Search
Search results
Cumberland (1142 KP) created a post in The Smashbomb Book Club
Jun 13, 2019
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated Nasty Women in Books
May 24, 2017
A timely collection of personal and political essays
It was really cool to get to see the world through the eyes of women coming from walks of life entirely removed from my own. There were many whose struggles I couldn’t even begin to imagine dealing with, while others I found comfort that I wasn’t alone in the issues that I have faced. The anthology really does cover a wide range of topics by authors from drastically different backgrounds.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Riot Of The Living Dead by Lesbian Bed Death in Music
Jul 24, 2017
Awesome Rock (3 more)
Horror Movie References
Catchy Songs
Inspiring Lyrics
One of my all time favourite albums
I first found Lesbian Bed Death back in 2014 and really enjoyed what I heard. The first song I found was Halloween, and I could not get it out of my head and found myself listening to it over and over again. (Halloween was coming up and I was going to be at Whitby Goth Weekend).
When I went to book my tickets I saw that LBD were in fact going to be playing at WGW that year and I couldn't wait to hear my new found obsession live on stage in my favourite place on earth, Whitby!
After listening to the entire album (and previous albums), I found a new favourite song called Chains, which really spoke to me and in fact inspired me to write a poem called Black Candle, all about how my life throughout school etc. made me feel like I couldn't be myself but I finally broke from those chains and nowadays, I'm not afraid to be me. It was a somewhat anti-bullying themed poem, but also one about courage, and after I had finished writing it, I thought that I should let the artists that inspired me, know what their music has done for me. So I emailed them with my poem and honestly, I thought that would be that. Either they read it or they don't, but at least I went ahead and sent it.
Not long after, but drawing ever closer to the night I was going to see them live in Whitby, the manager (and guitarist), Dan Peach replied to my email, telling me he enjoyed reading the poem and that he showed the other band members and they also liked it. This was surreal to me and I was so excited to walk up to them during the meet and greet before the gig and tell them that I was the one who wrote the poem. When the night came for that opportunity I was nervous as hell, and didn't know how to talk to them. I mean, they're just people, but to me and my mind they were a band with many fans and fans can get creepy. I didn't want to be creepy. So I walked up, greeted them and told them it was so awesome to meet them, and then told them I was the one who wrote the poem and when they all told me it was awesome, I could not stop grinning like a Cheshire cat, and that's not even where the story ends.
After they played a few songs on stage, Kittie announced that the next song was for someone special in the audience. It was a little song of theirs called 'Chains' and it was dedicated to the person it inspired to write a poem about breaking free. Dan Peach nodded at me and so did Kittie and I was lost for words. I rocked so much that night and it remains the greatest night of my life.
The band themselves are awesome, and the music they create is something catchy and lyrically brilliant, with songs that'll stick in your head. I have listened to this album countless times and it remains on of my favourite albums of all time. I highly recommend the album and the band!
When I went to book my tickets I saw that LBD were in fact going to be playing at WGW that year and I couldn't wait to hear my new found obsession live on stage in my favourite place on earth, Whitby!
After listening to the entire album (and previous albums), I found a new favourite song called Chains, which really spoke to me and in fact inspired me to write a poem called Black Candle, all about how my life throughout school etc. made me feel like I couldn't be myself but I finally broke from those chains and nowadays, I'm not afraid to be me. It was a somewhat anti-bullying themed poem, but also one about courage, and after I had finished writing it, I thought that I should let the artists that inspired me, know what their music has done for me. So I emailed them with my poem and honestly, I thought that would be that. Either they read it or they don't, but at least I went ahead and sent it.
Not long after, but drawing ever closer to the night I was going to see them live in Whitby, the manager (and guitarist), Dan Peach replied to my email, telling me he enjoyed reading the poem and that he showed the other band members and they also liked it. This was surreal to me and I was so excited to walk up to them during the meet and greet before the gig and tell them that I was the one who wrote the poem. When the night came for that opportunity I was nervous as hell, and didn't know how to talk to them. I mean, they're just people, but to me and my mind they were a band with many fans and fans can get creepy. I didn't want to be creepy. So I walked up, greeted them and told them it was so awesome to meet them, and then told them I was the one who wrote the poem and when they all told me it was awesome, I could not stop grinning like a Cheshire cat, and that's not even where the story ends.
