It's a new year and time for a new Cannonball Read! I didn't manage to finish last year--I got SO CLOSE and then somehow pooped out at the end--but I am getting back on the horse to try and complete all 52 reviews this year. For any of you who might be interested, learn about the CBR here. Although I haven't always been successful, the CBR is a great motivator to keep making blog entries. If my tags are to be believed, I have written reviews for 261 books since I started, which is not too shabby.
Anyway, enough with that and on to the first review!
I must first say that I really like the original Jane Eyre. It's a great story with an original and interesting heroine who was waaaay ahead of her time.
That said, the story is distinctly lacking in vampires.
Sherri Browning Erwin has solved that minor problem in Jane Slayre. Now, instead of just being terrible people, her aunt and cousins are vampires! And the school she goes to isn't just miserable and run by a cold-hearted Christian fundamentalist--it's also crawling with zombies! And let's not even discuss what Mr. Rochester has got hiding in his attic!
Although this could have become rather stupid, it was actually pretty well done. The horror elements were layered on to the original tale without overwhelming it. It was a bit like a hidden picture puzzle for me, watching where the elements of Bronte's story were woven in, and trying to predict how they would effect the story of the unloved-orphan-turned-vampire-slayer.
For purists, this is probably a book to avoid. Mind you, I don't think Jane Eyre attracts the same ravening fanboy following as--for example--Lord of the Rings. I'm sure there's people out there who might find the way Erwin has changed the story offensive. If you're one of those people...don't read it. You won't like it, and no one wants to hear you complain. If you are a person who can see the humor in the idea, and are willing to put aside the idea that this is a corruption of "lit-ra-toor," then you might just enjoy this.
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
CR3 #91: Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day by Winifred Watson
This book happens to be one of those very, very rare cases in which the movie is actually better.
The basic story is that Miss Pettigrew--a middle-aged spinster--receives a new post as a governess in 1930s London. When she arrives, however, she finds no children. Instead, she meets beautiful young nightclub singer Delysia LaFosse. Delysia is trying to juggle three men and a burgeoning social calendar, and things are beginning to get too difficult. Decisions have to be made, and Delysia isn't sure she's up for it. Luckily, Miss Pettigrew finds that she can be of help.
The book is quite clearly a fantasy, something of a Cinderella story. Miss Pettigrew makes new friends, gets a makeover, and finds a happy ending. Nothing too difficult happens, and nearly everyone goes away better off. It's an adorable story, but frankly a bit light.
The movie, on the other hand, is stellar. Frances McDormand stars as Miss Pettigrew, and Amy Adams plays Delysia. They're supported by an excellent cast of gentleman (particularly Lee Pace as the brooding piano player Michael and Ciaran Hinds as lingerie designer Joe Blomfield) and Shirley Henderson as the poisonous Edythe DuBarry. The movie has more conflict--Miss Pettigrew has more to lose, and is forced to make tougher choices. Miss Pettigrew in the book tends to drift along in everyone elses's wake, whereas McDormand shows the steel that lies beneath Miss P's frumpy exterior. Adams's Delysia is a bit more scatterbrained than the one in the book--she's not as strong a female character in the film, and requires more rescuing--but she is still charming and lovable. Both Adams and McDormand are able to communicate volumes with a small look or tiny raise of the eyebrow.The fact that the film is set against the run-up to WWI also helps to put the characters in a more precarious position. The plot contains more conflict, but it all resolves rather well. In addition, the costumes, sets, and music are all gorgeous. They set the mood very strongly, as well as making the movie a pleasure to see. As usual, Focus Features has done an excellent job bringing a period piece to a modern audience.
On the whole, although I enjoyed the book, I'd recommend skipping it and going straight to the film.
The basic story is that Miss Pettigrew--a middle-aged spinster--receives a new post as a governess in 1930s London. When she arrives, however, she finds no children. Instead, she meets beautiful young nightclub singer Delysia LaFosse. Delysia is trying to juggle three men and a burgeoning social calendar, and things are beginning to get too difficult. Decisions have to be made, and Delysia isn't sure she's up for it. Luckily, Miss Pettigrew finds that she can be of help.
The book is quite clearly a fantasy, something of a Cinderella story. Miss Pettigrew makes new friends, gets a makeover, and finds a happy ending. Nothing too difficult happens, and nearly everyone goes away better off. It's an adorable story, but frankly a bit light.
The movie, on the other hand, is stellar. Frances McDormand stars as Miss Pettigrew, and Amy Adams plays Delysia. They're supported by an excellent cast of gentleman (particularly Lee Pace as the brooding piano player Michael and Ciaran Hinds as lingerie designer Joe Blomfield) and Shirley Henderson as the poisonous Edythe DuBarry. The movie has more conflict--Miss Pettigrew has more to lose, and is forced to make tougher choices. Miss Pettigrew in the book tends to drift along in everyone elses's wake, whereas McDormand shows the steel that lies beneath Miss P's frumpy exterior. Adams's Delysia is a bit more scatterbrained than the one in the book--she's not as strong a female character in the film, and requires more rescuing--but she is still charming and lovable. Both Adams and McDormand are able to communicate volumes with a small look or tiny raise of the eyebrow.The fact that the film is set against the run-up to WWI also helps to put the characters in a more precarious position. The plot contains more conflict, but it all resolves rather well. In addition, the costumes, sets, and music are all gorgeous. They set the mood very strongly, as well as making the movie a pleasure to see. As usual, Focus Features has done an excellent job bringing a period piece to a modern audience.
