Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9943 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
Dec 15, 2022
Erika (17788 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 20, 2018
This film really is best seen on a large screen, for the space sequences alone.
Sadly, it gets burdened down by way too much Earth melodrama, and it drags the movie down. I was desperately waiting for the launch of Apollo 11, it took nearly two hours to get there.
Ryan Gosling did well playing Armstrong, I think. Yeah, he was remote, but in general, that's kind of how engineers are in real life. I really liked Corey Stoll's brazen Aldrin, he was a nice contrast to the stoic Armstrong.
Sadly, it gets burdened down by way too much Earth melodrama, and it drags the movie down. I was desperately waiting for the launch of Apollo 11, it took nearly two hours to get there.
Ryan Gosling did well playing Armstrong, I think. Yeah, he was remote, but in general, that's kind of how engineers are in real life. I really liked Corey Stoll's brazen Aldrin, he was a nice contrast to the stoic Armstrong.
The Craggus (360 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 16, 2018
First Man (2018) brings down-to-earth intimacy to the story of mankind’s giant leap. #Review
Opening with Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) test piloting an X-15 rocket ship so high you fear he may crash in to the orbiting Universal Logo which went past mere seconds before, Damien Chazelle’s quietly absorbing biopic is something of an antithesis to the usual stars ‘n’ stripes bombastic heroic portrayal the US space program usually receives. Instead, the focus here puts the man in the foreground while the mission is pushed to the back...
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusFirstMan
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusFirstMan
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80’s the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didn’t realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 25, 2022
I have a soft spot for the original Firestarter. It's not perfect by any means but it possesses a certain brand of charm. This new version from Blumhouse sucks all of that charm out and then some. The annoying thing is, it's not the worst thing I've ever sat through, but I genuinely don't think I've ever been so fucking bored watching a movie in my life. Every fibre of the finished product is just bland and forgettable, to the point that I had mostly purged it from my mind with minimal effort by the time I got home from the cinema. Kudos to Ryan Kiera Armstrong for doing the best she can with what she was given, and the soundtrack from John and Cody Carpenter, and Daniel A. Davies goes pretty hard, but it's not enough to save this flaming pile of miserable wank.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019
Dull and boring
Anyone asking me how First Man was or should they see it I would tell to watch Apollo 13 instead!
The writing for Apollo 13 was very familiar subject matter, but kept things interesting even though the audience knows ahead of time how both stories end up. At nearly 2 1/2 hours, there were lots of drawn out/boring sequences of NASA getting ready for the launches and Armstrong's family life. I just wanted it to be more exciting.
I hate to say it, but the fact Apollo 13 was the one where the mission went wrong and they had to struggle to figure out a way to get back to Earth under extraordinary circumstances is more compelling than the story of landing on the moon where everything basic went to plan.
I have never been a Ryan Gosling fan (he always looks like he just woke up and needs a shower) and my opinion did not change here. I'm sure the studious Armstrong did not have a robust personality in real life; however, Gosling didn't seem to do much for the character.
Apollo 13 was released in 1995 and I still remember almost the entire film whereas I will have forgotten everything about this film in less than 2 years.
The writing for Apollo 13 was very familiar subject matter, but kept things interesting even though the audience knows ahead of time how both stories end up. At nearly 2 1/2 hours, there were lots of drawn out/boring sequences of NASA getting ready for the launches and Armstrong's family life. I just wanted it to be more exciting.
I hate to say it, but the fact Apollo 13 was the one where the mission went wrong and they had to struggle to figure out a way to get back to Earth under extraordinary circumstances is more compelling than the story of landing on the moon where everything basic went to plan.
I have never been a Ryan Gosling fan (he always looks like he just woke up and needs a shower) and my opinion did not change here. I'm sure the studious Armstrong did not have a robust personality in real life; however, Gosling didn't seem to do much for the character.
Apollo 13 was released in 1995 and I still remember almost the entire film whereas I will have forgotten everything about this film in less than 2 years.
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 3, 2018
POV launch sequences (1 more)
Claire Foy
A bit slow (2 more)
A little long
Terrible sound mixing
I love a good space movie.
Everyone knows the story of the first moon landing - who, what, where, when, how - but this movie goes a bit deeper than the history books you've read. I'm not spoiling the ending by telling you they land on the moon; you already know this. What you may not know is what led up to that historical moment: the tests, the failures, the losses, the toll taken on the astronauts and their families during NASA's race to the moon. This movie does well in that respect. Claire Foy does an amazing job of making you feel with her and for her. The POV in the launch sequences is terrific. You almost feel like you're in the cockpit with Armstrong as he's launching into space. Really well done.
