in a contrast essay sample. Your topic must be researched well.It is very important to research the topic well before you start writing. Don't just trust what your teacher tells you because your teacher may be taking you to an English department. Or you may be taking your teacher to an editing class where they may tell you that you can't write an essay on 'pop culture.' Whatever you want to say, you'll need to research it.Writing a contrast essay sample could be a useful way to learn and develop a reputation as an author. You'll learn to hone your skills as an essay writer as well as communicate your ideas in an interesting and concise manner.Not writing, well, your own writing will result in a positive result if your writing has 'wow' factor to it. It will give you a good foundation to start from, and a sense of confidence and self-esteem.So the next time you are thinking of doing a contrast essay sample, remember to keep it simple and very brief. In this way, it will be easier for you to write and follow your own ideas when you are a writer and know your topic.Remember, a contrast essay sample does not have to be boring. You just have to make sure you know what you are writing about before you start.

Al Capone Essays - Five Points Gang, Bootleggers, The Untouchables

Al Capone Essays - Five Points Gang, Bootleggers, The Untouchables Al Capone Al Capone is America's best known gangster and the single greatest symbol of the collapse of law and order in the United States during the 1920s Prohibition era. Capone had a leading role in the illegal activities that lent Chicago its reputation as a lawless city. Capone was born on January 17, 1899, in Brooklyn, New York. Baptized Alphonsus Capone, he grew up in a rough neighborhood and was a member of two kid gangs, the Brooklyn Rippers and the Forty Thieves Juniors. Although he was bright, Capone quit school in the sixth grade at age fourteen. Between scams he was a clerk in a candy store, a pinboy in a bowling alley, and a cutter in a book bindery. He became part of the notorious Five Points gang in Manhattan and worked in gangster Frankie Yale's Brooklyn dive, the Harvard Inn, as a bouncer and bartender. While working at the Inn, Capone received his infamous facial scars and the resulting nickname Scarface when he insulted a patron and was attacked by her brother. In 1918, Capone met an Irish girl named Mary Mae Coughlin at a dance. On December 4, 1918, Mae gave birth to their son, Albert Sonny Francis. Capone and Mae married that year on December 30. Capone's first arrest was on a disorderly conduct charge while he was working for Yale. He also murdered two men while in New York, early testimony to his willingness to kill. In accordance with gangland etiquette, no one admitted to hearing or seeing a thing so Capone was never tried for the murders. After Capone hospitalized a rival gang member, Yale sent him to Chicago to wait until things cooled off. Capone arrived in Chicago in 1919 and moved his family into a house at 7244 South Prairie Avenue. Capone went to work for Yale's old mentor, John Torrio. Torrio saw Capone's potential, his combination of physical strength and intelligence, and encouraged his prot g . Soon Capone was helping Torrio manage his bootlegging business. By mid-1922 Capone ranked as Torrio's number two man and eventually became a full partner in the saloons, gambling houses,and brothels. When Torrio was shot by rival gang members and consequently decided to leave Chicago, Capone inherited the outfit and became boss. The outfit's men liked, trusted, and obeyed Capone, calling him The Big Fellow. He quickly proved that he was even better at organization than syndicating and expanding the city's vice industry between 1925 and 1930. Capone controlled speakeasies, bookie joints, gambling houses, brothels, income of $100,000,000 a year. He even acquired a sizable interest in the largest cleaning and dyeing plant chain in Chicago. Although he had been doing business with Capone, the corrupt Chicago mayor William Big Bill Hale Thompson, Jr. decided that Capone was bad for his political image. Thompson hired a new police chief to run Capone out of Chicago. When Capone looked for a new place to live, he quickly discovered that he was unpopular in much of the country. He finally bought an estate at 93 Palm Island, Florida in 1928. Attempts on Capone's life were never successful. He had an extensive spy network in Chicago, from newspaper boys to policemen, so that any plots were quickly discovered. Capone, on the other hand, was skillful at isolating and killing his enemies when they became too powerful. A typical Capone murder consisted of men renting an apartment across the street from the victim's residence and gunning him down when he stepped outside. The operations were quick and complete and Capone always had an alibi. Capone's most notorious killing was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. On February 14, 1929, four Capone men entered a garage at 2122 N. Clark Street. The building was the main liquor headquarters of bootlegger George Bugs Moran's North Side gang. Because two of Capone's men were dressed as police, the seven men in the garage thought it was a police raid. As a result, they dropped their guns and put their hands against the wall. Using two shotguns and two machine guns, the Capone men fired more than 150 bullets into the victims. Six of the seven killed were members of Moran's gang; the seventh was