On the whole, although I enjoyed the book, I'd recommend skipping it and going straight to the film.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
CR3 #76: Gaudy Night by Dorothy L. Sayers
Gaudy Night is technically part of Dorothy L. Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey series, but it isn't narrated by Wimsey. Instead, he is a secondary character, and the narrator is author Harriet Vane. Harriet has returned to her alma mater, Shrewsbury College at Oxford, for her "gaudy" (reunion). She finds while she is there that there is a malicious poison-pen writer stalking the current students and faculty, and what begins with childish pranks soon becomes more and more terrifying. Harriet, as a mystery novelist, is called upon by the dean to try and investigate the situation while ostensibly staying at the college to work on some academic writing. Eventually, she finds herself beyond her depth and calls upon Lord Peter Wimsey--who managed to save her from hanging a few years previous when she was accused of murder--to assist her. He brings with him his own set of difficulties, as their relationship isn't really what either of them wants. They have to work together to both find the suspect and figure out what they mean to one another.
The book is set in the early 1930s, and women who pursued higher education were looked on very differently than they are now. Woven in with the mystery is the debate over what a woman's role in society should be. Should all women be in the home? Should they all be attending college? Is one group superior to the other? Harriet has to navigate through a variety of viewpoints, and also decide what her opinion is, and that adds another dimension to the book, elevating it above a simple mystery tale.
Sayers has people this story with many different and interesting characters. The professors at the college, as well as the domestic staff, the students, and the male students at the institution of learning next door are all detailed and entertaining. The plot is interesting, and made sense logically. There were some points where things dragged a little bit--some of the philosophical debates ran a bit long for my taste--but the pace would always pick up again. Also, the interactions between Harriet and Lord Peter are adorable.
I highly recommend this book to fans of old-fashioned mystery stories, and I intend to pick up more of Sayers's work in the future.
The book is set in the early 1930s, and women who pursued higher education were looked on very differently than they are now. Woven in with the mystery is the debate over what a woman's role in society should be. Should all women be in the home? Should they all be attending college? Is one group superior to the other? Harriet has to navigate through a variety of viewpoints, and also decide what her opinion is, and that adds another dimension to the book, elevating it above a simple mystery tale.
Sayers has people this story with many different and interesting characters. The professors at the college, as well as the domestic staff, the students, and the male students at the institution of learning next door are all detailed and entertaining. The plot is interesting, and made sense logically. There were some points where things dragged a little bit--some of the philosophical debates ran a bit long for my taste--but the pace would always pick up again. Also, the interactions between Harriet and Lord Peter are adorable.
I highly recommend this book to fans of old-fashioned mystery stories, and I intend to pick up more of Sayers's work in the future.
Monday, June 27, 2011
CR3 #54: Her Wyoming Man by Cheryl St.John
(Disclaimer: I won this book for free in a giveaway on Goodreads.com. Doesn't mean I shall be even slightly less critical than I normally would.)
Her Wyoming Man is the story of Ella, who begins the story as a high-class hooker in Kansas City during the late 1800s (I think, I can't recall if any specific dates were ever given). After a change in circumstances, Ella and a few of the other women from the "house of pleasure" make a run for it, answering an ad from a city in rural Wyoming that needs marriage-worthy women. Ella quickly finds herself married to a young widower named Nathan, who has three small children and political aspirations. How long can she keep her past a secret? And what will happen if it comes out?
In general, this is a pretty standard Harlequin-style romance. The heroine is beautiful, the hero is dashing, there is a certain amount of conversation, a problem comes up, is overcome, and everyone basically lives happily ever after. It is not especially original, but the story is serviceable, and the characters are fairly likeable. The sexy bits were pretty good, though definitely not explicit. I really only had two issues with it; my first problem was the sometimes dizzying switches in perspective--the story is mostly from Ella's point of view, but often it moves to Nathan's, generally without warning, often mid-paragraph. My other problem was purely personal--I had trouble enjoying the story because I was so dreading the point when the truth about Ella's past comes out.
I'd recommend this for anyone who enjoys the occasional fluffy historical romance. It's a great way to spend a rainy evening or an afternoon lying on the beach.
Her Wyoming Man is the story of Ella, who begins the story as a high-class hooker in Kansas City during the late 1800s (I think, I can't recall if any specific dates were ever given). After a change in circumstances, Ella and a few of the other women from the "house of pleasure" make a run for it, answering an ad from a city in rural Wyoming that needs marriage-worthy women. Ella quickly finds herself married to a young widower named Nathan, who has three small children and political aspirations. How long can she keep her past a secret? And what will happen if it comes out?
In general, this is a pretty standard Harlequin-style romance. The heroine is beautiful, the hero is dashing, there is a certain amount of conversation, a problem comes up, is overcome, and everyone basically lives happily ever after. It is not especially original, but the story is serviceable, and the characters are fairly likeable. The sexy bits were pretty good, though definitely not explicit. I really only had two issues with it; my first problem was the sometimes dizzying switches in perspective--the story is mostly from Ella's point of view, but often it moves to Nathan's, generally without warning, often mid-paragraph. My other problem was purely personal--I had trouble enjoying the story because I was so dreading the point when the truth about Ella's past comes out.
I'd recommend this for anyone who enjoys the occasional fluffy historical romance. It's a great way to spend a rainy evening or an afternoon lying on the beach.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
CR3 #37: Dead Reckoning by Charlaine Harris
Dead Reckoning is the eleventh book in Charlaine Harris's Southern Vampire (aka True Blood) series. I pre-ordered it as soon as the option existed, and it arrived last week, much to my delight.
