Here I am again, writing the book of the month post late. I felt like May was so long this year--I feel like we should already be in the middle of June, instead of just at the beginning. Oh well, I'm glad we're not because that means I still have a job for four more weeks!
This month's book is The 57 Lives of Alex Wayfare by MG Buerlen. It involves time travel, evil scientists, reincarnation, and, of course, an attractive boy. Alex has experienced strange dreams throughout her life--dreams in which she actually feels and experiences certain things, like the starving time in colonial America. Then she meets a man who says that they aren't just dreams, but her past lives, which she can travel into at anytime.
I love a good time travel book. The characters are interesting, the plot easy to follow while still giving twists and turns, and the conclusion actually an end without it being all tied up nicely. I don't have a full review up on my other blog yet, but it will be up next Monday.
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Jun 2, 2014
May 1, 2014
April Book of the Month
Apparently this month has not been the best month for reading. As in, I've only read four books this month, which is really weird (for me). In that case (and because I'm not feeling well), I'm going to just tell you three of the four books that I read:
A Beginner's Guide to Acting English by Shappi Khorsandi. Memoir of Iran refugees in England.
Ketchup Clouds by Annabel Pitcher. YA Fiction about a girl writing to a murderer on death row.
This Star Won't Go Out by Esther Earl, et al. Nonfiction book being a collection of letters, journals, and memories of Esther Earl, a teenager who died from thyroid cancer.
All of these will be reviewed on my book review blog in the coming month.
A Beginner's Guide to Acting English by Shappi Khorsandi. Memoir of Iran refugees in England.
Ketchup Clouds by Annabel Pitcher. YA Fiction about a girl writing to a murderer on death row.
This Star Won't Go Out by Esther Earl, et al. Nonfiction book being a collection of letters, journals, and memories of Esther Earl, a teenager who died from thyroid cancer.
All of these will be reviewed on my book review blog in the coming month.
Apr 2, 2014
March Book of the Month
I realized on my way home that I haven't posted my recommended book that I read during the month of March! How dare I post it one day late?! I've been busy applying for jobs and getting ready for comic con (yes! My first con! So excited.) that it completely slipped my mind.
Anyway, here's my suggestion for the month: Code Name Verity by Elizabeth Wein. For a full review of this book, you can go to my new book review blog here. Here's what I'm going to say about it. It's beautiful, it's heart wrenching, it's unique, it's thought provoking, it's spunky, and it's amazing. Wein introduces characters and a setting that I never even thought about existing, creating a wonderful piece of WWII fiction that, for me, is right up there with Markus Zusack's The Book Thief. I felt attached to Verity almost immediately, and the twists and turns in her story were perfectly paced and completely intriguing.
Anyway, here's my suggestion for the month: Code Name Verity by Elizabeth Wein. For a full review of this book, you can go to my new book review blog here. Here's what I'm going to say about it. It's beautiful, it's heart wrenching, it's unique, it's thought provoking, it's spunky, and it's amazing. Wein introduces characters and a setting that I never even thought about existing, creating a wonderful piece of WWII fiction that, for me, is right up there with Markus Zusack's The Book Thief. I felt attached to Verity almost immediately, and the twists and turns in her story were perfectly paced and completely intriguing.
Mar 1, 2014
February Book of the Month
Hello people of the interwebs! While I've been trying to figure out which direction I want my life to take (I'm calling this time in my life my "quarter-life crisis"--that's when you are trying to figure out how you're going to make it to your mid-life crisis), I have definitely still been making some time to read, though not as much as I usually do this month. I don't know if I should blame it on the short month, or all of the bad things that have happened this month, but whatever the reason, I have very few books to choose from. Fortunately, February is finally over!
I've been going back and forth on which book(s) to recommend. I've read mostly "lite-lit" this month, and there was a trilogy of books. But, since I recommended a trilogy last month, I think I'm going to go with Heist Society by Ally Carter.
Heist Society is a YA novel that would be great for people who love Ocean's Eleven, The Italian Job, and similar types of stories. The main character, Kat, is a girl who comes from one of the biggest art crime families in the world. Trying to have a "normal" life, she started on her biggest con of all--boarding school. But just a few months in she is kicked out and reluctantly joins her friends in order to clear her father's name, which involved stealing four paintings from a the most secure museum in London.
Not only is the writing fun and fast paced, but the characters are well developed and quirky. With the whole team being teenagers, it appeals to a middle school audience, especially as they outwit most of the adults in the novel. While some people may think that it's wrong to be rooting for art thieves and cons, I think that what Carter excels at is the "gray" area--yes Kat and her team steal things, but their reasoning is in the right place. Also, there is someone much worse than them in the story. People and situations are not ever simply good or bad, and Kat truly does want to be good, but she also can't deny her history and family. It's an interesting dynamic.
This is the beginning of a trilogy (hah, I basically recommended a trilogy anyway), but I think that this book stands well on its own.
I've been going back and forth on which book(s) to recommend. I've read mostly "lite-lit" this month, and there was a trilogy of books. But, since I recommended a trilogy last month, I think I'm going to go with Heist Society by Ally Carter.
Heist Society is a YA novel that would be great for people who love Ocean's Eleven, The Italian Job, and similar types of stories. The main character, Kat, is a girl who comes from one of the biggest art crime families in the world. Trying to have a "normal" life, she started on her biggest con of all--boarding school. But just a few months in she is kicked out and reluctantly joins her friends in order to clear her father's name, which involved stealing four paintings from a the most secure museum in London.
Not only is the writing fun and fast paced, but the characters are well developed and quirky. With the whole team being teenagers, it appeals to a middle school audience, especially as they outwit most of the adults in the novel. While some people may think that it's wrong to be rooting for art thieves and cons, I think that what Carter excels at is the "gray" area--yes Kat and her team steal things, but their reasoning is in the right place. Also, there is someone much worse than them in the story. People and situations are not ever simply good or bad, and Kat truly does want to be good, but she also can't deny her history and family. It's an interesting dynamic.
This is the beginning of a trilogy (hah, I basically recommended a trilogy anyway), but I think that this book stands well on its own.
Oct 1, 2013
September Book of the Month
I spent a lot of my reading time in the Regency period this last month, including this month's book. The book comes from an author I have read before, Georgette Heyer. A girl I work with suggested this book, knowing that I had enjoyed other books by Heyer.
Heyer basically created the genre of historical romance, but her books aren't heaving bosoms or shirtless men. Instead, they are exactly true to to period. In fact, Heyer became known as an expert on the Regency period, including a lot of information. Sometimes there is a bit too much information in some of her books, but the book I'm recommending, Arabella, is just right.
Arabella follows the oldest daughter of a Yorkshire vicar to London for her season, but on the way there, her impetuous nature causes her to make an influential man think she is someone more important than she is. Now all of London believes she's a rich heiress, which could get in the way of finding a good match.
This book, like my other favorite of Heyer's, Regency Buck, is very fun, with dry English humor. I wouldn't say that people who like Jane Austen would like this, because the style is very different, but I would definitely recommend giving Heyer a go, especially if you enjoy historical fiction.
Heyer basically created the genre of historical romance, but her books aren't heaving bosoms or shirtless men. Instead, they are exactly true to to period. In fact, Heyer became known as an expert on the Regency period, including a lot of information. Sometimes there is a bit too much information in some of her books, but the book I'm recommending, Arabella, is just right.
Arabella follows the oldest daughter of a Yorkshire vicar to London for her season, but on the way there, her impetuous nature causes her to make an influential man think she is someone more important than she is. Now all of London believes she's a rich heiress, which could get in the way of finding a good match.
This book, like my other favorite of Heyer's, Regency Buck, is very fun, with dry English humor. I wouldn't say that people who like Jane Austen would like this, because the style is very different, but I would definitely recommend giving Heyer a go, especially if you enjoy historical fiction.
Sep 1, 2013
August Book of the Month
Oh geez, guys. So this month I reread some really great books, but I already kind of wrote about them! But I think I just want to talk more about why I love these books so much.
So, I reread The Wednesday Wars, which I had read several times before. Then I picked up the companion novel, Okay for Now, which I'd only read once before I was worried. What if I didn't like it as much as the first time? What if I didn't have the same emotional reaction to it? And then I did and all worries disappeared!
I think . . . now that I've put some thought into, I think that what is so amazing about these books can come down to about 3 things.
1) The innocence of the narrators.
I think there is definitely a difference between innocence and naivete, and this book really does show that difference. They tell the story in simple terms, bringing you into their lives, but not revealing anything they don't want to until they feel like it. They portray growing up in the 1960s so clearly, without a lot of thought about the outside world, because, let's face it, they are 12. But at the same time they are completely aware of what is going on with the Vietnam War, and everything else going on at that time period. It's amazing.
