diff --git a/content/reviews/books/films-from-the-future.md b/content/reviews/books/films-from-the-future.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..722b007
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/reviews/books/films-from-the-future.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
++++
+title = "Films from the Future: The Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies - Andrew Maynard"
+date = 2018-11-29
+
+category = "review"
+
+[taxonomies]
+tags = ["books", "en-au", "andrew maynard"]
++++
+
+[GoodReads summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41045578-films-from-the-future):
+Science, technology, and society: In Films from the Future, former physicist
+Andrew Maynard threads together his love of science fiction movies with his
+expertise on emerging technologies to engage, entertain and make you think
+about the relationship between technology, and society as they discover
+astounding, transformative advances in science. Through the imagination and
+creativity of science fiction movies, Maynard introduces readers to the
+profound capabilities presented by new and emerging technologies, and the
+complex personal and societal challenges they present.
+
+<!-- more -->
+
+{{ stars(stars=4) }}
+
+Writing a review of this book is hard, 'cause all I have are some disconnected
+options about it -- and, in a way, these opinions may only reflect the
+disconnected points in the book.
+
+So, first point: I find it weird to read a *book* about *movies*
+which, in most part, are based on *books*>. One of the points, about Dan
+Brown's "Inferno" even mentions that, as a ethics discussion, the book takes a
+step further than the movie. Although the point of using movies was more of
+"opening discussions using art", it seems weird not to use the books, which are
+more rich and more intricate, to raise moral and ethical points.
+
+Second point: Some movies seem just an excuse to discuss other things. For
+example, "Transcendence" (which, against the first point, it is not based on a
+book). Instead of giving real focus to nanotechnology -- and its ethical and
+moral uses -- and focuses way too much on the Luddite part it, talking about
+some real life counterparts and explaining their point of view and how it
+affects science in general.
+
+Third point: It is way too long. I mean, most of the subjects the author just
+keeps dancing around the topic and don't move forward. "Transcendence" is,
+again, a typical case: Yes, Luddites have some points, yes, maybe we shouldn't
+listen to all the point, but the fact is, all the time, those two points keep
+coming and going, for pages, without reaching a conclusion. At some point, I
+was just reading the first half of the paragraphs 'cause I noticed the second
+half would be repeated either in the first part of the next paragraph or just
+the one following it.
+
+But, on top of that, I guess the "Morality" part of the title may lead to some
+confusion. It's not "you, random person reading this book, here are some
+morality discussions about things you do"; it's way more as "we, scientists,
+must have some moral discussions about what we are doing". It could clear the
+air for "random persons reading the book" about how science -- and scientists
+-- work, but still it is a discussion about morality with scientists.
+
+And, in a way, it may also throw people into sciences, because it shows that
+scientists are not just "let's find out what's here", but they are worried (or,
+at least, as the book tries, should) about the moral repercussions of what they
+are working on.