Did any of you see the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie? If you did, maybe you'll understand my feelings about this book. I LIKED the first PotC movie a lot, and I liked the second one quite a bit, too. I was invested in what was going to happen to the characters I cared about. The third movie had bits that I really really enjoyed. I got to find out the continuing story of Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann. However, the plot was a complete disaster, and it was as if the writer accepted some kind of dare to wedge in as many old AND new characters as possible. Even though I mostly enjoyed it, the whole thing was a sloppy, wildly overdone wreck, saved only by the main characters' sheer presence, the exit of several unpleasant and/or boring characters, and by the fact that the set-up for the sequel leaves openings for some really exciting stuff to happen.
In case you're wondering, that's exactly how I felt about Dead Reckoning. If you follow the series, the obviously you must read this. But under no circumstances should anyone attempt to read this as a stand-alone book. It'd simply be impossible.
Did any of you see the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie? If you did, maybe you'll understand my feelings about this book. I LIKED the first PotC movie a lot, and I liked the second one quite a bit, too. I was invested in what was going to happen to the characters I cared about. The third movie had bits that I really really enjoyed. I got to find out the continuing story of Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann. However, the plot was a complete disaster, and it was as if the writer accepted some kind of dare to wedge in as many old AND new characters as possible. Even though I mostly enjoyed it, the whole thing was a sloppy, wildly overdone wreck, saved only by the main characters' sheer presence, the exit of several unpleasant and/or boring characters, and by the fact that the set-up for the sequel leaves openings for some really exciting stuff to happen.
In case you're wondering, that's exactly how I felt about Dead Reckoning. If you follow the series, the obviously you must read this. But under no circumstances should anyone attempt to read this as a stand-alone book. It'd simply be impossible.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
A True Blood Post: Because I am Possibly the Biggest Dork Alive
Unfortunately, neither The Boyfriend nor Starbucks Queen are even the slightest bit interested in True Blood, and most of the people I know who are have either only read the books or only seen the show or are behind on the show because they're watching it on DVD or whatever. Therefore, I am spewing out all my opinions here because I can't keep them to myself any longer.
Reasons the Books are Better than the Show:
1. Sookie is a lot less annoying when you can't hear her. I like Anna Paquin, and think she mostly does an okay job with the character (though this season the writing for her has been weak at best) but sometimes she has a voice like a dental drill. Particularly when she is shrieking "BEEEEEEEEEELL!" every 38 seconds.
2. In the books, Alcide is a hottie and he and Sookie have crazy chemistry. On the show he has all the personality of a garden hose, and he and Sookie seem to barely like one another. He's been underused this season, but I'm not exactly sad, because the actor playing him is a significant disappointment.
3. The books are a little more focused than the show, allowing the Sookie character to be more important. They're told from her point of view, so reader can find her character more sympathetic.
4. The fairy Claudine is more awesome and interesting and involved and less "Whoo, I'm mysterious and pointy-faced in my fuzzy-filtered Stevie Nicks world!" Her character personality-wise is much more similar in the books to what Maryanne was last season. In the books, Claudine is an active and vital force for good out in the world rather than the twinkly, whimpering doom-whisperer she's been thus far on the show.
5. There is a lot less Arlene in the books. I find Arlene and her storyline sort of annoying this season, though I think the actress is doing the best she can with the little she's been given. She's a shrill character, and I wish she'd been improved instead of turned into a whiny stereotype and easy doorway for witchcraft to enter the show.
6. Calvin Norris is an interesting and complicated character, instead of a deranged meth head who shouldn't have even showed up until season 4. I was extremely disappointed at how he's been used in the show, since his character in the books is another option for Sookie--a slightly more "normal" guy who wants to give her a more "normal" life. I mean, aside from being a panther, obviously.
7. Bubba! I know why they can't use him on the show, but I do miss him.
Reasons the Show is Better Than the Books:
1. Lafayette doesn't die! In the books, he's a throwaway character who gets murdered at the end of book one. In the show, he is just a huge bowl of awesome and Nelsan Ellis should get an award or a big check or something. He's an effeminate-looking gay tough guy, who has a lot of great lines, and I'm happy that he finally has someone to appreciate him, though I'm not sure I like where this Jesus thing is going.
2. Jason is a better character. In the books he's kind of a selfish jerk, whereas in the show he is sometimes self-involved, but sweet...though not very bright. Often, watching Jason try to puzzle out what's going on around him and figure out what the appropriate response should be is the funniest part of the episode. I am admittedly rather unimpressed with him and his whole wannabe-cop, dating the meth-girl story line this season. He's a much better brother than he is in the books, though, and I have liked his interactions with Sookie.
3. Although this season the side characters have gotten a little out of control, in the past I have enjoyed how some of the very minor book characters have developed their own lives and personalities and story lines. Terry Bellefleur is a great example of this--he's mentioned in the books in passing, but I have liked his character and become invested in what happens to him (frankly, his relationship with Arlene and falling out with Sam has me very concerned at the moment). Sam is another character that is not nearly as important in the books as he is in the show. It's interesting to see him have his own life, though I could have happily done without his creepy white-trash family. (Also, the dude who plays him is adorable and apparently not shy about getting naked a lot.)
4. Jessica! She's a completely new invention from Alan Ball, and she's great -- a young vampire, a counterpoint to Bill, Eric, Pam, and all the other vamps we know who are centuries old. She's a modern girl trying to figure out how to behave and where her place in the world might be. The interactions between her and Bill (her unwilling surrogate dad, who--we're led to believe--is nicer to her than her real dad ever was), her and Sookie (both a surrogate mom and an older sister, helping Jessica see how a nice--but not stiflingly sheltered--girl behaves), her and Hoyt (one of the cutest relationships on the show), and her and Pam (who shows her how a BAD girl behaves) are all great and show different sides of familiar characters.