2) The presence of good adults who are not parents.
Usually one of the main factors of the YA "genre" is the lack of adults/adult interaction. But what makes these books so good is that there are good, caring adults, and that they come in the form of teachers and librarians. I think it's great to show teens that there are people that they can trust and that will help them, even when it seems like everyone else isn't there.
3) The deliberate writing of Gary D. Schmidt
It is so obvious while reading these books that Schmidt (tangent: anyone think it's a little unnatural to have so many consonants in a row? Seven letters and only one is a vowel? Sorry, I was just looking at it and thinking, that is such a weird name.) wrote everything so deliberately. I guess a lot of what I wrote on number 1 can apply here. The way these books are written, they are written to show you exactly everything that you need to know to emotionally connect to these characters. Schmidt is a master of showing, not telling. And it seems that every character grows and changes throughout the books, even the minor ones. There is no character that remains the same from beginning to end, even though it might seem like it at first. The relationships between the main characters and their siblings, and between their friends, their parents, their teachers, mentors, etc., are all very carefully crafted.
I'm a little bit of a hypocrite because I hate people giving me expectations, because then I feel disappointed if those expectations aren't met, and here I am going on and on about how much I loved these books. But there you go. I'm a hypocrite. :)
So, I reread The Wednesday Wars, which I had read several times before. Then I picked up the companion novel, Okay for Now, which I'd only read once before I was worried. What if I didn't like it as much as the first time? What if I didn't have the same emotional reaction to it? And then I did and all worries disappeared!
I think . . . now that I've put some thought into, I think that what is so amazing about these books can come down to about 3 things.
1) The innocence of the narrators.
I think there is definitely a difference between innocence and naivete, and this book really does show that difference. They tell the story in simple terms, bringing you into their lives, but not revealing anything they don't want to until they feel like it. They portray growing up in the 1960s so clearly, without a lot of thought about the outside world, because, let's face it, they are 12. But at the same time they are completely aware of what is going on with the Vietnam War, and everything else going on at that time period. It's amazing.
2) The presence of good adults who are not parents.
Usually one of the main factors of the YA "genre" is the lack of adults/adult interaction. But what makes these books so good is that there are good, caring adults, and that they come in the form of teachers and librarians. I think it's great to show teens that there are people that they can trust and that will help them, even when it seems like everyone else isn't there.
3) The deliberate writing of Gary D. Schmidt
It is so obvious while reading these books that Schmidt (tangent: anyone think it's a little unnatural to have so many consonants in a row? Seven letters and only one is a vowel? Sorry, I was just looking at it and thinking, that is such a weird name.) wrote everything so deliberately. I guess a lot of what I wrote on number 1 can apply here. The way these books are written, they are written to show you exactly everything that you need to know to emotionally connect to these characters. Schmidt is a master of showing, not telling. And it seems that every character grows and changes throughout the books, even the minor ones. There is no character that remains the same from beginning to end, even though it might seem like it at first. The relationships between the main characters and their siblings, and between their friends, their parents, their teachers, mentors, etc., are all very carefully crafted.
I'm a little bit of a hypocrite because I hate people giving me expectations, because then I feel disappointed if those expectations aren't met, and here I am going on and on about how much I loved these books. But there you go. I'm a hypocrite. :)
Aug 1, 2013
July Book of the Month
Okay, so I just realized a conundrum: I have already talked about the best book I read this month in this post. So, there's that, and I guess I could leave it at that, but I would feel like I'm letting the interwebz down by doing that, so I guess I'll pick from the other books I looked at this month and choose a second best.
That would be a Belle Epoque by Elizabeth Ross. Belle Epoque, meaning the age of beauty, takes place in Paris during the construction of the Eiffel Tower. It follows a young girl who had escaped from her country life to go to Paris, where she tries to find a job. She finally finds a job, though it is nothing like what she thought it would be. Throughout the story she learns what lengths the rich will go through to raise themselves even higher, what it means to be beautiful, and what she is willing to do for her friends.
There's also a handsome bohemian musician. ;)
In all, it's a good period book which introduces a lot of great thoughts and concepts that are still a part of our society today. I like the backdrop of Paris, especially as the Eiffel Tower is being built--which most Parisians thought of as an eyesore, which is a great symbol for the main theme of the book. The characters are well written and their motivations are clear (from what I remember from the beginning of the month). I think this is a book that would fit teens 14 and up, and would be especially good for girls to read, because of the look at beauty.
That would be a Belle Epoque by Elizabeth Ross. Belle Epoque, meaning the age of beauty, takes place in Paris during the construction of the Eiffel Tower. It follows a young girl who had escaped from her country life to go to Paris, where she tries to find a job. She finally finds a job, though it is nothing like what she thought it would be. Throughout the story she learns what lengths the rich will go through to raise themselves even higher, what it means to be beautiful, and what she is willing to do for her friends.
There's also a handsome bohemian musician. ;)
In all, it's a good period book which introduces a lot of great thoughts and concepts that are still a part of our society today. I like the backdrop of Paris, especially as the Eiffel Tower is being built--which most Parisians thought of as an eyesore, which is a great symbol for the main theme of the book. The characters are well written and their motivations are clear (from what I remember from the beginning of the month). I think this is a book that would fit teens 14 and up, and would be especially good for girls to read, because of the look at beauty.
Jul 1, 2013
June Book of the Month
In keeping with the "theme" of June, the book I'm recommending is Anne of Green Gables by LM Montgomery.
After I got back from my vacation to Prince Edward Island, I decided I wanted to reread Anne to see how being there has changed the way I feel. And I was reminded by how much I love Anne and the Cuthberts. There is something about that little red headed girl who worms her way into everyone's hearts, the reader's included. I think every little girl should be introduced to Anne Shirley, because of her imagination, and her desire to be good. She has faults (stubbornness), and makes mistakes (liniment in a cake, getting her friend drunk, breaking a slate over someone's head, dying her hair, etc.), which makes her even more endearing. And there are so many good things Anne has to say, some adorable, and some quite profound. Things that young girls need to hear.
That being said, I remember it being a lot more difficult to read than it actually is. I think I read Anne of Green Gables for the first time when I was about 12, and I did read it several times throughout the years, but reading it again it was a quicker read. This isn't a bad thing, just an observation and something to keep in mind if you are thinking about recommending it to a kid.
And to finish this review off, I cried at the end. Even though I knew what was coming, I still cried. I think that's the best recommendation I can give--that I can still have an emotional reaction to something after having read it (and seen the movies) several times.
Additional reading:
The Alpine Path: The Story of My Career by LM Montgomery
This is a short autobiography (about 100 pages) where you learn about the inspiration of some things in Anne of Green Gables, as well as Montgomery's childhood, etc. Really interesting read.
After I got back from my vacation to Prince Edward Island, I decided I wanted to reread Anne to see how being there has changed the way I feel. And I was reminded by how much I love Anne and the Cuthberts. There is something about that little red headed girl who worms her way into everyone's hearts, the reader's included. I think every little girl should be introduced to Anne Shirley, because of her imagination, and her desire to be good. She has faults (stubbornness), and makes mistakes (liniment in a cake, getting her friend drunk, breaking a slate over someone's head, dying her hair, etc.), which makes her even more endearing. And there are so many good things Anne has to say, some adorable, and some quite profound. Things that young girls need to hear.
That being said, I remember it being a lot more difficult to read than it actually is. I think I read Anne of Green Gables for the first time when I was about 12, and I did read it several times throughout the years, but reading it again it was a quicker read. This isn't a bad thing, just an observation and something to keep in mind if you are thinking about recommending it to a kid.
And to finish this review off, I cried at the end. Even though I knew what was coming, I still cried. I think that's the best recommendation I can give--that I can still have an emotional reaction to something after having read it (and seen the movies) several times.
Additional reading:
The Alpine Path: The Story of My Career by LM Montgomery
This is a short autobiography (about 100 pages) where you learn about the inspiration of some things in Anne of Green Gables, as well as Montgomery's childhood, etc. Really interesting read.
May 1, 2013
April Book of the Month
Well, gosh guys, I need to start reading better books apparently. Because of most of the books I've read only being so-so, I'm going to suggest a second novel in a series. I told myself I wasn't going to do this, because it's a second book and all, but it just looks like I'm going to have to this month--it was the only book that got a "yes" on my scale of "no to yes!" that I use to rate the books I read.