Now, the bad.
- It was slow, and probably too long.
- Ryan Gosling has exactly one facial expression throughout the entire movie. He goes through the proper emotions, but his face does not. Even when he's crying over the death of his daughter, the only thing that changes about his face is the added tears.
- The sound mixing was terrible. The effects were turned up far too high and the voices far too low, to the point where I sometimes couldn't hear what was being said, and as a result I definitely missed some partial conversations. This is one of my biggest movie pet peeves.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but it's not one I'd need to watch again down the road.
Now, the bad.
- It was slow, and probably too long.
- Ryan Gosling has exactly one facial expression throughout the entire movie. He goes through the proper emotions, but his face does not. Even when he's crying over the death of his daughter, the only thing that changes about his face is the added tears.
- The sound mixing was terrible. The effects were turned up far too high and the voices far too low, to the point where I sometimes couldn't hear what was being said, and as a result I definitely missed some partial conversations. This is one of my biggest movie pet peeves.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but it's not one I'd need to watch again down the road.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Enthralled: Paranormal Diversions in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Journeys, literal or otherwise, are the theme of this young adult anthology. Appropriately enough, it was conceived as the result of a book tour.
"Giovanni’s Farewell" by [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg] is a sweet, coming-of-age story of sorts. The twist is that it features a brother and sister, twins, rather than just one person. They visit Rome with a school group while dealing with major changes in their lives. There was too much background crammed into a short story, but it was interesting.
[a:Carrie Ryan|1443712|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1343410049p2/1443712.jpg]'s "Scenic Route" is a disturbing, post-apocalyptic story set in the world of [b:The Forest of Hands and Teeth|3432478|The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1)|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320633297s/3432478.jpg|3473471] about two young sisters trying to survive in an isolated cabin. The older sister keeps the younger one occupied with the planning of a road trip that will never happen, always hoping against hope that the girl won't realize what their reality is. How long can they stay isolated enough to survive? Bloody, frightening, and visceral.
"Red Run" by [a:Kami Garcia|2895706|Kami Garcia|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289693388p2/2895706.jpg] is the story of a girl who has lost the only person she loves in the world, and the trip she takes to avenge his death. How do you hunt a ghost? Maybe it isn't fair, coming right after Ryan's story, but I didn't truly feel the main character's feelings.
[a:Jackson Pearce|2761947|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1336840299p2/2761947.jpg]'s "Things About Love" is a sweet story involving a jinn researching love. I felt like I'd come into the middle of something, so I checked and found that she's written a novel, [b:As You Wish|6750586|As You Wish|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1319175193s/6750586.jpg|6217232], in the same setting. While this story technically stands on its own, it would probably be enriched by having read As You Wish.
"Niederwald" by [a:Rachel Vincent|415967|Rachel Vincent|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1262900481p2/415967.jpg] is the first story I've read in her Soul Screamers series. Sabine, a macha (nightmare), takes a road trip with a human acquaintance and detours to Niederwald, Texas, home to the harpies. No, there's no way that could go wrong. Of course you know from the moment they hit the parking lot that it will go wrong, but at least it's an interesting sort of wrong.
[a:Melissa Marr|175855|Melissa Marr|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1192302741p2/175855.jpg]'s "Merely Mortal" feels as though it's probably set in the same world as her Wicked Lovely series.
"Facing Facts" by [a:Kelley Armstrong|7581|Kelley Armstrong|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199068298p2/7581.jpg] is set in her Darkest Powers universe. I read the first of those books, but obviously a lot has passed since then, and there were spoilers in this story. It really centers around Chloe and Tori, with a little Derek tossed in. Tori learns something she doesn't want to know and reacts badly, running off on her own, which is dangerous. Chloe goes after her and they get into trouble. That seemed rather predictable to me, but at least the type of trouble wasn't what I expected. Tori doesn't seem to have changed since the first book, but Chloe is coming into control of her abilities.
[a:Sarah Rees Brennan|836009|Sarah Rees Brennan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254149255p2/836009.jpg]'s "Let’s Get this Undead Show on the Road" is about a boy band that features a vampire, Christian. He's an unusual vampire, all alone without a nest or a sire. His journey seems to be about his identity as a vampire, although the band is on tour and has another sort of journey to make, as well.