5. As many have been mentioning this season, Dennis O'Hare's Russell Edgington has been campy fun all the way around. Although his storyline is very different than it was in the books, he's been a delight to watch in every episode. He's another person who deserves an award or a large check (particularly since I think his character doesn't have much longer to live.)
Things That are Ties:
1. Tara in the books is a minor side character who is not very interesting. I really liked her character in Season One, but she all of season two and most of season three weeping around. I miss when she was feisty. I did enjoy her recent conversation with Sam, but she seriously needs to stop getting all the "victim" stories.
2. Sam's brother, a recent addition, could go either way. I'm not sure if the show is better because he's in it or the books are better because he's not. Although I like that he's kind of scrappy, and his crush on Jessica is kind of cute, he can be a pain-in-the-ass for no reason. Like, okay, you are uneducated and have daddy issues and mommy issues and class issues. Stop treating Sam like trash and let him help you out, pitbull face.
3. The Queen is not interesting to me in the books or the show. She is just dull and mostly used as a plot point rather than a real character.
4. I'd really like to see Sookie's friendship with Pam develop as it does in the books, but so far, Kristen Bauer has done a great job being icy and sarcastic and yet deeply attached to her maker on the show.
5. Eric is awesome no matter where he is. I really don't know how he could be improved. Then again, I am a sucker for a saucy viking.
Any other thoughts?
Reasons the Books are Better than the Show:
1. Sookie is a lot less annoying when you can't hear her. I like Anna Paquin, and think she mostly does an okay job with the character (though this season the writing for her has been weak at best) but sometimes she has a voice like a dental drill. Particularly when she is shrieking "BEEEEEEEEEELL!" every 38 seconds.
2. In the books, Alcide is a hottie and he and Sookie have crazy chemistry. On the show he has all the personality of a garden hose, and he and Sookie seem to barely like one another. He's been underused this season, but I'm not exactly sad, because the actor playing him is a significant disappointment.
3. The books are a little more focused than the show, allowing the Sookie character to be more important. They're told from her point of view, so reader can find her character more sympathetic.
4. The fairy Claudine is more awesome and interesting and involved and less "Whoo, I'm mysterious and pointy-faced in my fuzzy-filtered Stevie Nicks world!" Her character personality-wise is much more similar in the books to what Maryanne was last season. In the books, Claudine is an active and vital force for good out in the world rather than the twinkly, whimpering doom-whisperer she's been thus far on the show.
5. There is a lot less Arlene in the books. I find Arlene and her storyline sort of annoying this season, though I think the actress is doing the best she can with the little she's been given. She's a shrill character, and I wish she'd been improved instead of turned into a whiny stereotype and easy doorway for witchcraft to enter the show.
6. Calvin Norris is an interesting and complicated character, instead of a deranged meth head who shouldn't have even showed up until season 4. I was extremely disappointed at how he's been used in the show, since his character in the books is another option for Sookie--a slightly more "normal" guy who wants to give her a more "normal" life. I mean, aside from being a panther, obviously.
7. Bubba! I know why they can't use him on the show, but I do miss him.
Reasons the Show is Better Than the Books:
1. Lafayette doesn't die! In the books, he's a throwaway character who gets murdered at the end of book one. In the show, he is just a huge bowl of awesome and Nelsan Ellis should get an award or a big check or something. He's an effeminate-looking gay tough guy, who has a lot of great lines, and I'm happy that he finally has someone to appreciate him, though I'm not sure I like where this Jesus thing is going.
2. Jason is a better character. In the books he's kind of a selfish jerk, whereas in the show he is sometimes self-involved, but sweet...though not very bright. Often, watching Jason try to puzzle out what's going on around him and figure out what the appropriate response should be is the funniest part of the episode. I am admittedly rather unimpressed with him and his whole wannabe-cop, dating the meth-girl story line this season. He's a much better brother than he is in the books, though, and I have liked his interactions with Sookie.
3. Although this season the side characters have gotten a little out of control, in the past I have enjoyed how some of the very minor book characters have developed their own lives and personalities and story lines. Terry Bellefleur is a great example of this--he's mentioned in the books in passing, but I have liked his character and become invested in what happens to him (frankly, his relationship with Arlene and falling out with Sam has me very concerned at the moment). Sam is another character that is not nearly as important in the books as he is in the show. It's interesting to see him have his own life, though I could have happily done without his creepy white-trash family. (Also, the dude who plays him is adorable and apparently not shy about getting naked a lot.)
4. Jessica! She's a completely new invention from Alan Ball, and she's great -- a young vampire, a counterpoint to Bill, Eric, Pam, and all the other vamps we know who are centuries old. She's a modern girl trying to figure out how to behave and where her place in the world might be. The interactions between her and Bill (her unwilling surrogate dad, who--we're led to believe--is nicer to her than her real dad ever was), her and Sookie (both a surrogate mom and an older sister, helping Jessica see how a nice--but not stiflingly sheltered--girl behaves), her and Hoyt (one of the cutest relationships on the show), and her and Pam (who shows her how a BAD girl behaves) are all great and show different sides of familiar characters.
5. As many have been mentioning this season, Dennis O'Hare's Russell Edgington has been campy fun all the way around. Although his storyline is very different than it was in the books, he's been a delight to watch in every episode. He's another person who deserves an award or a large check (particularly since I think his character doesn't have much longer to live.)
Things That are Ties:
1. Tara in the books is a minor side character who is not very interesting. I really liked her character in Season One, but she all of season two and most of season three weeping around. I miss when she was feisty. I did enjoy her recent conversation with Sam, but she seriously needs to stop getting all the "victim" stories.