The book is Everbound by Brodie Ashton. Ashton is a Utah author, which is why I read her first novel, Everneath. I'm all about supporting local authors. :) Anyway, I loved Everneath. It's a paranormal teen novel, but it was different in a lot of good ways from the typical paranormal. My favorite part (and this might be considered a bit of a spoiler . . .) is that the main character didn't fall in love with the weird creepy guy who's been alive for centuries and stalks her! She loves a nice, normal boy. Yay! Also, the great thing about Everneath is that it could have been a stand alone novel. I hate it when a book ends practically in the middle of the sentence.
For these reasons alone, I would have read Everbound, but fortunately Ashton is a good writer too. Everbound does take up where the last novel ended, and takes the reader to the Everneath, what some people would call Hades or Hell or the Underworld. I don't really want to give too much away from the first book, but it's nice for the girl to be doing the saving. Unlike a lot of series/trilogies, this book didn't suffer from what I call "second book syndrome" (mainly, it didn't drag and fill like a filler book before the third one) and the entire story arch of the book came to a conclusion, which is how it should be. But there will be a third book, as the arch for that book was introduced.
This month's book kind of ended up being two books, but that's better right? Hopefully, there will be good books in the month of May!
The book is Everbound by Brodie Ashton. Ashton is a Utah author, which is why I read her first novel, Everneath. I'm all about supporting local authors. :) Anyway, I loved Everneath. It's a paranormal teen novel, but it was different in a lot of good ways from the typical paranormal. My favorite part (and this might be considered a bit of a spoiler . . .) is that the main character didn't fall in love with the weird creepy guy who's been alive for centuries and stalks her! She loves a nice, normal boy. Yay! Also, the great thing about Everneath is that it could have been a stand alone novel. I hate it when a book ends practically in the middle of the sentence.
For these reasons alone, I would have read Everbound, but fortunately Ashton is a good writer too. Everbound does take up where the last novel ended, and takes the reader to the Everneath, what some people would call Hades or Hell or the Underworld. I don't really want to give too much away from the first book, but it's nice for the girl to be doing the saving. Unlike a lot of series/trilogies, this book didn't suffer from what I call "second book syndrome" (mainly, it didn't drag and fill like a filler book before the third one) and the entire story arch of the book came to a conclusion, which is how it should be. But there will be a third book, as the arch for that book was introduced.
This month's book kind of ended up being two books, but that's better right? Hopefully, there will be good books in the month of May!
Apr 16, 2013
New Period Movies/Shows
A couple of weeks ago, I had a desire to watch a romance. Not just any romance, but a period romance. A movie with beautiful dresses, witty women, and handsome men in top hats. I wanted a declaration of love followed by an amazing kiss and a happily ever after. And I knew many movies that fit this description, but I wanted something new. Something that would surprise me. So I asked around and looked at my trusted period channels on YouTube. I came up with some hits, and some misses.
So, for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure), here are the new period movies (and one TV show) I discovered.
The Buccaneers (1995)
This is not recommended. So, just keep that in mind if you decide to go watch it. The story follows for American girls as they go to England in the mid to late Victorian era to find rich and/or titled husbands. The story focuses mainly on the youngest girl, Nan. This is not a happy way to spend 5 hours. Only one of the girls ends up in a happy marriage, and we barely see her. One ends up unhappy in her marriage and cheats on her husband. One ends up in a loveless marriage with a man who only married her for her money and keeps a mistress. And Nan ends up married to a brute who rapes her, abuses her, and is also a homosexual (keep in mind, homosexuality was illegal at this time). I think the ending was supposed to be happy, but since it involved infidelity, I had a hard time thinking it was. If Nan had chosen love over a title and money, she would have been happy in the second hour and I would have been happier too. (Be aware that there is one scene of non graphic rape, and one scene of attempted rape. Though you shouldn't watch this movie anyway, so this warning is unnecessary.)
Barbara Cartland adaptions:
Barbara Cartland was a writer of historical romances during the 20th century. I have never read her novels, but I have heard that they are better than the movies. Keep in mind, that I am judging these based on the fact that they were made in the late 80s/early 90s, and as such, contain a bit of cheese. (And floppy haircuts for the men, and anachronistic makeup and hair for the women.)
A Hazard of Hearts (1987)
This was the best of the three adaptations I watched. It has a young Helena Bonham Carter as Serena. It's Regency time period. Serena's father is a gambler, and in a game of dice loses not only his money, but his house and his daughter to the evil Lord Wrotham. Lord Justin Vulcan wins back the house and Serena, but not before Sir Giles kills himself. Lord Vulcan then takes Serena to his home, which is rumored to be haunted.
I like that there is romance, as well as a bit of swashbuckling in these movies. The romance in this one is probably the strongest of the three, though the kiss is cut short. (Also, there is an attempted rape, but it's not graphic, just some struggling.)
A Ghost in Monte Carlo (1990)
A young girl and her aunt go to Monte Carlo incognito in the late Victorian era. The aunt seems intent on her niece marrying royalty, though the girl falls in love with English Lord Robert Stanford (played by Marcus Gilbert, who also played Lord Vulcan in A Hazard of Hearts). The beautiful niece has also caught the eye of a Rajah. Again, there's some swash buckling, and men riding to the rescue.
Duel of Hearts (1991)
Probably my least favorite of all the Cartland movies. Possible because Marcus Gilbert wasn't in it. . . .
Anyway, Lady Faye is intent on proving that Lord Brecon did not commit a murder that he is suspected of, so she says she is Miss Frye and gets a job as his mother's companion. This movie is a bit like Jane Eyre, with the mysteries of the house, etc.
"Garrow's Law" (2009-2011)
This was a three season TV show, and I loved it! If you liked Amazing Grace (2006), I think you'll like "Garrow's Law". They are similar not only in time period (late 18th century), but also in that they both tell the story of a man intent on making changes. William Garrow was an English barrister who, among other things, invented the phrase "Innocent until proven Guilty." The TV show isn't very accurate, historically, when is comes to the life and cases of Garrow, but instead, it uses Garrow as a character to show real cases that came to the Old Bailey court at the time Garrow was practicing. I loved seeing someone fight for what he thought was right. And there is a bit of romance, too.
Bert & Dickie (2012)
This is the story of the English skulling team that won gold in the 1948 London Olympics. They were placed together five weeks before the Olympics and had to learn how to be a team, put aside their differences, and learn to trust each other. It's one of those feel good, triumphant, sports movies, and it did have me tearing up a bit in the end. The hard thing about this is that Matt Smith played Bert Bushnell, and I just couldn't get past thinking of this as the Doctor. It's the way he talks! He just talked like the Doctor. I've never had that problem with any of the other actors that have played the Doctor. In fact, at one point he asks some for change so he can use the "phone box" and I kind of giggled a little to myself at that. But it was an interesting story. Even more interesting is that the Olympics used to have art competitions.
So, there you go. Three good movies, one good TV show, two so-so movies, and one movie that is not recommended.
So, for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure), here are the new period movies (and one TV show) I discovered.
Lorna Doone (2000)
I had seen this on one of my YouTube channels, and had heard friends mention it, but I really didn't know anything about it. After two friends told me it was great, I decided to watch it. I was very pleasantly surprised! It was lovely, with just about everything that I wanted. But at the same time, it made me want to eat Lorna Doone cookies. . . .
The gist is this. The time period is the 17th century. John is intent on avenging the death of his father, who was killed by the Doone clan. Then he meets Lorna, who happens to be the "queen" of the Doones. They fall in love, and must fight for what they most want--marriage to each other--but things keep getting in their way. There is a Doone who wants to marry Lorna and will have her or no one else can. There is the mystery of Lorna's mother. And of course, John's vengeful heart against the Doones. It was described to me as "like a Scottish version of Romeo and Juliet, but without the suicides."
This is not recommended. So, just keep that in mind if you decide to go watch it. The story follows for American girls as they go to England in the mid to late Victorian era to find rich and/or titled husbands. The story focuses mainly on the youngest girl, Nan. This is not a happy way to spend 5 hours. Only one of the girls ends up in a happy marriage, and we barely see her. One ends up unhappy in her marriage and cheats on her husband. One ends up in a loveless marriage with a man who only married her for her money and keeps a mistress. And Nan ends up married to a brute who rapes her, abuses her, and is also a homosexual (keep in mind, homosexuality was illegal at this time). I think the ending was supposed to be happy, but since it involved infidelity, I had a hard time thinking it was. If Nan had chosen love over a title and money, she would have been happy in the second hour and I would have been happier too. (Be aware that there is one scene of non graphic rape, and one scene of attempted rape. Though you shouldn't watch this movie anyway, so this warning is unnecessary.)