The Problem With Feudalism

The Problem With Feudalism Medieval historians arent generally bothered by words. In fact, the intrepid medievalist is always ready to leap into the rough-and-tumble milieu of Old English word origins, medieval French literature, and Latin Church documents. Icelandic Sagas hold no terror for the medieval scholar! Next to these challenges, the esoteric terminology of medieval studies is mundane, and no threat to the historian of the Middle Ages. But theres one word that has become the bane of medievalists everywhere. Use it in discussing medieval life and society, and the average medieval historian will screw up his face in revulsion. There might be some sighs, some head shaking, and perhaps even some hands thrown in the air. What is this word that has the power to annoy, disgust, and even upset the ordinarily cool and collected medievalist? Feudalism. Every student of the Middle Ages is at least somewhat familiar with feudalism. The term is usually defined as follows: Feudalism was the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. It was a hierarchical system of social relationships wherein a noble lord granted land known as a fief to a free man, who in turn swore fealty to the lord as his vassal and agreed to provide military and other services. A vassal could also be a lord, granting portions of the land he held to other free vassals; this was known as subinfeudation, and often led all the way up to the king. The land granted to each vassal was inhabited by serfs who worked the land for him, providing him with income to support his military endeavors; in turn, the vassal would protect the serfs from attack and invasion. Of course, this is an extremely simplified definition, and there are many exceptions and caveats that go along with this model of medieval society, but the same could be said of any model applied to a historical period. Generally, it is fair to say that this is the explanation for feudalism youll find in most history textbooks of the 20th century, and it is very close to every dictionary definition available. The problem? Virtually none of it is accurate. Feudalism  was  not the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. There was no hierarchical system of lords and vassals engaged in a structured agreement to provide military defense. There was no subinfeudation leading up to the king. The arrangement whereby serfs worked the land for a lord in return for protection, known as manorialism or seignorialism, was not part of a feudal system. Monarchies of the early Middle Ages may have had their challenges and their weaknesses, but kings did not use feudalism to exert control over their subjects, and the feudal relationship was not the glue that held medieval society together. In short, feudalism as described above never existed in Medieval Europe. We know what youre thinking. For decades, even centuries, feudalism has characterized our view of medieval society. If it never existed, then why did so many historians say it did for so long? Werent there entire books written on the subject? Who has the authority to say that all those historians were wrong? And if the current consensus among the experts in medieval history is to reject feudalism, why is it still presented as reality in nearly every medieval history textbook? The best way to answer these questions is to engage in a little historiography. Lets begin with a look at the origin and evolution of the term feudalism. A Post-Medieval What, Now? The first thing to understand about the word feudalism is that it was never used during the Middle Ages. The term was invented by 16th- and 17th-century scholars to describe a political system of several hundred years earlier. This makes feudalism a post-medieval construct. Theres nothing inherently wrong with constructs. They help us understand alien ideas in terms more familiar to our modern thought processes. The phrases Middle Ages and medieval are constructs, themselves. (After all, medieval people didnt think of themselves as living in a middle age they thought they were living in the now, just like we do.) Medievalists may not like the way the term medieval is used as an insult, or how absurd myths of past customs and behavior are commonly attributed to the Middle Ages, but most are confident that the use of middle ages and medieval to describe the era as in between the ancient and early modern eras is satisfactory, however fluid the definition of all three time frames may be. But medieval has a fairly clear meaning based on a specific, easily-defined viewpoint. Feudalism cannot be said to have the same. In 16th  century France,  Humanist  scholars grappled with the history of Roman law and its authority in their own land. They examined, in depth, a substantial collection of Roman law books. Among these books was something called the  Libri Feudorum- the Book of Fiefs. The  Libri Feudorum  was a compilation of legal texts concerning the proper disposition of fiefs, which were defined in these documents as lands held by people referred to as vassals. The work had been put together in Lombardy, northern Italy, in the 1100s, and over the course of the intervening centuries, many lawyers and other scholars had commented on it and added definitions and interpretations, or  glosses.  The  Libri Feudorum  is an extraordinarily significant work that, to this day, has been barely studied since the 16th-century French lawyers gave it a good look. In the course of their evaluation of the Book of Fiefs, the scholars made some fairly reasonable assumptions: That the fiefs under discussion in the texts were pretty much the same as the fiefs of 16th-century France- that is, lands belonging to nobles.That the  Libri Feudorum  was addressing actual legal practices of the 11th century and not simply expounding on an academic concept.That the explanation of the origins of fiefs contained in the  Libri Feudorum- that is, that grants were initially made for as long as the  lord  chose, but were later extended to the grantees lifetime and  afterward  made hereditary- was a reliable history and not mere conjecture. The assumptions may have been reasonable- but were they correct? The French scholars had every reason to believe they were, and no real reason to dig any deeper. After all, they werent so much interested in the historical  facts of the time period as they were in the legal questions addressed in the  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Libri Feudorum.  Their foremost consideration was whether or not the laws even had any authority in France- and, ultimately, the French lawyers rejected the authority of the Lombard Book of Fiefs. However, during the course of their investigations, and based in part on the assumptions outlined above, the scholars who studied the  Libri Feudorum  formulated a view of the Middle Ages. This general picture included the idea that feudal relationships, wherein noblemen granted fiefs to free vassals in return for services, were important in medieval society because they provided social and military security at a time when  the central  government was weak or nonexistent. The idea was discussed in editions of the  Libri Feudorum  made by the legal scholars Jacques Cujas and Franà §ois Hotman, both of whom used the term  feudum  to indicate an arrangement involving a  fief. It didnt take long for other scholars to see some value in the works of Cujas and Hotman and apply the ideas to their own studies. Before the 16th century was over, two Scottish lawyers- Thomas Craig and Thomas Smith- were using feudum in their classifications of Scottish  lands and their tenure. It was apparently Craig who first expressed the idea of feudal arrangements as a hierarchical  system;  moreover, it was  a  system that was imposed on nobles and their subordinates by their monarch as a matter of policy.  