2. Sam's brother, a recent addition, could go either way. I'm not sure if the show is better because he's in it or the books are better because he's not. Although I like that he's kind of scrappy, and his crush on Jessica is kind of cute, he can be a pain-in-the-ass for no reason. Like, okay, you are uneducated and have daddy issues and mommy issues and class issues. Stop treating Sam like trash and let him help you out, pitbull face.
3. The Queen is not interesting to me in the books or the show. She is just dull and mostly used as a plot point rather than a real character.
4. I'd really like to see Sookie's friendship with Pam develop as it does in the books, but so far, Kristen Bauer has done a great job being icy and sarcastic and yet deeply attached to her maker on the show.
5. Eric is awesome no matter where he is. I really don't know how he could be improved. Then again, I am a sucker for a saucy viking.
Any other thoughts?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Cannonball Read 2 #39: The Princess Bride by William Goldman
I think most people are probably more familiar with the film version of The Princess Bride, starring Robin Wright and Cary Elwes (before the fathead got him). The book is--well, let's just say they cut a lot out for the movie, and that was probably a good thing.
The basic premise is that Goldman is abridging The Princess Bride from a longer version written by S. Morgenstern. This device results in pages of explanations of things that were "cut out" and why the book is abridged as it is. There are also three introductions in the version I read (the 30th anniversary edition) which go into more detail of the alleged abridging process. Of course, this is all a complete fiction, and it seemed rather unnecessary to me. I would have been perfectly happy to just have the story of Westley, Buttercup, Inigo, and Fezzik. In fact, the one thing I like more about the book than the movie was that Inigo and Fezzik had more to do, since they're my favorite characters. For those who don't know, the basic story is that of a beautiful princess and her one true love; they have to overcome a variety of obstacles with the help of a varied cast of characters in order to escape the clutches of the evil prince.
On the whole it's an okay book, but I don't think you really gain anything from the book that you don't get from the movie.
The basic premise is that Goldman is abridging The Princess Bride from a longer version written by S. Morgenstern. This device results in pages of explanations of things that were "cut out" and why the book is abridged as it is. There are also three introductions in the version I read (the 30th anniversary edition) which go into more detail of the alleged abridging process. Of course, this is all a complete fiction, and it seemed rather unnecessary to me. I would have been perfectly happy to just have the story of Westley, Buttercup, Inigo, and Fezzik. In fact, the one thing I like more about the book than the movie was that Inigo and Fezzik had more to do, since they're my favorite characters. For those who don't know, the basic story is that of a beautiful princess and her one true love; they have to overcome a variety of obstacles with the help of a varied cast of characters in order to escape the clutches of the evil prince.
On the whole it's an okay book, but I don't think you really gain anything from the book that you don't get from the movie.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Cannonball Read #31: Dead and Gone by Charlaine Harris
Sookie Stackhouse is back, and boy, do her troubles keep increasing. Now that the weres have come out into the open, things in Bon Temps get more and more bizarre. Her friend Arlene's attachment to the Temple of the Sun reaches its boiling point, and some recently discovered relations of Sookie's are making her life about as complicated as she can stand. Luckily, there's always Eric the Vampire, whose feelings for her are as intense but confusing as her own for him. Danger is on the way--and there is going to be some death in this one.
The plots of these things are just getting more and more ridiculous, but I don't care. I am hooked on them. I love Sookie. I love Eric. I love the varied and entertaining cast of bit players who flesh out the town of Bon Temps and surrounding areas. On the whole, not nearly as good as #4, but one of the more entertaining books in the series, as far as I'm concerned.
The plots of these things are just getting more and more ridiculous, but I don't care. I am hooked on them. I love Sookie. I love Eric. I love the varied and entertaining cast of bit players who flesh out the town of Bon Temps and surrounding areas. On the whole, not nearly as good as #4, but one of the more entertaining books in the series, as far as I'm concerned.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Cannonball Read 2 #8: Dead Until Dark by Charlaine Harris
Dead Until Dark is the first of the Sookie Stackhouse series, better known as the basis for HBO's show True Blood. I started watching the show earlier this year and became absolutely hooked on it. Dead Until Dark introduces the characters and the world (and is the basis for season 1 of the show.)
Sookie is a waitress in the small town of Bon Temps, Louisiana. She is a pretty girl who lives with her grandmother, and is mostly normal except for the fact that she is telepathic. Being able to read the minds of others has made her life especially complicated, keeping her from being able to date or have any real close friends. In Sookie's world, vampires are real, have just come "out of the coffin" and are trying to join mainstream society. Most of them either drink synthetic blood or feed from willing hosts, however many "normal" people are still fearful or distrusting. One day, a vampire named Bill walks into Merlotte's, the bar where Sookie works, and sets in motion a series of events that will change her life forever.
To me, this book is the literary equivalent of pork rinds: They contain absolutely no nutritional value, are mostly air and fat, are embarrassing to be seen eating, but ohhh mmmm delicious...where did that whole bag go? This is a trashy mystery/romance novel with vampires--I'd guess it's like Twilight except there is a bunch of steamy sex and Sookie isn't a wishy-washy dishrag of a human. I enjoyed the characters and the settings, and I found Sookie's voice engaging (benefit over the show: you don't have to hear Anna Paquin trill "Biiiiiiiiiiill" over and over in a tone strangely similar to having a dental drill applied directly to your eardrum.) I am extremely anxious to get hold of the next books in the series and can't wait to read the further adventures of Sookie: Psychic Waitress.