Barbara Cartland adaptions:
Barbara Cartland was a writer of historical romances during the 20th century. I have never read her novels, but I have heard that they are better than the movies. Keep in mind, that I am judging these based on the fact that they were made in the late 80s/early 90s, and as such, contain a bit of cheese. (And floppy haircuts for the men, and anachronistic makeup and hair for the women.)
A Hazard of Hearts (1987)
This was the best of the three adaptations I watched. It has a young Helena Bonham Carter as Serena. It's Regency time period. Serena's father is a gambler, and in a game of dice loses not only his money, but his house and his daughter to the evil Lord Wrotham. Lord Justin Vulcan wins back the house and Serena, but not before Sir Giles kills himself. Lord Vulcan then takes Serena to his home, which is rumored to be haunted.
I like that there is romance, as well as a bit of swashbuckling in these movies. The romance in this one is probably the strongest of the three, though the kiss is cut short. (Also, there is an attempted rape, but it's not graphic, just some struggling.)
A Ghost in Monte Carlo (1990)
A young girl and her aunt go to Monte Carlo incognito in the late Victorian era. The aunt seems intent on her niece marrying royalty, though the girl falls in love with English Lord Robert Stanford (played by Marcus Gilbert, who also played Lord Vulcan in A Hazard of Hearts). The beautiful niece has also caught the eye of a Rajah. Again, there's some swash buckling, and men riding to the rescue.
Duel of Hearts (1991)
Probably my least favorite of all the Cartland movies. Possible because Marcus Gilbert wasn't in it. . . .
Anyway, Lady Faye is intent on proving that Lord Brecon did not commit a murder that he is suspected of, so she says she is Miss Frye and gets a job as his mother's companion. This movie is a bit like Jane Eyre, with the mysteries of the house, etc.
"Garrow's Law" (2009-2011)
This was a three season TV show, and I loved it! If you liked Amazing Grace (2006), I think you'll like "Garrow's Law". They are similar not only in time period (late 18th century), but also in that they both tell the story of a man intent on making changes. William Garrow was an English barrister who, among other things, invented the phrase "Innocent until proven Guilty." The TV show isn't very accurate, historically, when is comes to the life and cases of Garrow, but instead, it uses Garrow as a character to show real cases that came to the Old Bailey court at the time Garrow was practicing. I loved seeing someone fight for what he thought was right. And there is a bit of romance, too.
Bert & Dickie (2012)
This is the story of the English skulling team that won gold in the 1948 London Olympics. They were placed together five weeks before the Olympics and had to learn how to be a team, put aside their differences, and learn to trust each other. It's one of those feel good, triumphant, sports movies, and it did have me tearing up a bit in the end. The hard thing about this is that Matt Smith played Bert Bushnell, and I just couldn't get past thinking of this as the Doctor. It's the way he talks! He just talked like the Doctor. I've never had that problem with any of the other actors that have played the Doctor. In fact, at one point he asks some for change so he can use the "phone box" and I kind of giggled a little to myself at that. But it was an interesting story. Even more interesting is that the Olympics used to have art competitions.
So, there you go. Three good movies, one good TV show, two so-so movies, and one movie that is not recommended.
Apr 1, 2013
March Book of the Month
There is something about a book that makes you laugh and cry, and laugh while you cry, and cry while you laugh. Those are the books that I find myself recommending the most because if a book can make me feel so much, the author must have done something right.
Which is why my book of the month for March is a reread for me, and something I've mentioned previously in my blog: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green.
This book has become kind of a big deal since it was released in January 2012. I first read it that summer and this month I read it again in one night while my roommate was off on her spring break adventures. I cried just as hard (or harder) the second time around.
The story is narrated by Hazel, a sixteen year old girl with terminal cancer--kept alive by a miracle drug. She meets Augustus Waters at a support group for cancer kids. Augustus lost his leg to cancer and is in remission now. Green has a clever way of writing, with fast-paved dialogue and quirky characters. I love the details he includes--for example, Augustus's parents have what they call "encouragements" (ie, "families are forever" and "we wouldn't know happiness without sadness"), which are so much like the kitsch found in Mormon households that it made me laugh (and wonder if John Green had perchance known a Mormon . . .).
Anyway, this is a book that I recommend to everyone who wants a good book. It's funny, clever, and, yes, desperately sad.
Which is why my book of the month for March is a reread for me, and something I've mentioned previously in my blog: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green.
This book has become kind of a big deal since it was released in January 2012. I first read it that summer and this month I read it again in one night while my roommate was off on her spring break adventures. I cried just as hard (or harder) the second time around.
The story is narrated by Hazel, a sixteen year old girl with terminal cancer--kept alive by a miracle drug. She meets Augustus Waters at a support group for cancer kids. Augustus lost his leg to cancer and is in remission now. Green has a clever way of writing, with fast-paved dialogue and quirky characters. I love the details he includes--for example, Augustus's parents have what they call "encouragements" (ie, "families are forever" and "we wouldn't know happiness without sadness"), which are so much like the kitsch found in Mormon households that it made me laugh (and wonder if John Green had perchance known a Mormon . . .).
Anyway, this is a book that I recommend to everyone who wants a good book. It's funny, clever, and, yes, desperately sad.
Mar 20, 2013
Murder! Murder!
I love murder mysteries. I really have no idea why--I don't like scary things, I don't like puzzles--but there is something about murder mysteries that just draw me in. Here's the thing though, I'm horrible at figuring out "whodunit." For example, the other day, I was reading an Agatha Christie book, which I had seen the adaptation of, and I still couldn't figure out who the murderer was! That's just pathetic. So, lately while I've been watching the Marple series (or any murder mystery), I'll come up with about two people who I think could be the murderer--which can, of course, change throughout the episode. There is also usually a secondary mystery, so I'll choose the person who is behind that mystery too. I'm rarely right with the murder, except for the other day when I was watching "Murder is Easy" and halfway through I thought to myself, "the murder is either person A or person B." And guess what! It was person B!! I was so proud of myself that I kind of wanted to brag, but even I realized how lame that would be.
One thing about watching and reading murder mysteries is that I start mistrusting everyone in them. I will frequently say, "Oh that guy is definitely going to be bad. He wants the attention so much!" When really that character is one of the good guys. Oh well, trust no one, right? ;)
Anyway, all of that was just leading up to me sharing some of my favorite murder mystery TV shows with you:
Bones
About a team of scientists (called "squints") working in the fictional museum The Jeffersonian, headed by Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan (Emily Deschanel), a forensic anthropologist who works with bones. They work with FBI agent Seely Booth (David Boreanaz) to solve murders where the body and cause of death are not easily identified. What is amazing to me is how much bones can tell about a person--not only their age and sex, but illnesses, place of origin, diet, and previous injuries, as well as ones sustained after death.
Castle
Mystery writer, Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion), gets permission to follow Detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) and her team around New York City as they solve hurders. Castle's research and connections help them with their cases, as do his mother and daughter--though mostly unknowingly. Castle is a fun character, with all of his crazy theories, and his geekiness. Kate is sensible, but humors him at times.
Inspector Lewis
A British television show that takes place in the wonderful city of Oxford. Inspector Robby Lewis (previously Chief Inspector Morse's sergeant, from the TV show Morse) (Kevin Whately) is a Northern bloke without a lot of fancy learning, while his sergeant, James Hathaway (Laurence Fox), is an Oxbridge educated man who almost became a priest. Lewis has street smarts and experience while Hathaway helps him navigate the world of Oxford University and highly educated society as they solve murders of every kind. The ME, Laura Hobson (Clare Holman), is almost equal in importance and cleverness as Lewis and Hathaway (and I would say Holman almost steals the scenes she is in).
Marple
A little old woman, Miss Jane Marple (Geraldine McEwan or Julia McKenzie, depending on the season), helps the police solve murders all over England, including her own town of St. Mary's Mead. There are a lot of famous British faces to be seen in every episode, and it's amusing to see how Miss Marple leads the police to the right clues, earning their trust, and in the end, gathering everyone together to tell the story of the murder. Not every episode is a true Agatha Christie Marple story, and some are greatly changed, but they are still a lot of fun!
Whitechapel
Another British television show. This one takes place in Whitechapel, in East London. Detective Inspector Joseph Chandler (Rupert Penry-Jones) just received his own team, which is essentially led by Sergeant Ray Miles (Philip Davis), when someone starts copying the Jack the Ripper murders. The first season (3 episodes) focuses on catching the copycat Ripper, with the help of ripperologist Ed Buchan (Steve Pemberton). The second season is another copycat, this time of the Kray twins from the 1960s. Buchan helps them again, which leads to him becoming a permanent member of their team in the third season. Since some of these murders can be a bit graphic (especially the Ripper murders), those scenes are filmed in such a way that hints at the gore without really showing it.