After they played a few songs on stage, Kittie announced that the next song was for someone special in the audience. It was a little song of theirs called 'Chains' and it was dedicated to the person it inspired to write a poem about breaking free. Dan Peach nodded at me and so did Kittie and I was lost for words. I rocked so much that night and it remains the greatest night of my life.
The band themselves are awesome, and the music they create is something catchy and lyrically brilliant, with songs that'll stick in your head. I have listened to this album countless times and it remains on of my favourite albums of all time. I highly recommend the album and the band!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated You Think It, I'll Say It in Books
Apr 19, 2018
Great, satisfying set of stories
This short story collection features ten short stories from author Sittenfeld, featuring a cast of diverse, real characters. Told from a variety of point of views--a bored housewife, a wealthy bachelor, a new mom, and more--they offer pointed and humorous insight into current society.
I typically am not a huge fan of short stories because they don't give me enough information about the characters, and I'm a very character-driven person. But when I saw that Curtis Sittenfeld had a short story collection coming out, I knew I wouldn't be able to resist. She gets a lot of press for Prep, but I feel like American Wife and Eligible are both still so fully ingrained in my brain. I loved them both so much, and they are go-to recommendations when I get the standard, "oh you like to read, what should I read?" question.
But, I digress. Sittenfeld. Short stories. I shouldn't have been surprised, honestly, that her collection would be above the typical fare. I probably enjoyed this set of short stories more than any other I've read in ages. It's so well-written and engaging. As with Sittenfeld's other work, the stories are so wonderfully descriptive, so you can immediately picture the characters and their situations. I felt like I was quickly transported to the setting of each story as soon as it began.
The stories are similar but not repetitive, which was also refreshing, and seem to be real, instead of striving to reach some sort of literary bar that makes them tedious and therefore unreadable. They are about real, relatable characters struggling with misinformed impressions, lingering resentments, and different types of relationships. But - oh hooray - even better, the majority of the stories didn't leave me with that unfinished feeling. They are honestly fascinating, and I enjoyed how they all start (I enjoyed them all the way through too, of course, but it seemed like each had a bit of a common thread in its beginning). I could have read more about each story's characters, sure, but I didn't feel frustrated when they ended, which was so amazing and different for me.
I really liked each and every story. For instance, there's "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" which begins with a woman (girl?) who idolizes a fellow college student from afar in line at the post office. Two of the stories, "Plausible Deniability" and "The Prairie Wife," had actual twists and surprises, which was so much fun. And some of the longing that came across in these characters was very touching and heartfelt. I have a soft spot for slightly nerdy high school/college kids, even once they're all grown up, and for slightly fatigued moms, so these stories were my cup of tea.
Overall, this was a great set of short stories. They are filled with real people set in complicated yet enjoyable and interesting situations. They are easy-to-read and don't leave you wanting for more--except maybe more stories. This only cements my feeling that I'll continue to read (and adore) anything Ms. Sittenfeld writes.
I received a copy of this story collection from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
I typically am not a huge fan of short stories because they don't give me enough information about the characters, and I'm a very character-driven person. But when I saw that Curtis Sittenfeld had a short story collection coming out, I knew I wouldn't be able to resist. She gets a lot of press for Prep, but I feel like American Wife and Eligible are both still so fully ingrained in my brain. I loved them both so much, and they are go-to recommendations when I get the standard, "oh you like to read, what should I read?" question.
But, I digress. Sittenfeld. Short stories. I shouldn't have been surprised, honestly, that her collection would be above the typical fare. I probably enjoyed this set of short stories more than any other I've read in ages. It's so well-written and engaging. As with Sittenfeld's other work, the stories are so wonderfully descriptive, so you can immediately picture the characters and their situations. I felt like I was quickly transported to the setting of each story as soon as it began.