In the 17th century,  Henry Spelman, a noted English antiquarian, adopted this viewpoint for English legal history, as well. Although Spelman never used the word feudalism, either, his work went a long way toward creating an -ism from the handful of ideas over which Cujas and Hotman had theorized. Not only did Spelman maintain, as Craig had done, that feudal arrangements were part of a system, but he related the English feudal heritage with that of Europe, indicating that feudal arrangements were characteristic of medieval society as a whole. Spelman wrote with authority, and his hypothesis was happily accepted as fact by scholars who saw it as a sensible explanation of medieval social and property relations. Over the next several decades, scholars explored and debated feudal ideas. They expanded the meaning of the term from legal matters and adapted it to other aspects of medieval society. They argued over the origins of feudal arrangements and expounded on the various levels of  subinfeudation. They incorporated manorialism and applied it to the agricultural economy. They envisioned a complete system of feudal agreements that ran throughout all of Britain and Europe. What they did  not  do was challenge Craigs or Spelmans interpretation of the works of Cujas and Hotman, nor did they question the conclusions that Cujas and Hotman had drawn from the  Libri Feudorum. From the vantage point of the 21st century, its easy to ask why the facts were overlooked in favor of the theory. Present-day historians  engage in  a rigorous  examination of the evidence and clearly identify a theory as a theory (at least, the good ones do). Why didnt 16th- and 17th-century scholars do the same? The simple answer is that history as a scholarly field has evolved over time; and in the 17th century, the academic discipline of  historical  evaluation was in its infancy. Historians did not yet have the tools- both physical and figurative- we take for granted today, nor did they have the example of scientific methods from other fields to look to and incorporate into their own learning processes. Besides, having a straightforward model by which to view the Middle Ages gave scholars the sense that they understood the time period. Medieval society becomes so much easier to evaluate and comprehend if it can be labeled and fit into a simple organizational structure. By the end of the 18th century, the term feudal system was in use among historians, and by the middle of the 19th century, feudalism had become a fairly well-fleshed out model, or construct, of medieval government and society. The idea spread beyond the cloistered halls of academia. Feudalism became a buzzword for any oppressive, backward, hidebound system of government. In the  French Revolution, the feudal regime was abolished by the  National Assembly, and in Karl Marxs  Communist Manifesto,  feudalism was the oppressive, agrarian-based economic system that preceded the inequitable, industrialized, capitalist economy. With such far-ranging appearances in both academic and mainstream usage, it would be an extraordinary challenge to break free of what was, essentially, a wrong impression. In the late 19th century, the field of medieval studies began to evolve into a serious discipline. No longer did the average historian accept as fact everything that had been written by his predecessors and repeat it as a matter of course. Scholars of the medieval era began to question interpretations of the evidence, and they began to question the evidence, as well. This was by no means a swift process. The medieval era was still the bastard child of historical study; a dark age of ignorance, superstition, and  brutality; a thousand years without a bath.  Medieval historians had a great deal of prejudice, fanciful inventions and misinformation to overcome, and there was no concerted effort to shake things up and reexamine every theory ever floated in the study of the Middle Ages. And feudalism had become so entrenched in our view of the time period, it wasnt an obvious choice of target to overturn. Even once historians began to recognize the system as a post-medieval construct, the validity of the construct wasnt questioned. As early as 1887,  F. W. Maitland  observed in a lecture on English constitutional history that we do not hear of a feudal system until feudalism ceased to exist.  He examined in detail what feudalism supposedly was and discussed how it could be applied to English medieval law, but never did he question its very existence. Maitland was a well-respected scholar, and much of his work is still enlightening and useful today. If such an esteemed historian treated feudalism as a legitimate system of law and government, why should anyone think to question him? For a long time, nobody did. Most medievalists continued in Maitlands vein, acknowledging that the word was a construct, and an imperfect one at that, yet going forward with articles, lectures, treatises and entire books on what exactly feudalism had been; or, at the very least, incorporating it into related topics as an accepted fact of the medieval era. Each historian presented his own interpretation of the model- even those claiming to adhere to a previous interpretation deviated from it in some significant way. The result was an unfortunate number of varying and even conflicting definitions of feudalism. As the 20th century progressed, the discipline of history grew more rigorous. Scholars uncovered new evidence, examined it closely, and used it to modify or explain their view of feudalism. Their methods were sound, as far as they went, but their premise was problematic: they were trying to  adapt  a deeply flawed theory to such a wide variety of facts. Although several historians  expressed concerns over the indefinite nature of the well-worn model and the terms many imprecise meanings, it wasnt until 1974 that anyone thought to stand up and point out the most basic, fundamental problems with feudalism. In a ground-breaking article entitled The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,  Elizabeth A. R. Brown  leveled an unwavering finger at the academic community and roundly denounced the term feudalism and its continued use. Clearly,  feudalism was a construct that was developed  after  the Middle Ages, Brown maintained, and the system it described bore little resemblance to actual medieval society. Its many differing, even contradictory definitions had so muddied the waters that it had lost any useful meaning. The construct was actually interfering with the proper examination of evidence concerning medieval law and society; scholars viewed land agreements and social relationships through the warped lens of the feudalism construct, and either disregarded or dismissed anything that didnt fit into their chosen version of the model. Brown asserted  that  considering how difficult it is to unlearn what one has learned, to continue to include feudalism in introductory texts would do readers of those texts a grave injustice. Browns article was very well-received in academic circles. Virtually no American or British medievalists objected to any part of it, and almost everyone who read it agreed: Feudalism was not a useful term, and really should go. Yet, feudalism stuck around. There were improvements. Some new publications in medieval studies avoided using the term altogether; others used it only  sparingly,  and focused on actual laws, land tenures, and legal agreements instead of on the model. Some books on medieval society refrained from characterizing that society as feudal. Others, while acknowledging that the term was in dispute, continued to use it as a useful shorthand for lack of a better term, but only as far as it was necessary. But there were still authors that included descriptions of feudalism as a valid model of medieval society with little or no caveat. Why? For one thing, not  every  medievalist had read Browns  article,  or had a chance to consider its implications or discuss it with his colleagues. For another, revising work that had been conducted on the premise that feudalism was a valid construct would require the kind of reassessment that few historians were prepared to engage in, especially when deadlines were drawing near. Perhaps most significantly, no one had presented a reasonable model or explanation to use in place of feudalism. Some historians and authors felt they had to provide their readers with a handle by which to grasp the general ideas of medieval government and society. If not feudalism, then what? Yes, the emperor had no clothes; but for now, he would just have to run around naked.