Sherlock
If you haven't heard of BBC's Sherlock by now, I want to know what rock you've been living under! This series takes the Victorian Sherlock and updates him to modern London. The update is seamless and inspired. Sherlock Holmes (the ever marvelous Benedict Cumberbatch) is still as brilliant and condescending as he ever was before as he solves the most unlikely of cases. Helping him is Doctor John Watson (Martin Freeman) and DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves, seriously this cast is amazing). The writers are self proclaimed Conan Doyle fans, so the plots are usually pretty true to the original story, just with updates to make them work in the 21st Century. But there is still 221B Baker Street, the violin, Mrs. Hudson, and even a deer stalker cap every once in a while. And, of course, Moriarty (Andrew Scott). Season 3 has just started filming and will be shown in the US on PBS in 2014.
Pushing Daisies
A quirky series that was greatly under appreciated in it's original run. It's about the Pie-maker, Ned (Lee Pace), who has a very unique talent--he can bring the dead back to life, but only for a minute, or someone else has to die. When he touches them again, they go back to being dead forever. He reluctantly helps Emerson Cod (Chi McBride), a private detective, solve murders by asking the victim if they know who killed them. They also get the help of Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), Ned's childhood sweetheart, who Ned brought back to life and kept alive past one minute, meaning he can never touch her or she'll die again. It's a weird sounding concept, it's actually a very colorful and upbeat show. The murders are so ridiculous, that it feels okay to be making fun of them.
So, those are some of my favorite murder mystery shows. All of them have good characters, which I appreciate, so don't go in expecting CSI with their cookie-cutter, apathetic, poser characters. And, also, I'm sorry if I get you into these shows and you spend the next year trying to catch up on them all. Really, I am sorry, but have fun while you do it!
One thing about watching and reading murder mysteries is that I start mistrusting everyone in them. I will frequently say, "Oh that guy is definitely going to be bad. He wants the attention so much!" When really that character is one of the good guys. Oh well, trust no one, right? ;)
Anyway, all of that was just leading up to me sharing some of my favorite murder mystery TV shows with you:
Bones
About a team of scientists (called "squints") working in the fictional museum The Jeffersonian, headed by Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan (Emily Deschanel), a forensic anthropologist who works with bones. They work with FBI agent Seely Booth (David Boreanaz) to solve murders where the body and cause of death are not easily identified. What is amazing to me is how much bones can tell about a person--not only their age and sex, but illnesses, place of origin, diet, and previous injuries, as well as ones sustained after death.
Castle
Mystery writer, Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion), gets permission to follow Detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) and her team around New York City as they solve hurders. Castle's research and connections help them with their cases, as do his mother and daughter--though mostly unknowingly. Castle is a fun character, with all of his crazy theories, and his geekiness. Kate is sensible, but humors him at times.
Inspector Lewis
A British television show that takes place in the wonderful city of Oxford. Inspector Robby Lewis (previously Chief Inspector Morse's sergeant, from the TV show Morse) (Kevin Whately) is a Northern bloke without a lot of fancy learning, while his sergeant, James Hathaway (Laurence Fox), is an Oxbridge educated man who almost became a priest. Lewis has street smarts and experience while Hathaway helps him navigate the world of Oxford University and highly educated society as they solve murders of every kind. The ME, Laura Hobson (Clare Holman), is almost equal in importance and cleverness as Lewis and Hathaway (and I would say Holman almost steals the scenes she is in).
Marple
A little old woman, Miss Jane Marple (Geraldine McEwan or Julia McKenzie, depending on the season), helps the police solve murders all over England, including her own town of St. Mary's Mead. There are a lot of famous British faces to be seen in every episode, and it's amusing to see how Miss Marple leads the police to the right clues, earning their trust, and in the end, gathering everyone together to tell the story of the murder. Not every episode is a true Agatha Christie Marple story, and some are greatly changed, but they are still a lot of fun!
Whitechapel
Another British television show. This one takes place in Whitechapel, in East London. Detective Inspector Joseph Chandler (Rupert Penry-Jones) just received his own team, which is essentially led by Sergeant Ray Miles (Philip Davis), when someone starts copying the Jack the Ripper murders. The first season (3 episodes) focuses on catching the copycat Ripper, with the help of ripperologist Ed Buchan (Steve Pemberton). The second season is another copycat, this time of the Kray twins from the 1960s. Buchan helps them again, which leads to him becoming a permanent member of their team in the third season. Since some of these murders can be a bit graphic (especially the Ripper murders), those scenes are filmed in such a way that hints at the gore without really showing it.
Sherlock
If you haven't heard of BBC's Sherlock by now, I want to know what rock you've been living under! This series takes the Victorian Sherlock and updates him to modern London. The update is seamless and inspired. Sherlock Holmes (the ever marvelous Benedict Cumberbatch) is still as brilliant and condescending as he ever was before as he solves the most unlikely of cases. Helping him is Doctor John Watson (Martin Freeman) and DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves, seriously this cast is amazing). The writers are self proclaimed Conan Doyle fans, so the plots are usually pretty true to the original story, just with updates to make them work in the 21st Century. But there is still 221B Baker Street, the violin, Mrs. Hudson, and even a deer stalker cap every once in a while. And, of course, Moriarty (Andrew Scott). Season 3 has just started filming and will be shown in the US on PBS in 2014.
Pushing Daisies
A quirky series that was greatly under appreciated in it's original run. It's about the Pie-maker, Ned (Lee Pace), who has a very unique talent--he can bring the dead back to life, but only for a minute, or someone else has to die. When he touches them again, they go back to being dead forever. He reluctantly helps Emerson Cod (Chi McBride), a private detective, solve murders by asking the victim if they know who killed them. They also get the help of Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), Ned's childhood sweetheart, who Ned brought back to life and kept alive past one minute, meaning he can never touch her or she'll die again. It's a weird sounding concept, it's actually a very colorful and upbeat show. The murders are so ridiculous, that it feels okay to be making fun of them.
So, those are some of my favorite murder mystery shows. All of them have good characters, which I appreciate, so don't go in expecting CSI with their cookie-cutter, apathetic, poser characters. And, also, I'm sorry if I get you into these shows and you spend the next year trying to catch up on them all. Really, I am sorry, but have fun while you do it!
Dec 19, 2012
Review: The Hobbit
Yesterday, thanks to roommate M's work, I was able to go see The Hobbit. Though I've been sick the past four days, I bucked myself up to go see it because, let's be hones, it's THE HOBBIT! I've only been counting down for a year now.
Title: The Hobbit
MPAA rating: PG-13 (fantasy violence, no blood)
My rating (not that it matters, since this is a pretend scale anyway): ****
To start off my review, I'll start with casting choices. The past two years I've become a big fan of Martin Freeman (Bilbo) by watching BBC's "Sherlock", and then realizing I'd seen him in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) (he was also in "The Office" [UK]). I think he was the perfect choice for Bilbo. The Hobbit, as a story, is a lot more lighthearted than than The Lord of the Rings trilogy is, and Freeman's mix of comedic and dramatic acting was perfect for the little hobbit going on an adventure. I also think Richard Armitage is a good actor (you can see him in BBC's North and South, and "Robin Hood") who has perfected the brooding stare. He plays the tortured dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield well. The other twelve dwarves were well cast (and costumed). Of course, Sir Ian McKellen back as Gandalf.
The filming was beautiful (we didn't watch in 3D), as were the sets. I thought Bag End looked exactly like something out of a fairytale. The costumes were nice too (as a side note, elves get the coolest clothes!).
The only thing I really have negative, is that I'm still not exactly sure why it was necessary to split the book into three three-hour movies. The book is not nearly as complicated as the books in LOTR, and the movie, while it didn't necessarily drag, was a little slow, and I felt that one movie could have done it, possibly two. It's the three movie thing that confuses me. Anyway, there were a lot of additions to the story that aren't in the book. I'm not a huge Tolkien fanatic, so I've never read The Silmarillion, which I've been lead to believe a lot of the extra story comes from. I did just reread The Hobbit this year, but I read so much that I tend to forget details, but I'm pretty sure that there weren't any Orcs hunting Thorin's company, nor do I remember Thorin not really liking the elves . . . .
Anyway, I'm hoping that Peter Jackson will quiet all my fears about it being too drawn out in three movies. This one was good, and had the same beauty as LOTR (in fact, I think the beauty was even greater in this one). I'd recommend seeing it.