Sookie is a waitress in the small town of Bon Temps, Louisiana. She is a pretty girl who lives with her grandmother, and is mostly normal except for the fact that she is telepathic. Being able to read the minds of others has made her life especially complicated, keeping her from being able to date or have any real close friends. In Sookie's world, vampires are real, have just come "out of the coffin" and are trying to join mainstream society. Most of them either drink synthetic blood or feed from willing hosts, however many "normal" people are still fearful or distrusting. One day, a vampire named Bill walks into Merlotte's, the bar where Sookie works, and sets in motion a series of events that will change her life forever.
To me, this book is the literary equivalent of pork rinds: They contain absolutely no nutritional value, are mostly air and fat, are embarrassing to be seen eating, but ohhh mmmm delicious...where did that whole bag go? This is a trashy mystery/romance novel with vampires--I'd guess it's like Twilight except there is a bunch of steamy sex and Sookie isn't a wishy-washy dishrag of a human. I enjoyed the characters and the settings, and I found Sookie's voice engaging (benefit over the show: you don't have to hear Anna Paquin trill "Biiiiiiiiiiill" over and over in a tone strangely similar to having a dental drill applied directly to your eardrum.) I am extremely anxious to get hold of the next books in the series and can't wait to read the further adventures of Sookie: Psychic Waitress.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Cannonball Read #23 (5K Book 2 -- Romance): The Captive by Victoria Holt
Before I start, I must be clear that I actually LIKE many romance novels. I have read all kinds, and I have been a fan of Victoria Holt's for some time. Sadly, The Captive is not the best of Victoria Holt's work. As I said, I usually enjoy her books--the heroines are generally more along the lines of "Jane Eyre" than "Weeping Victim" in that they often are bold, intelligent women who have to find their ways in the world alone, and can't necessarily rely on their looks or charms. Some of the heroines in her books have unconventional occupations (art restorer, for example) despite the Victorian era settings, and most don't go into their situations looking for love. However, they always find love, and generally find a fairly interesting mystery as well. This book showed a lot of promise at first, but then let me down.
Rosetta Cranleigh comes from a family of academics--parents so wound up in their research they barely realize she exists. She grows up relying on the family's servants and a young governess. Then one day her parents decide that she might in fact not be a waste of their time, and decide to take her with them to the Middle East on a research trip. During the voyage, Rosetta meets some boys, and then is shipwrecked with those very same boys (what a coincidence!). The three of them are rescued by corsairs, who sell Rosetta to a harem. The book sort of sells itself as being mostly about her escape from the harem, but as it turns out, that's only about 25 pages in the first third of the book, and then there's a whole laborious murder mystery after that.
Frankly, the book seemed like three different stories (early family life / harem / murder mystery) uncomfortably shoehorned together. I will admit that despite the downfalls, I did greatly enjoy many of the characters in the book, and found them amusing and somewhat interesting.
I would probably not recommend this book, but instead one of Holt's other works like Mistress of Mellyn or The King of the Castle.
Rosetta Cranleigh comes from a family of academics--parents so wound up in their research they barely realize she exists. She grows up relying on the family's servants and a young governess. Then one day her parents decide that she might in fact not be a waste of their time, and decide to take her with them to the Middle East on a research trip. During the voyage, Rosetta meets some boys, and then is shipwrecked with those very same boys (what a coincidence!). The three of them are rescued by corsairs, who sell Rosetta to a harem. The book sort of sells itself as being mostly about her escape from the harem, but as it turns out, that's only about 25 pages in the first third of the book, and then there's a whole laborious murder mystery after that.
Frankly, the book seemed like three different stories (early family life / harem / murder mystery) uncomfortably shoehorned together. I will admit that despite the downfalls, I did greatly enjoy many of the characters in the book, and found them amusing and somewhat interesting.
I would probably not recommend this book, but instead one of Holt's other works like Mistress of Mellyn or The King of the Castle.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Accidental Double Feature: True Romance and The Langoliers
This weekend I ended up with an accidental double feature--didn't even realize that the two movies had anything in common until we started watching the second one. Can you guess what the common thread is between True Romance and The Langoliers?
Give up?
Bronson Pinchot!
Yeah, okay, so that's not actually exciting. As a matter of fact, I have often said I find Mr. Pinchot (or as The Boyfriend calls him, "Hey-it's-Balky!") brain-splinteringly annoying. The mere sound of his voice is kind of obnoxious and gives me headaches. However, what we have here is one good solid performance from him wherein he did NOT annoy me.
I will first point out that I LOVE True Romance. It's the only movie of Quentin Tarantino's that I actually like, probably because he neither acted in nor directed it. When I first saw it several years ago, I didn't even KNOW it was a Tarantino movie (although seeing it now I can definitely point out a few spots where the Tarantino comes through: namely the conversation early on with Samuel L. Jackson talking about eating pussy, Dennis Hopper's monologue about the Sicilians and the Moors [which is an iconic scene, really--Hopper and Christopher Walken elevate that above its true content], Patricia Arquette's knock-down-drag-out with James Gandolfini, the Mexican stand-off, and the repeated use of the phrase "Bad Motherfucker.") The plot centers around Clarence and Alabama, who through a series of circumstances end up with a suitcase full of cocaine and the mob on their tails. Contrary to how it may sound, though, the movie is a romance through and through. The reasons I like it so much are as follows:
1. Christian Slater. Seriously, I will watch just about anything the guy does, even if most of it IS crap. Not only do I find him exceedingly hot, but I feel this is my way of repaying him for Heathers, Pump Up the Volume, and this.