Unemployment in New England Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Unemployment in New England - Research Paper Example Over two hundred million individuals internationally are unwaged. This is a record elevated; nearly two thirds of progressed economies, as well as half of progressing nations are experiencing a deceleration in employment growth. Many divergent disparities of the unemployment rate subsist with dissimilar descriptions concerning who is a jobless person and who is in the work force. For instance, the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics frequently cites the U-3 joblessness rate as the certified unemployment rate, but this description of unemployment does not encompass jobless workers who have become disheartened by a harsh labour market and have stopped hunting for work. The varied disciplines of economic thought diverge on their elucidation of the cause of joblessness. For instance, Keynesian economics supposes that there is a usual rate of joblessness because the aptitudes of labourers and the ranks available are somewhat out of sync even in excellent economic situation. Neoclassical econ omics delineates that the work force is effective if left alone. Nonetheless, the many intercessions, for instance, the minimum wage regulations and unionization create an imbalance of supply as well as demand. However, unemployment does not usually encompass scholars, retirees, kids or those not vigorously searching for a paying occupation. Unemployment has a multiplicity of descriptions. The first one defines the affiliates of a population that are vigorously hunting for work and have not found yet. The searching is usually over a certain period. The significant problem with this description is that, it negates individuals who have become dispirited and are no longer hunting for work. These individuals are not viewed as jobless given that these individuals might still have the desire to work (Noonan, p.1). Unemployment Rate There varied ways of calculating unemployment. Some individuals utilize certified payroll figures of hiring as well as firing, while other individuals utilize the number of individuals who apply for jobless benefits. Other techniques include sampling via phone calls among others that query whether there is any capable affiliate of the household who is jobless and hunting for work. The informal field of the economy also develops problems since these figures are accomplished primarily by estimates. Economists utilize the phrase Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. This tries to institute a level of joblessness such that diminishing the level would develop scarcity of existing labour causing uphill pressure on salaries and potentially developing inflation. National statistical bodies utilize various ways to gauge unemployment. These variations might restrict the validity of global comparisons of unemployment figures. These variations to some extent remain even though national statistical bodies continue adopting the description of unemployment by the International Labour Organization. As a result, some institutions regulate data on joblessness for comparability across nations. Although varied individuals care about the figures of jobless individuals, economists usually focus on the joblessness rate. This approves for the natural increase in the number of individuals employed as a result of boosts in population and boosts, in the work force comparative to the population. The joblessness rate is usually