Title: The Hobbit
MPAA rating: PG-13 (fantasy violence, no blood)
My rating (not that it matters, since this is a pretend scale anyway): ****
To start off my review, I'll start with casting choices. The past two years I've become a big fan of Martin Freeman (Bilbo) by watching BBC's "Sherlock", and then realizing I'd seen him in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) (he was also in "The Office" [UK]). I think he was the perfect choice for Bilbo. The Hobbit, as a story, is a lot more lighthearted than than The Lord of the Rings trilogy is, and Freeman's mix of comedic and dramatic acting was perfect for the little hobbit going on an adventure. I also think Richard Armitage is a good actor (you can see him in BBC's North and South, and "Robin Hood") who has perfected the brooding stare. He plays the tortured dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield well. The other twelve dwarves were well cast (and costumed). Of course, Sir Ian McKellen back as Gandalf.
The filming was beautiful (we didn't watch in 3D), as were the sets. I thought Bag End looked exactly like something out of a fairytale. The costumes were nice too (as a side note, elves get the coolest clothes!).
The only thing I really have negative, is that I'm still not exactly sure why it was necessary to split the book into three three-hour movies. The book is not nearly as complicated as the books in LOTR, and the movie, while it didn't necessarily drag, was a little slow, and I felt that one movie could have done it, possibly two. It's the three movie thing that confuses me. Anyway, there were a lot of additions to the story that aren't in the book. I'm not a huge Tolkien fanatic, so I've never read The Silmarillion, which I've been lead to believe a lot of the extra story comes from. I did just reread The Hobbit this year, but I read so much that I tend to forget details, but I'm pretty sure that there weren't any Orcs hunting Thorin's company, nor do I remember Thorin not really liking the elves . . . .
Anyway, I'm hoping that Peter Jackson will quiet all my fears about it being too drawn out in three movies. This one was good, and had the same beauty as LOTR (in fact, I think the beauty was even greater in this one). I'd recommend seeing it.
Oct 7, 2012
Banned Book Review
How was everyone's banned book week? Did you end up fighting for the right to read by reading a banned or challenged book? (I listened to a great Stuff You Should Know podcast this week that talks about banning books. Give it a listen!)
Well, as I mentioned, I read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. This is a book that a lot of my family and friends have all read, and I had been thinking about reading for sometime--I just never got around to it. This is a recently challenged book, having been challenged just this year on the grounds of pornography. I knew going into it that there wasn't any pornography in the book (my mother had read it for goodness sake!), but it was interesting to read it and see the parts that, taken out of context, could be seen as pornography (if someone was looking). But we'll get to that later.
Before this I had only read one Orson Scott Card book, and that was just last year. It was called Pathfinder. It was nice to realize that Card just has an interesting writing style, and it wasn't just that book. To me, it seemed that Card just lets the reader infer a lot of information, or he might mention some detail after the fact, which is a different than most writers (and goes against what I was taught in my creative writing classes!). He has an interesting way of looking at things that we think we know about--in Pathfinder, it was time travel, in which he broke all the "rules" we have set up for time travel. In Ender's Game it was gravity, space travel, and the speed of light. I don't read a lot of science fiction (I prefer it in TV and movies more), so maybe to someone who does read a lot of sci-fi, it wouldn't have seemed so different, but I was interested in how Ender reorients himself when in null gravity.
Now, to the "pornography" claim. I, personally, think that the reason a lot of parents challenge books is because they never actually read them. They might open the book up, come across something, and become shocked. Or their child tells them something. Or maybe they just heard something. But the thing is, you can't take something out of context and decide that that is what the book is about. There is nudity in Ender's Game. They mention male genitalia once or twice. But there is nothing sexual about it. Ender starts the book as a 6 year old and most of the book takes place between when he is 6 to when he is 11. He is with other boys around his age. So, yeah. No pornography.
(This next section of hidden text contains SPOILERS--read at your own discretion. Just highlight to read.)
While I was reading the book I was comparing and contrasting it with The Hunger Games. (You can find my review of that series here.) Both are about manipulation, both have children killing other children, and in both the main character doesn't want any part of it. What I think made Ender's Game less horrific, is that Ender didn't know. He didn't want to hurt anyone, and he didn't know that he was being used to hurt and kill other beings. He did know he was being manipulated, but he didn't truly know why. And in Ender's case, he wasn't being used for entertainment purposes. There was a war, and it's horrible that the governments of earth were using children to fight it, at least it wasn't just for the sake of seeing children kill each other. So, there are my thoughts on that.
In conclusion, I think that Ender's Game is a great read, but probably for slightly older kids (middle school age). And I hope that you all did something to participate in banned books week!
Well, as I mentioned, I read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. This is a book that a lot of my family and friends have all read, and I had been thinking about reading for sometime--I just never got around to it. This is a recently challenged book, having been challenged just this year on the grounds of pornography. I knew going into it that there wasn't any pornography in the book (my mother had read it for goodness sake!), but it was interesting to read it and see the parts that, taken out of context, could be seen as pornography (if someone was looking). But we'll get to that later.
Before this I had only read one Orson Scott Card book, and that was just last year. It was called Pathfinder. It was nice to realize that Card just has an interesting writing style, and it wasn't just that book. To me, it seemed that Card just lets the reader infer a lot of information, or he might mention some detail after the fact, which is a different than most writers (and goes against what I was taught in my creative writing classes!). He has an interesting way of looking at things that we think we know about--in Pathfinder, it was time travel, in which he broke all the "rules" we have set up for time travel. In Ender's Game it was gravity, space travel, and the speed of light. I don't read a lot of science fiction (I prefer it in TV and movies more), so maybe to someone who does read a lot of sci-fi, it wouldn't have seemed so different, but I was interested in how Ender reorients himself when in null gravity.
Now, to the "pornography" claim. I, personally, think that the reason a lot of parents challenge books is because they never actually read them. They might open the book up, come across something, and become shocked. Or their child tells them something. Or maybe they just heard something. But the thing is, you can't take something out of context and decide that that is what the book is about. There is nudity in Ender's Game. They mention male genitalia once or twice. But there is nothing sexual about it. Ender starts the book as a 6 year old and most of the book takes place between when he is 6 to when he is 11. He is with other boys around his age. So, yeah. No pornography.
(This next section of hidden text contains SPOILERS--read at your own discretion. Just highlight to read.)
While I was reading the book I was comparing and contrasting it with The Hunger Games. (You can find my review of that series here.) Both are about manipulation, both have children killing other children, and in both the main character doesn't want any part of it. What I think made Ender's Game less horrific, is that Ender didn't know. He didn't want to hurt anyone, and he didn't know that he was being used to hurt and kill other beings. He did know he was being manipulated, but he didn't truly know why. And in Ender's case, he wasn't being used for entertainment purposes. There was a war, and it's horrible that the governments of earth were using children to fight it, at least it wasn't just for the sake of seeing children kill each other. So, there are my thoughts on that.
In conclusion, I think that Ender's Game is a great read, but probably for slightly older kids (middle school age). And I hope that you all did something to participate in banned books week!
Jul 24, 2012
Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-man
I actually saw a movie soon enough to make a review seem reasonable! Yay me! (And Yay Dad! for paying. :) ) We decided to spend Pioneer Day (a good day to be a Utahn) at the movies, which is a real treat as I don't get home in time to catch a matinee and we're all too cheap to spend the money the a full priced ticket.
Title: The Amazing Spider-Man
MPAA rating: PG-13, for violence
My rating: **** (this rating is completely bogus, by the way. I've never actually come up with any kind of rating system, so this could be four out of four, or four out of ten. I don't know. I've never decided and I think it changes every time I review something. This time, it's four out of four.)
To prepare for seeing The Amazing Spider-Man (TASM), a week or so ago I watched Spider-Man (SM), so I had that fresh in mind as I was watching.
I really like Spider-Man, so I'm not going to bash it or the actors in it, but there a lot of things that I think TASM did better.
Caution: May contain minor SPOILERS (depends on how "in the dark" you want to be)
To start off, I feel like this whole movie was to give the viewer a true understanding of Spider-man's "origin story." Where he came from (dad was scientist, parents died, raised by aunt and uncle), how he became Spider-man (spider bite), why he started fighting evil (Uncle Ben), and what is he getting out of it (at first, freedom from guilt, which then changes to knowledge of doing good). In comparison, SM went quickly over the origin into a different storyline making the movie cover at least a year (if not more). Because TASM only covers a few months, I feel like I got a better feel for all the characters.
