Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated American Psycho in Books
Mar 15, 2018
http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/american-psycho-by-bret-easton-ellis
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.