Electronic communication versus face toface Dissertation

Electronic communication versus face toface - Dissertation Example Face-to-face meetings and interactions are declining as technological and communication tools advance. My first hypothesis is that the increased use of electronic media will diminish face-to-face communication and the effectiveness of communication will be compromised until new communication cultures emerge. My second hypothesis is that the issues of gender, race and culture will tend to be minimised as the message becomes paramount, and also that prejudices are no longer trigged by personal interactions. My third hypothesis is that the effectiveness of Computer Managed Communication (CMC) in many aspects is an age-related issue, and that a generational transformation to new communication methods is underway. In my final chapter, I will consider whether the literature and other parts of the study support these hypotheses. The conclusion will examine the implications of this for professional relationships in the field of international business and sales in particular. This will lead t o recommendations as to what action companies, organisations and individuals need to take to maximise the advantages conferred by CMC, while overcoming the problems identified. Also, I will discuss about how different cultures can effectively communicate with each other and understand each other better. Lastly, my methodology will look specifically at the hotel industry and how modern technology is starting to play a key role in the industry’s growth. I will do this through a questionnaire that will be distributed to a wide variety of hotels in the local area. TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page Page Abstract 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Methodology 5 Appendices and Reference List 6 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION a) Addressing the problem There can be no doubt that e-mail, teleconferencing and instant messaging have brought about a revolution in communication (Corbett, 2004). The benefits of these things are that they are immediate, cost-free and limitless. As i t is so easy and efficient, it is no surprise to find it becoming the norm in both business and social interactions. However, there are problems with these forms of communication. In particular, these difficulties are linked to the loss of interpersonal aspects in communication, and no technology has managed to overcome this problem yet. There is plenty of research to back up the assumption that talking with people, in other words face-to-face communication, is infinitely more effective than posting a message into the air and hoping that it will be read with the same level of commitment as the writer put into composing it. It is well-known that actual spoken words make up less than ten percent of a message (Evans, 2010, p.8). Spoken speech is far outweighed by non-linguistic cues such as tone and body language in particular. Because CMC is here to stay, it is important to address this question in order to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity, maintain meaningful relationships (busin ess and personal), ensure that sales pitches are effective and pick up the nuances of interaction. b) Nature and purpose of this study The purpose of this study is to explore the issues that arise from this difficulty, to examine what steps we need to take to address them and avoid becoming trapped in a virtual world where all communication is done through impersonal media. The study will consist partly of a synthesis of some of the literature and findings of