"Bridge" by [a:Jeri Smith-Ready|56019|Jeri Smith-Ready|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1204922569p2/56019.jpg] is told from a ghost's point of view, 233 days after death. It's frustrating being a ghost, because most people can't see or hear you. There are things you have to accomplish before moving on, though, that require communication with the living. Finding a "bridge" and working things out takes a lot of effort. This was a touching story, bittersweet and well-told.
[a:Kimberly Derting|2755160|Kimberly Derting|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1229976464p2/2755160.jpg]'s "Skin Contact" nearly broke me. Rafe is looking for his girlfriend. He knows where he needs to go, and he's guided by dreams. This story nearly broke me. It's told sparingly, and something feels perfectly right about it, but it hurts. According to her author biography, Rafe was introduced in her novel Desires of the Dead.
"Leaving" by [a:Ally Condie|1304470|Ally Condie|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1325882614p2/1304470.jpg] is a very literary story, about a girl left behind after her mother dies and her father leaves. She spends the story preparing to go after her father. It's hard to describe much more than that, or to have much of an opinion. It was well-written and I think I'll probably remember it for a long time.
[a:Jessica Verday|1290625|Jessica Verday|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243816082p2/1290625.jpg]'s "At The Late Night, Double Feature, Picture Show" is a darkly funny story about a girl from a family of monster hunters. She's usually the bait, but tonight she has decided to be the hunter — without backup. I'd like to read more from Verday.
"IV League" by [a:Margaret Stohl|2895707|Margaret Stohl|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1241421033p2/2895707.jpg] just didn't hit me right. It's the story of a bunch of southern vampires on a college tour, which could have been funny but wasn't written that way. The whole thing just didn't sit well with me, perhaps because the main character seemed too unrealistically out of touch for someone who obviously had access to television and the internet.
[a:Mary E. Pearson|123463|Mary E. Pearson|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1238978651p2/123463.jpg]'s "Gargouille" is the most touching love story in the collection. Just read it.
"The Third Kind" by [a:Jennifer Lynn Barnes|164187|Jennifer Lynn Barnes|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243935916p2/164187.jpg] is, on the surface, about a road trip to San Antonio. The real journey is much deeper, one of coming to understanding one's calling.
[a:Rachel Caine|15292|Rachel Caine|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1272650500p2/15292.jpg]'s Morganville is the setting for her "Automatic." I think I've read a Morganville novella, but my memory of it is dim. The Morganville Blood Bank introduces an automated withdrawal machine, essentially a soda can dispenser. Michael Glass is ordered to try it first, as a demonstration for the older, more traditional vampires, with unexpected results. His journey is one of self-knowledge. I didn't really care much about him, his journey, his girlfriend, or anything else. The setting and characters do nothing for me, but your mileage may vary.
Altogether, the anthology was worth reading. There were some low spots, but that's true of any collection. To be fair, I'm sure someone who is more enthusiastic about young adult fiction would also be more enthusiastic about the works here.
"Giovanni’s Farewell" by [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg] is a sweet, coming-of-age story of sorts. The twist is that it features a brother and sister, twins, rather than just one person. They visit Rome with a school group while dealing with major changes in their lives. There was too much background crammed into a short story, but it was interesting.
[a:Carrie Ryan|1443712|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1343410049p2/1443712.jpg]'s "Scenic Route" is a disturbing, post-apocalyptic story set in the world of [b:The Forest of Hands and Teeth|3432478|The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1)|Carrie Ryan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320633297s/3432478.jpg|3473471] about two young sisters trying to survive in an isolated cabin. The older sister keeps the younger one occupied with the planning of a road trip that will never happen, always hoping against hope that the girl won't realize what their reality is. How long can they stay isolated enough to survive? Bloody, frightening, and visceral.
"Red Run" by [a:Kami Garcia|2895706|Kami Garcia|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1289693388p2/2895706.jpg] is the story of a girl who has lost the only person she loves in the world, and the trip she takes to avenge his death. How do you hunt a ghost? Maybe it isn't fair, coming right after Ryan's story, but I didn't truly feel the main character's feelings.
[a:Jackson Pearce|2761947|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1336840299p2/2761947.jpg]'s "Things About Love" is a sweet story involving a jinn researching love. I felt like I'd come into the middle of something, so I checked and found that she's written a novel, [b:As You Wish|6750586|As You Wish|Jackson Pearce|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1319175193s/6750586.jpg|6217232], in the same setting. While this story technically stands on its own, it would probably be enriched by having read As You Wish.