2. Patricia Arquette's portrayal of Alabama is as both sweet and naive AND gutsy and tough is pretty great. She manages to play both vulnerable and hard as nails, sometimes within the same moment. It's an excellent performance from her, and as one of very few compelling females within the Tarantino canon (the only one who measures up in my estimation is Beatrix Kiddo, and she has the benefit of being a trained assassin--Alabama has to make do with being a former call-girl) I find her interesting. I think that is due more to Arquette's acting skills than to the script--Alabama could have come off cloying and stupid if played wrong. Which reminds me, the opening and closing monologues from her are just bad. I advise you to skip over them if possible.
3. The plot is serviceable, but doesn't necessarily dominate the movie. It just keeps things moving along in a more or less coherant way. There is never a point during the film where I find myself saying "What? What is going on? Why is this happening?" The things the characters do make sense within the context of the film, which is rarer than you'd think.
4. The acting in the movie--from Slater and Arquette all the way down to the minor roles--is top notch. There are a suprising number of recognizable faces in the film--watch for Brad Pitt's turn as a stoner, Bronson Pinchot (yes, there he is) as a nervous syncophant, and James Gandolfini (with hair!) as a mafia fixer. Also Val Kilmer (who is billed fourth in the credits, yet is only in the movie for about 5 minutes and you never actually see his face) is another bonus for me, since he's another actor I love.
5. The soundtrack--particularly Clarence and Alabama's theme, which I believe is a marimba solo--is fantastic. It adds to the movie without distracting, which should be the goal of every movie's score.
5. (SPOILER!) I am a sucker for happy endings.
I recommend True Romance for everyone--there's romance, violence, adventure, humor...everything you can ask for from a movie is here.
The Langoliers, unfortunately, did not inspire within me the same sort of devotion. There were several problems, some of which made it nearly opposite True Romance. The film is based on a Stephen King novella, the premise being that a group of ten passengers--including a pilot (David Morse), a mystery writer (Dean Stockwell), a blind--and somewhat psychic--girl, two teenagers, a school teacher, a British man of mystery, a glutton, a blue-collar gentleman, and a mad man (Bronson Pinchot! Again!)--on a cross-country flight wake up to discover they are the only people left on board the plane...or, it turns out, on earth. After landing at a rural Maine airport, they are left to try and figure out what's happened while dealing with threats they can see (the mad man) and those they can't (a mysterious munching sound from beyond the mountains).
1. The film was made as a TV mini-series in the early 90s, and it really shows. (In the words of Nina Garcia, "It looks cheap.") There are no big-name actors, and the special effects are downright TERRIBLE. Laughably terrible, in fact. Even the plane was poorly done and looked like bad CGI. Also, it's totally obvious exactly where the commercials were.
2. None of the characters were particularly memorable, except for Pinchot and his horrible HORRIBLE over-acting, which mostly consisted of a lot of eye-rolling and shrieking. The writers tried to shoehorn in subplots for everyone, but didn't bother to follow them out properly. There was no real character development at all. Characters were generally either "bravely heroic" or "gripped by hysteria and panic."
3. Contrary to True Romance, the plot in The Langoliers dominated the movie but did it very badly. Let's say that you are flexible enough to buy into the idea of the time rip, etc (after all, if you're not you should probably stay away from movies in this genre.) The problems are with the characters and their behavior. They all seem to completely ignore a man who is obviously dangerously insane. Later, the British secret agent ties up the mad man with a rope that is obviously incapble of holding him, then leaves the blind child and the school teacher (both unarmed) to keep an eye on crazy Pinchot while Mr. British Secret Service and the other good-sized men of the party go off to wander through the deserted airport. There was entirely more exposition at some points than was necessary--the audience is not stupid, you know. My ability to suspend disbelief was heartily abused.
4. Much of the acting was BAD. Morse and Stockwell did as well as they could with the material provided (they're both veterans, after all) but the rest of the cast were either over-acting or under-acting the whole way through. Half the time they were screaming, the other half mumbling miserably to themselves. As I mentioned, Pinchot was quite awful, but the woman playing the schoolteacher/love interest was quite blah, and the British apparently confused smirking with acting. In all, a rather unimpressive turnout.
It was just not very good at all, and although I'd been trying to track it down for ages (Netflix didn't have it and I was so excited to find it available OnDemand) it was a big disappointment (as many Stephen King movies tend to be...but I've posted on that subject already.) I definitely don't recommend this except to the most devoted King fan.
Give up?
Bronson Pinchot!
Yeah, okay, so that's not actually exciting. As a matter of fact, I have often said I find Mr. Pinchot (or as The Boyfriend calls him, "Hey-it's-Balky!") brain-splinteringly annoying. The mere sound of his voice is kind of obnoxious and gives me headaches. However, what we have here is one good solid performance from him wherein he did NOT annoy me.
I will first point out that I LOVE True Romance. It's the only movie of Quentin Tarantino's that I actually like, probably because he neither acted in nor directed it. When I first saw it several years ago, I didn't even KNOW it was a Tarantino movie (although seeing it now I can definitely point out a few spots where the Tarantino comes through: namely the conversation early on with Samuel L. Jackson talking about eating pussy, Dennis Hopper's monologue about the Sicilians and the Moors [which is an iconic scene, really--Hopper and Christopher Walken elevate that above its true content], Patricia Arquette's knock-down-drag-out with James Gandolfini, the Mexican stand-off, and the repeated use of the phrase "Bad Motherfucker.") The plot centers around Clarence and Alabama, who through a series of circumstances end up with a suitcase full of cocaine and the mob on their tails. Contrary to how it may sound, though, the movie is a romance through and through. The reasons I like it so much are as follows:
1. Christian Slater. Seriously, I will watch just about anything the guy does, even if most of it IS crap. Not only do I find him exceedingly hot, but I feel this is my way of repaying him for Heathers, Pump Up the Volume, and this.