Globalization, Education and Trade Essay Example for Free

Globalization, Education and Trade Essay Globalization being processes and operations on a global scale cut across national boundaries for trade, integrating and connecting communities, ideas, tourists, migrants, values and increasingly flow along global pathways as well as shared global problems, responsibilities, and sensibilities thus making the world in reality and experience more interconnected and with major delinkage of money and financial instruments from territory creating major new spheres of accumulation , telecommunications and electronic finance. Trade is major against any kind of taxes collected and imposed on the people according to Ramayana-epic. It spread within South East Asia having a profound impact on the cultures of different peoples, especially art and religion. Trade brought establishment of major rivers as natural pathways or trade routes, land trade routes such as the Silk Road, navigation and shipping, spending out at sea and reaching foreign lands exchanging culture. Colonizing India established a more advanced world maritime trading through the East India Company based in Calcutta thus precipitated in the spread and influence of the Ramayana to other regions of the world. The versions of the epic in theater and dance were the most popular form of educating people. Dance and theater artists performed the Ramayana in various places by conveniently traveling with traders and merchants. Talking about trade Confucius was majorly against any kind of taxes imposed on the people, contentiously prescribing the rules of propriety, teaching on eliminating the use of imposition of will, arbitrariness, stubbornness and egotism towards achieving trade of the state and believed in making profits with good plans of selling to completely overcome selfishness and keep to propriety to attain humanness. Reference: Green, A. (1997). Education, Globalization, and the Nation State. London: Macmillan Press LTD.

The Genius of Stanley Kubrick :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

The Genius of Stanley Kubrick Many movie directors have mastered a genre or two. Wes Craven and John Carpenter are two of the horror film legends. Alfred Hitchcock is probably one of the five greatest directors of all time, with thrillers being his primary claim to fame. George Lucas has been the reigning king of science fiction ever since the release of Star Wars. John Ford is arguably the premier director of westerns. In my opinion, however, Stanley Kubrick may be the person who mastered more genres than any other director. Kubrick was a movie-making genius, much like Steven Spielberg. Anyone you meet on the street can probably name five Spielberg movies. Not many people, however, are aware that Stanley Kubrick was the director of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and eleven other movies. For my money, The Shining is the greatest horror film ever made. The setting is a real hotel in an isolated area of Colorado. The movie starred Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall. The hotel is completely abandoned except for a man, his wife, and their young son. The movie is a master-piece. Under Kubrick's direction, Jack Nicholson gives the greatest performance of his career. The Shining will scare the hell out of anyone. In one scene the boy discovers the word "murder" written on a wall. He, however, views the word on a mirror, and thus reads it in reverse as "redrum". He then proceeds to mutter the word "redrum" in an eerie manner at various times throughout the movie. The crazed character played by Nicholson chases his son through a maze of tall shrub hedges during a blizzard. The scene is incredible and so is the entire movie. Any fan of horror and/or Jack Nicholson, who has not seen this movie, should rent it immediately. Amazingly, The Shining is the only horror film that Stanley Kubrick made during his forty-nine year career. In my opinion, it is the best of its genre, even better than Hitchcock's Psycho. Among the ten greatest war movies of all time, I would include Saving Private Ryan, The Bridge on The River Kwai, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now. Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket also belongs on this list. No other movie has depicted boot camp the way Kubrick did in this 1987 film. The hair on my arm was literally standing up by the time the movie had completed the segment dealing with boot camp.