The stories are similar but not repetitive, which was also refreshing, and seem to be real, instead of striving to reach some sort of literary bar that makes them tedious and therefore unreadable. They are about real, relatable characters struggling with misinformed impressions, lingering resentments, and different types of relationships. But - oh hooray - even better, the majority of the stories didn't leave me with that unfinished feeling. They are honestly fascinating, and I enjoyed how they all start (I enjoyed them all the way through too, of course, but it seemed like each had a bit of a common thread in its beginning). I could have read more about each story's characters, sure, but I didn't feel frustrated when they ended, which was so amazing and different for me.
I really liked each and every story. For instance, there's "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" which begins with a woman (girl?) who idolizes a fellow college student from afar in line at the post office. Two of the stories, "Plausible Deniability" and "The Prairie Wife," had actual twists and surprises, which was so much fun. And some of the longing that came across in these characters was very touching and heartfelt. I have a soft spot for slightly nerdy high school/college kids, even once they're all grown up, and for slightly fatigued moms, so these stories were my cup of tea.
Overall, this was a great set of short stories. They are filled with real people set in complicated yet enjoyable and interesting situations. They are easy-to-read and don't leave you wanting for more--except maybe more stories. This only cements my feeling that I'll continue to read (and adore) anything Ms. Sittenfeld writes.
I received a copy of this story collection from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated American Panda in Books
Mar 20, 2019
A little sweet & simple at times, but overall a great read
Mei is seventeen and already in college at MIT, pursuing a dream. But the dream is that of her parents: become a doctor, marry the right man, and live a successful, secure life. Mei's parents have given up so much for her and her brother to live this dream. Her brother, Xing, however, has been disowned by the family. He is a doctor, but fell for the "wrong" woman, and the family no longer speaks to him. Mei, meanwhile, lives in fear of telling her parents her secret: she doesn't want to be a doctor. At all. She's afraid of germs, she hates biology, and her true passion is dance. She's also falling for a classmate, Darren, who would definitely not be on the parental-approved list. Mei is terrified of letting her parents down--and ending up like Xing. But will she ever have the chance to live her own life?
"Study hard. Bring honor to our family. Do not disappoint us. You know the stakes."
So, I wasn't sure I would really like this one when it started: it seemed a little predictable and got off to a rocky start for me. Mei, for instance, meets a germaphobic doctor "exactly like her" at the school's clinic (what are the odds?!), she's the meek daughter scared of her parents, oh she falls for a boy her parents wouldn't approve of, etc. Luckily, though, the book really grew on me and definitely expanded beyond the expected. Mei is a great character, whom I found myself rooting for, and I couldn't help empathizing with. Her parents, honestly, are just so frustrating and stressful. Sure, you can see where they are coming from and the cultural expectations, yet your heart just breaks for this poor seventeen-year-old and the weight of the world she feels upon her shoulders.
"To them, a secure future was the ultimate gift a parent could give. How could I refuse them when this was their motivation?"
The book really soars as Mei expands her wings in college and experiences some growth--meeting Darren, dancing, and reaching out to her brother. It's really sweet and touching, honestly, watching her make some of her own decisions. For me, her friendship and potential relationship with Darren made the book. It's so adorable and fun and was easily my favorite portion. It was exactly what the book needed and somehow felt fresh and not like the usual YA romances. Mei has a really unique voice, and I felt that Chao did an excellent job of capturing her main character. You cannot help but feel for this girl and start to want what she wants.
"'Look, what I feel-the sense of duty-it's debilitating, makes me feel so ashamed that I don't even care what I want.'"
So, even though things can be a little sweet and simple at times, the book really does cover a range of complex issues--cultural, family, societal, and more. It also does a good job of making you smile, and Mei is a lovely character. (As is Darren!) It might wrap up a little too easily, but it was a really enjoyable read overall, and I think Mei's voice is one sorely lacking in YA.
"Study hard. Bring honor to our family. Do not disappoint us. You know the stakes."