2. Patricia Arquette's portrayal of Alabama is as both sweet and naive AND gutsy and tough is pretty great. She manages to play both vulnerable and hard as nails, sometimes within the same moment. It's an excellent performance from her, and as one of very few compelling females within the Tarantino canon (the only one who measures up in my estimation is Beatrix Kiddo, and she has the benefit of being a trained assassin--Alabama has to make do with being a former call-girl) I find her interesting. I think that is due more to Arquette's acting skills than to the script--Alabama could have come off cloying and stupid if played wrong. Which reminds me, the opening and closing monologues from her are just bad. I advise you to skip over them if possible.
3. The plot is serviceable, but doesn't necessarily dominate the movie. It just keeps things moving along in a more or less coherant way. There is never a point during the film where I find myself saying "What? What is going on? Why is this happening?" The things the characters do make sense within the context of the film, which is rarer than you'd think.
4. The acting in the movie--from Slater and Arquette all the way down to the minor roles--is top notch. There are a suprising number of recognizable faces in the film--watch for Brad Pitt's turn as a stoner, Bronson Pinchot (yes, there he is) as a nervous syncophant, and James Gandolfini (with hair!) as a mafia fixer. Also Val Kilmer (who is billed fourth in the credits, yet is only in the movie for about 5 minutes and you never actually see his face) is another bonus for me, since he's another actor I love.
5. The soundtrack--particularly Clarence and Alabama's theme, which I believe is a marimba solo--is fantastic. It adds to the movie without distracting, which should be the goal of every movie's score.
5. (SPOILER!) I am a sucker for happy endings.
I recommend True Romance for everyone--there's romance, violence, adventure, humor...everything you can ask for from a movie is here.
The Langoliers, unfortunately, did not inspire within me the same sort of devotion. There were several problems, some of which made it nearly opposite True Romance. The film is based on a Stephen King novella, the premise being that a group of ten passengers--including a pilot (David Morse), a mystery writer (Dean Stockwell), a blind--and somewhat psychic--girl, two teenagers, a school teacher, a British man of mystery, a glutton, a blue-collar gentleman, and a mad man (Bronson Pinchot! Again!)--on a cross-country flight wake up to discover they are the only people left on board the plane...or, it turns out, on earth. After landing at a rural Maine airport, they are left to try and figure out what's happened while dealing with threats they can see (the mad man) and those they can't (a mysterious munching sound from beyond the mountains).
1. The film was made as a TV mini-series in the early 90s, and it really shows. (In the words of Nina Garcia, "It looks cheap.") There are no big-name actors, and the special effects are downright TERRIBLE. Laughably terrible, in fact. Even the plane was poorly done and looked like bad CGI. Also, it's totally obvious exactly where the commercials were.
2. None of the characters were particularly memorable, except for Pinchot and his horrible HORRIBLE over-acting, which mostly consisted of a lot of eye-rolling and shrieking. The writers tried to shoehorn in subplots for everyone, but didn't bother to follow them out properly. There was no real character development at all. Characters were generally either "bravely heroic" or "gripped by hysteria and panic."
3. Contrary to True Romance, the plot in The Langoliers dominated the movie but did it very badly. Let's say that you are flexible enough to buy into the idea of the time rip, etc (after all, if you're not you should probably stay away from movies in this genre.) The problems are with the characters and their behavior. They all seem to completely ignore a man who is obviously dangerously insane. Later, the British secret agent ties up the mad man with a rope that is obviously incapble of holding him, then leaves the blind child and the school teacher (both unarmed) to keep an eye on crazy Pinchot while Mr. British Secret Service and the other good-sized men of the party go off to wander through the deserted airport. There was entirely more exposition at some points than was necessary--the audience is not stupid, you know. My ability to suspend disbelief was heartily abused.
4. Much of the acting was BAD. Morse and Stockwell did as well as they could with the material provided (they're both veterans, after all) but the rest of the cast were either over-acting or under-acting the whole way through. Half the time they were screaming, the other half mumbling miserably to themselves. As I mentioned, Pinchot was quite awful, but the woman playing the schoolteacher/love interest was quite blah, and the British apparently confused smirking with acting. In all, a rather unimpressive turnout.
It was just not very good at all, and although I'd been trying to track it down for ages (Netflix didn't have it and I was so excited to find it available OnDemand) it was a big disappointment (as many Stephen King movies tend to be...but I've posted on that subject already.) I definitely don't recommend this except to the most devoted King fan.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Woe Is Banky: Chasing Amy
Watched Chasing Amy today. Despite great performances from the leads and some fantastic comedic moments, I didn't like it. It depressed me. Ending = sad. And while I figure I was supposed to feel sorry for Holden because he lost the love of his life, oh poor guy, or maybe for Alyssa because Holden treated her like shit. Instead, the character I found myself sympathizing with most was Banky. I mean, he's got this great thing going, he and his best friend for 20 years--they live together, they work together, they hang out together--they're happy. Then along comes this woman and fucks everything up. They end up not even being friends, really. And okay, he was kind of a jerk in his attempts to get rid of her, but it's not like he was making shit up or anything. He was merely notifying Holden of facts that were more or less public record. And while maybe he was a little out of line, he did bring up some valid points about her possible agenda--and only then when his closest friend began trying to change him. Kevin Smith has a real hard-on for the whole "Best Friend vs. Girlfriend" storyline. It's kind of an interesting study. Oh, if only I had his drive and his gift for dialogue and characterization...Kevin Smith is SO my idol. And now I have seen ALL his movies, and count myself a true aficienado.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)