That leads me to point number two. Compared to SM, I feel that TASM had a more complex storyline and deeper characterization. Even Flash, a minor character, shows growth and depth after Uncle Ben dies. Because of the shortening of time, I feel that we get to see more about Peter accepting what has happened to him after the bite. We get to see him as the super intelligent person that he is, which I feel like was only alluded to in the previous films. And then when Ben dies, we see the transformation of Peter's motivation from vengeance to genuine heroism.
This leads me to point number three. Gwen Stacy and her father. I felt that the real turning point in Peter's motivation comes from these two. First, when Captain Stacy argues with Peter about Spider-man, and then when Peter tells Gwen that he is Spider-man. A side-kick/confidant is key to a lot of hero stories and I really feel that it helped Peter to have someone he could talk to. In SM, Peter is trying to deal with everything himself, and he ends up losing multiple jobs, and the girl, and his best friend, and fails school. Not that Garfield's Peter Parker won't have issues, but having someone who knows who he is, is going to help ground him, and keep him from losing himself to Spider-Man.
As for Andrew Garfield, I know that there are very differing opinions about him as Spider-Man (as there are of the whole movie). For me, I thought he was great. He was able to play the awkward genius teenager really well (loved the scene in the school hallway with him and Gwen), but he was good looking enough to make me want to be saved by him. :) Though Tobey Maguire was a good Spider-Man, I think Garfield was the perfect choice to play the new one. In fact, I thought all of the actors were great in their roles. I also really appreciated the smaller amount of CGI; it made everything feel much more real.
If you want something a bit more "comic book-y" I would recommend the Tobey Maguire franchise. It's a bit more faster paced, a little bit more cheesy (in a good way). But either way, see The Amazing Spider-Man. It's got some moments of cheese as well, but it's got a good plot and good characters.
Title: The Amazing Spider-Man
MPAA rating: PG-13, for violence
My rating: **** (this rating is completely bogus, by the way. I've never actually come up with any kind of rating system, so this could be four out of four, or four out of ten. I don't know. I've never decided and I think it changes every time I review something. This time, it's four out of four.)
To prepare for seeing The Amazing Spider-Man (TASM), a week or so ago I watched Spider-Man (SM), so I had that fresh in mind as I was watching.
I really like Spider-Man, so I'm not going to bash it or the actors in it, but there a lot of things that I think TASM did better.
Caution: May contain minor SPOILERS (depends on how "in the dark" you want to be)
To start off, I feel like this whole movie was to give the viewer a true understanding of Spider-man's "origin story." Where he came from (dad was scientist, parents died, raised by aunt and uncle), how he became Spider-man (spider bite), why he started fighting evil (Uncle Ben), and what is he getting out of it (at first, freedom from guilt, which then changes to knowledge of doing good). In comparison, SM went quickly over the origin into a different storyline making the movie cover at least a year (if not more). Because TASM only covers a few months, I feel like I got a better feel for all the characters.
That leads me to point number two. Compared to SM, I feel that TASM had a more complex storyline and deeper characterization. Even Flash, a minor character, shows growth and depth after Uncle Ben dies. Because of the shortening of time, I feel that we get to see more about Peter accepting what has happened to him after the bite. We get to see him as the super intelligent person that he is, which I feel like was only alluded to in the previous films. And then when Ben dies, we see the transformation of Peter's motivation from vengeance to genuine heroism.
This leads me to point number three. Gwen Stacy and her father. I felt that the real turning point in Peter's motivation comes from these two. First, when Captain Stacy argues with Peter about Spider-man, and then when Peter tells Gwen that he is Spider-man. A side-kick/confidant is key to a lot of hero stories and I really feel that it helped Peter to have someone he could talk to. In SM, Peter is trying to deal with everything himself, and he ends up losing multiple jobs, and the girl, and his best friend, and fails school. Not that Garfield's Peter Parker won't have issues, but having someone who knows who he is, is going to help ground him, and keep him from losing himself to Spider-Man.
As for Andrew Garfield, I know that there are very differing opinions about him as Spider-Man (as there are of the whole movie). For me, I thought he was great. He was able to play the awkward genius teenager really well (loved the scene in the school hallway with him and Gwen), but he was good looking enough to make me want to be saved by him. :) Though Tobey Maguire was a good Spider-Man, I think Garfield was the perfect choice to play the new one. In fact, I thought all of the actors were great in their roles. I also really appreciated the smaller amount of CGI; it made everything feel much more real.
If you want something a bit more "comic book-y" I would recommend the Tobey Maguire franchise. It's a bit more faster paced, a little bit more cheesy (in a good way). But either way, see The Amazing Spider-Man. It's got some moments of cheese as well, but it's got a good plot and good characters.
Jun 18, 2012
Reading Journal Comments
About three years ago I started keeping a reading journal. There were a few reasons to do this: 1) so when people asked for a recommendation, I could just look at my reading journal, 2) so I could keep track of what I liked or didn't like, and 3) for my own pride (knowing how many books I read in a year).
I keep this journal in an excel spreadsheet, keeping track of the title, author, whether or not I liked it, any comments about the book, and when I finished reading it (this is another pride thing, seeing how quickly I read some books). Well, I decided to look through some of my comments from the past three years; here are the best ones:
"enough cheese to make a pizza" (Sunlight and Shadow, Cameron Dokey)
"Laugh. Cry. Love." (The Wednesday Wars, Gary D. Schmidt)
"Weird, weirder, weirdest" (The American Dream, Edward Albee)
"the girl was so stupid it bugged me sometimes" (Down the Rabbit Hole, Peter Abrahams)
"very literary and deep" (The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho)
"like twilight but, you know, good" (Evermore, Alyson Noel)
"Oh my gosh, Captain Wentworth's letter at the end? So romantic! So much more romantic that that stupid Rochester XP" (Persuasion, Jane Austen)
"exactly what you would expect from a Nicholas Sparks book" (The Lucky One, Nicholas Sparks)
"The whole time the only thing I could think about was that at the very beginning the MC writes a letter to a girl who can't read: why did nobody catch this?!" (Poison House, Michael Ford)
"hallelujah! A book in a series that actually has an ending!" (Graceling, Kristin Cashore)
". . . the MC was obsessed with Twilight and thought it was the 'best book ever written.' I have a feeling the author thought so too. I was rolling my eyes and laughing at every part that was supposed to be romantic." (Northanger Alibi, Jenni James)
"It's one of those books you read when you are okay with feeling depressed about someone else's life" (Once Was Lost, Sara Zarr)
"Dickens is a genius!! The Circumlocution Office alone proves this" (Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens)
"for 900 pages, not that much happened, though he was really good at hiding that fact." (Inheritance, Christopher Paolini)
"makes you glad you can take baths" (The Wager, Donna Jo Napoli)
"Victorian England, mystery, and a handsome man? Yes please" (Spy in the House, YS Lee)
While I do not recommend all these books, I have included a link to Amazon for all of them so you can decide for yourself (aren't I kind?).
I keep this journal in an excel spreadsheet, keeping track of the title, author, whether or not I liked it, any comments about the book, and when I finished reading it (this is another pride thing, seeing how quickly I read some books). Well, I decided to look through some of my comments from the past three years; here are the best ones:
"enough cheese to make a pizza" (Sunlight and Shadow, Cameron Dokey)
"Laugh. Cry. Love." (The Wednesday Wars, Gary D. Schmidt)
"Weird, weirder, weirdest" (The American Dream, Edward Albee)
"the girl was so stupid it bugged me sometimes" (Down the Rabbit Hole, Peter Abrahams)
"very literary and deep" (The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho)
"like twilight but, you know, good" (Evermore, Alyson Noel)
"Oh my gosh, Captain Wentworth's letter at the end? So romantic! So much more romantic that that stupid Rochester XP" (Persuasion, Jane Austen)
"exactly what you would expect from a Nicholas Sparks book" (The Lucky One, Nicholas Sparks)
"The whole time the only thing I could think about was that at the very beginning the MC writes a letter to a girl who can't read: why did nobody catch this?!" (Poison House, Michael Ford)
"hallelujah! A book in a series that actually has an ending!" (Graceling, Kristin Cashore)
". . . the MC was obsessed with Twilight and thought it was the 'best book ever written.' I have a feeling the author thought so too. I was rolling my eyes and laughing at every part that was supposed to be romantic." (Northanger Alibi, Jenni James)
"It's one of those books you read when you are okay with feeling depressed about someone else's life" (Once Was Lost, Sara Zarr)
"Dickens is a genius!! The Circumlocution Office alone proves this" (Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens)
"for 900 pages, not that much happened, though he was really good at hiding that fact." (Inheritance, Christopher Paolini)
"makes you glad you can take baths" (The Wager, Donna Jo Napoli)
"Victorian England, mystery, and a handsome man? Yes please" (Spy in the House, YS Lee)
While I do not recommend all these books, I have included a link to Amazon for all of them so you can decide for yourself (aren't I kind?).