"Niederwald" by [a:Rachel Vincent|415967|Rachel Vincent|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1262900481p2/415967.jpg] is the first story I've read in her Soul Screamers series. Sabine, a macha (nightmare), takes a road trip with a human acquaintance and detours to Niederwald, Texas, home to the harpies. No, there's no way that could go wrong. Of course you know from the moment they hit the parking lot that it will go wrong, but at least it's an interesting sort of wrong.
[a:Melissa Marr|175855|Melissa Marr|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1192302741p2/175855.jpg]'s "Merely Mortal" feels as though it's probably set in the same world as her Wicked Lovely series.
"Facing Facts" by [a:Kelley Armstrong|7581|Kelley Armstrong|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199068298p2/7581.jpg] is set in her Darkest Powers universe. I read the first of those books, but obviously a lot has passed since then, and there were spoilers in this story. It really centers around Chloe and Tori, with a little Derek tossed in. Tori learns something she doesn't want to know and reacts badly, running off on her own, which is dangerous. Chloe goes after her and they get into trouble. That seemed rather predictable to me, but at least the type of trouble wasn't what I expected. Tori doesn't seem to have changed since the first book, but Chloe is coming into control of her abilities.
[a:Sarah Rees Brennan|836009|Sarah Rees Brennan|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1254149255p2/836009.jpg]'s "Let’s Get this Undead Show on the Road" is about a boy band that features a vampire, Christian. He's an unusual vampire, all alone without a nest or a sire. His journey seems to be about his identity as a vampire, although the band is on tour and has another sort of journey to make, as well.
"Bridge" by [a:Jeri Smith-Ready|56019|Jeri Smith-Ready|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1204922569p2/56019.jpg] is told from a ghost's point of view, 233 days after death. It's frustrating being a ghost, because most people can't see or hear you. There are things you have to accomplish before moving on, though, that require communication with the living. Finding a "bridge" and working things out takes a lot of effort. This was a touching story, bittersweet and well-told.
[a:Kimberly Derting|2755160|Kimberly Derting|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1229976464p2/2755160.jpg]'s "Skin Contact" nearly broke me. Rafe is looking for his girlfriend. He knows where he needs to go, and he's guided by dreams. This story nearly broke me. It's told sparingly, and something feels perfectly right about it, but it hurts. According to her author biography, Rafe was introduced in her novel Desires of the Dead.
"Leaving" by [a:Ally Condie|1304470|Ally Condie|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1325882614p2/1304470.jpg] is a very literary story, about a girl left behind after her mother dies and her father leaves. She spends the story preparing to go after her father. It's hard to describe much more than that, or to have much of an opinion. It was well-written and I think I'll probably remember it for a long time.
[a:Jessica Verday|1290625|Jessica Verday|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243816082p2/1290625.jpg]'s "At The Late Night, Double Feature, Picture Show" is a darkly funny story about a girl from a family of monster hunters. She's usually the bait, but tonight she has decided to be the hunter — without backup. I'd like to read more from Verday.
"IV League" by [a:Margaret Stohl|2895707|Margaret Stohl|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1241421033p2/2895707.jpg] just didn't hit me right. It's the story of a bunch of southern vampires on a college tour, which could have been funny but wasn't written that way. The whole thing just didn't sit well with me, perhaps because the main character seemed too unrealistically out of touch for someone who obviously had access to television and the internet.
[a:Mary E. Pearson|123463|Mary E. Pearson|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1238978651p2/123463.jpg]'s "Gargouille" is the most touching love story in the collection. Just read it.
"The Third Kind" by [a:Jennifer Lynn Barnes|164187|Jennifer Lynn Barnes|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1243935916p2/164187.jpg] is, on the surface, about a road trip to San Antonio. The real journey is much deeper, one of coming to understanding one's calling.
[a:Rachel Caine|15292|Rachel Caine|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1272650500p2/15292.jpg]'s Morganville is the setting for her "Automatic." I think I've read a Morganville novella, but my memory of it is dim. The Morganville Blood Bank introduces an automated withdrawal machine, essentially a soda can dispenser. Michael Glass is ordered to try it first, as a demonstration for the older, more traditional vampires, with unexpected results. His journey is one of self-knowledge. I didn't really care much about him, his journey, his girlfriend, or anything else. The setting and characters do nothing for me, but your mileage may vary.
Altogether, the anthology was worth reading. There were some low spots, but that's true of any collection. To be fair, I'm sure someone who is more enthusiastic about young adult fiction would also be more enthusiastic about the works here.