So, I wasn't sure I would really like this one when it started: it seemed a little predictable and got off to a rocky start for me. Mei, for instance, meets a germaphobic doctor "exactly like her" at the school's clinic (what are the odds?!), she's the meek daughter scared of her parents, oh she falls for a boy her parents wouldn't approve of, etc. Luckily, though, the book really grew on me and definitely expanded beyond the expected. Mei is a great character, whom I found myself rooting for, and I couldn't help empathizing with. Her parents, honestly, are just so frustrating and stressful. Sure, you can see where they are coming from and the cultural expectations, yet your heart just breaks for this poor seventeen-year-old and the weight of the world she feels upon her shoulders.
"To them, a secure future was the ultimate gift a parent could give. How could I refuse them when this was their motivation?"
The book really soars as Mei expands her wings in college and experiences some growth--meeting Darren, dancing, and reaching out to her brother. It's really sweet and touching, honestly, watching her make some of her own decisions. For me, her friendship and potential relationship with Darren made the book. It's so adorable and fun and was easily my favorite portion. It was exactly what the book needed and somehow felt fresh and not like the usual YA romances. Mei has a really unique voice, and I felt that Chao did an excellent job of capturing her main character. You cannot help but feel for this girl and start to want what she wants.
"'Look, what I feel-the sense of duty-it's debilitating, makes me feel so ashamed that I don't even care what I want.'"
So, even though things can be a little sweet and simple at times, the book really does cover a range of complex issues--cultural, family, societal, and more. It also does a good job of making you smile, and Mei is a lovely character. (As is Darren!) It might wrap up a little too easily, but it was a really enjoyable read overall, and I think Mei's voice is one sorely lacking in YA.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Woman in Cabin 10 in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Laura (Lo) Blackstock is excited to finally get the opportunity of her travel journalism career: a chance to cover the launch of a luxury cruise ship, the Aurora. The ship is headed to Norway, and Lo has the ability to mingle with a set of wealthy passengers and make some connections to jump-start her writing career. But before she even sets foot on the boat, Lo is reeling from a break-in at her apartment, which leaves her anxious, exhausted, and--through a series of unfortunate events--on the outs with her boyfriend, Jonah. Still, at first the Aurora seems gorgeous and luxurious, if a bit small for Lo's claustrophobia. But her first evening on board, after an evening of dining and drinking, Lo is awoken to the sound of an argument in cabin 10 next door, and she's convinced she sees a woman tossed overboard. But no one on the ship believes her, and the woman she knows she met earlier in cabin 10, when asking to borrow mascara, is gone--nowhere on the boat. Lo knows realistically this isn't possible: it's a small boat and people can't just disappear. But she also knows who she saw and what she saw. Is she going crazy? And is someone on the boat now out to get her?
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.
This was an interesting and suspenseful thriller. I agree with the comparisons to an Agatha Christie novel: with the setting of the novel being a ship, you have a limited cast of characters (and suspects), which heightens some of the intrigue. Ware does an excellent job of setting the scene, and you can practically feel yourself trapped in this opulent yet slightly claustrophobic, endlessly rocking luxury cruise-liner. Lo is set up rather quickly as unreliable narrator: she's clearly anxious after her break-in, prone to drinking, and reeling from a lack of sleep. Therefore, from the outset, we're not sure if we can trust what we're reading or what seems to be unfolding on this ship. One of my favorite things about this novel is that it certainly keeps you guessing -- I was constantly coming up with (and discarding) various theories as I read, placing blame on a new character every few chapters. And, of course, always harboring that seed of doubt that Lo just made the entire thing up. While we hear entirely from Lo, Ware places a few newspaper stories at the end of each chapter, which just add to your doubt and confusion.
As for Lo, she's not the most enjoyable of main characters and due to our limited set of characters, we don't have many others, so most of the tale hinges on her. She's a bit annoying and whiny and prone to overthinking and bad decisions. She can get frustrating at times, to say the least. The story itself isn't really creepy or spooky, but it's definitely interesting and, as I said, keeps you guessing until nearly the very end. A few of the plot points seem a bit haphazard, as if things were just jammed together randomly into the story, but I suppose they all work together at the end.
Overall, this is certainly an engaging and suspenseful thriller. If you enjoy a fast-paced whodunnit, this one is for you. 3.5 stars.