Mar 26, 2012
Review: Utah Authors
By some strange turn of events, it seems like most of the time I read a book I LOVE, when I read the author bio, he or she ends up being from Utah. Or was raised in Utah. Or went to school in Utah. Is it my Utah blood connecting to their Utah blood in some strange cosmic, not nearly as weird as Jolie and Thornton, kind of way? Or are Utahns just completely rockin' the literary world? Whatever it is, I do have to say that some of my favorite authors are from Utah.
Here are some Utah authors everyone should read:
Jessica Day George
I had the opportunity to hear Jessica Day George speak at Books for Young Readers in 2009 (I think). She's very funny, and very sweet. I did an e-mail interview with her for a class (found here), and was really impressed with her first agreeing to do so and second apologizing that it took so long to get back! With that out of the way, Jessica has written 7 books (I haven't read her latest yet), all in the YA fiction category.
The dragon books start with her debut novel, Dragon Slippers. It was meant to be a stand alone but her agent convinced her to write the two sequels, Dragon Flight and Dragon Spear. While I think the first is by far the best, the other two are much better than other author's best.
Then there is Sun and Moon, Ice and Snow, a retelling of the Nordic fairytale "East of the Sun, West of the Moon." I love this book. It's probably tied for my favorite book by George.
Princess at the Midnight Ball is the other one of my favorites. This is, by far, the best retelling of the "Twelve Dancing Princess" I have ever read. There is a sequel called Princess of Glass and she is writing a third. And since there are 12 princesses, she could probably go one for a while. These are definitely books that I own and reread.
Shannon Hale
I feel that Shannon Hale is a pretty well known Utah author. One of her adult novels, Austenland, is being released as a movie this year. It's sequel, Midnight in Austenland, just came out early this year. I liked it, but I liked the first better. My mom like the sequel better, so it's just a matter of opinion.
Goose Girl was her first book. I really like this book. She turned it into a series called the Books of Bayern. I haven't read all of them, but those I have read are good, just not good like Goose Girl.
One of her books was a Newberry Honor book! Princess Academy is sort of a Cinderella retelling. Great book. I don't think I know of anyone who has read it who hasn't liked it.
She's also written two graphic novels with her husband, Rapunzel's Revenge and Calamity Jack.
Brodi Ashton
This is a new author I just discovered. Her debut novel came out this year and it called Everneath. This seems like a typical paranormal romance from the blurb and I was hesitant to read it, but I want to support local authors and all that, so I did. There is a lot that I like about what Ashton did with this book. The premise doesn't include anything about vampires or werewolves, for one. It's more mythology, and I like mythology. Also, the supernatural doesn't get the girl. Thank you, Ms. Ashton! Finally, a girl with some sense in her brain! Also, the characters change and grow over the course of the book instead of remaining the same. And, probably the biggest thing, was that this could be a stand alone novel, or it could be the beginning of the series. It's totally open! But at the same time, it's got an ending I feel good about. This is how it should be.
I read this in one day.
Here is a list of other Utah authors I have read: Ally Condie (Matched), Bree Despain (The Dark Divine), Emily Wing Smith (Back When You Were Easier to Love), Kristen Chandler (Wolves, Boys, and Other Things that Might Kill Me), Ann Dee Ellis (This is What I Did--I took a creative writing class from Ann Dee. She's awesome.), Lisa Mangum (The Hourglass Door--I worked with Lisa at Deseret Book. She's also awesome.), James Dashner (The Maze Runner--I haven't actually read this book yet, but everyone seems to like it), Brandon Mull (Fablehaven), Mette Ivie Harrison (The Princess and the Hound--not my favorite book, but a lot of people really like it), Carol Lynch Williams (The Chosen One), Brandon Sanderson (Mistborn and Alactraz versus the Evil Librarians--wasn't able to make it through Mistborn, but I love Alcatraz.), Melissa Lemon (Cinder and Ella), Heather Dixon (Entwined).
So, wherever you live, find some local authors and you might just discover a new, under appreciated favorite. Happy reading!
Nov 8, 2011
Review: Time Traveling Adventures
So, it seems that time traveling is sort of the new thing in YA fiction, considering I have read at least three books about time traveling--each with varying degrees of success. Here are the three that I have read:
First up, Timeless by Alexandra Monir.
This novel was okay. It's about a girl who finds a diary from 1910 and is transported back in time to meet her ancestor and a mysterious boy that has been haunting her dreams her whole life. The writing was so-so, and the plot a little predictable. The thing that really ruined this novel for me, though, was that it was the beginning of a series (probably a trilogy, because that seems to be the "thing" now. ::Sigh::), and it ended like it was the beginning of a trilogy, meaning there was no ending. And what really bothered me was that it could have been one book. It was only 280 pages--little short for it's target audience--and with some editing and cutting, and then adding 100 more pages, it probably would have been a pretty good book. It's kind of fun and cute, but I don't recommend it.
(Can I just go on a little rant about series? I would rather have ONE good book than three so-so books. But it seems like everyone is writing series now! If you are going to write a series, please make it so the books stand alone! It's so frustrating when you end in the middle of the story. It is only after I get connected to the characters and get comfortable with the prose that I become okay with there being cliff-hanger endings. Harry Potter is a good example of this. The first few books completed the story line for that book, and once everyone started loving it, no one cared how Rowling wrote them. Rick Riordan is another good example. Because I like the way he writes, I don't care that I have to wait so long for his next book to come out. I'm comfortable with his universe, and the characters, and even though there is a larger story arch throughout his books, each individual story line completes within it's own book. It's like a TV show--there maybe be an arch, but each episode [usually] contains a full storyline. Anyway, back to the reviews . . . )
Second, The Time-traveling Fashionista by Bianca Turetsky
This book was cute. It's a little younger (main character is 12, I think, so probably for 10 to 13 year olds). What I loved about this novel was the pictures. The girl goes back to 1912 and there are some beautiful drawings (done by a real fashion designer) of Edwardian clothes. It was one of those cute little novels that you read when you need a break from your "thinking" books. This was also the beginning of a series, but it was a stand alone book.
Third, Ruby Red by Kerstin Gier.
I loved this novel! It was originally written in German and has just recently been translated into English. This one is about a girl, living in London, who has a gene that makes it so she spontaneously transports back in time, except everyone thought her cousin had inherited it instead of her. So well written and translated! This is also the beginning of a trilogy, but this is done right. The book is so good that you want to read the rest, not because you just want to see how it ends, but because you want to get taken on the journey to the end. Good characters, great story, good read. It's intriguing and I am excited to finish this trilogy.
Sep 14, 2011
Why is this Considered Romance?
I've never understood why people think that Jane Eyre is a romantic story.
A man who mocks you, who ignores you when his friends are around and then demands to know why you didn't talk to him is not romantic. A man who owes you money is not romantic. A man who makes you think he is marrying another woman just to see if you'll get jealous is not romantic. A man who tricks you into a sham of a marriage when he is already married and is hiding his insane wife in the attic, and then when you find out about the insane wife, tries to convince you to live with him in sin though it goes against everything you believe is not romantic.
A man who sleeps around and doesn't like children, not even the child who may or may not be his is not romantic. A man who lies to and takes advantage of other people is not romantic. A man who takes advantages of a young girl's vulnerabilities is not romantic. A man who is vain enough to think that he can do all these things and still get you to love him is not romantic.
Romance this is not.
Sep 10, 2011
Movie Review: Wild Things
Where the Wild Things Are
MPAA: PG
My rating: *
Short review? Read the book, skip the movie.
Long review? It's difficult to take a 32 page, 500 word book and turn it into a 101 minute movie. Of course, the movie felt like it was about 3 hours long . . .
This is my big beef with the movie. The main message, themes, parallelism, whatever, was so obtuse that it was almost hard to tell what they were supposed to be. And to have come from a children's book, I was surprised to discover that it was NOT a children's movie. It was kind of scary at parts, and had some scenes that would be confusing to a child. (Particularly the scene when Carol wakes all the wild things and Max up and talks about the sun going out and gets mad at Max.)
Then there was the fact that about 15 minutes after Max ended up with the Wild Things I was thinking "When is he going to go back?" I mean, in the book, Max is sent to bed without supper, goes off in his boat to the land of the Wild Things, becomes king, has fun, goes home and his dinner is still warm.
Here's what I thought was good. The Wild Things' costumes, which is to be expected because they were made by the Jim Henson Company. And . . . that was about it.
If you need a little Wild in your life, buy the book by Maurice Sendak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)