Search
Search results
Brown_Flopsy (3 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why: (TV Tie-in) in Books
Feb 4, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a school librarian and in light of the recent Netflix adaptation of this book, I felt that I should read it.
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
aSmart HUD 3D +SpeedCams
Navigation and Travel
App
Advanced car digital dashboard combining map, routing, tracking, photo and speed cameras...
Precision Ukulele Tuner - with Chords & Metronome
Music and Utilities
App
Precision Ukulele Tuner uses your device's microphone and visual feedback to enable you to tune your...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Imposter in Books
Mar 11, 2021
A confusing mess of a thriller
Attorney Sibley Sawyer's life goes down in flames when her drinking finally catches up with her. Forced to take a leave of absence from her firm, Sibley seeks the perceived source of her problems: her mother, Deborah. The two have been estranged since Sibley fled home in her late teens. But when Sibley returns to the Midwestern farm where she grew up, she realizes her mother is acting odd. Perhaps it's due to her recent attack, when an intruder brutally beat her. Either way, as Sidney tries to make peace with Deborah, she starts to recall why she left in the first place--and uncovers even more shocking secrets about long ago happenings on the farm.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
Well, the synopsis for this one sounded interesting, but this was a hot mess for me. I did not like much of this book at all, but kept reading because I needed to find out what happened. I think I was as confused as these hapless and unlikable characters, honestly. Deborah is clearly disoriented and bewildered throughout the book--alone and terrified on the farm--and it's nearly impossible to muddle through what's going on in her brain. Sidney is drinking heavily, and while I have complete sympathy for the disease of alcoholism, having lost a beloved relative to it, I'm tired of authors using the trope to give us an unreliable narrator with no real effort for a backstory or anything else.
Neither character comes across as particularly sympathetic, and I got rather tired of reading a book with my brow perpetually furrowed. It was not exciting, just confusing. The plot is truly bizarre, with some weird twists, but I felt I was reading to work out a bad puzzle. Maybe all this befuddlement would have been worth it if the probable "bad guy" had not been telegraphed from a mile away, but I had the outline of this figured out from the start.
Overall, as much as I regret it, this thriller did not work for me at all. It's confusing--but not in an exciting, psychological way, predictable, and filled with narrative threads that never seem to link back together. Others seemed to enjoy it more, so I hope that's the case for you if you pick it up.
I received a copy from Netgalley and Thomas & Mercer in return for an unbiased review.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated The Returners in Books
Jun 24, 2019
I have a vague recollection of reading this some time in the past which is kind of ironic considering the topic of the book itself. While I felt a repeated deja vu throughout this book, I can't seem to remember when I actually would have read it before. I also couldn't remember much of the main plot, which is pretty weird.
Anyway, the review.
It's a good book. honestly, the opening paragraph of this review sums the book up quite well - it's good, but not overly memorable. When you read it, you often think, "this is good" or "cool" or whatever, but a few months later you'll forget all about it. At least, that's how I felt.
Gemma Malley is an author I used to love when I was in my preteens, and I'm not sure if that's why her books feel very adolescent to me, or if it's because they actually are. Basically, I feel too old for them now. The protagonists are usually "cool" mid-teens, who the reader is supposed to look up to in some way. But I'm older than most characters and actually find their attitudes a bit pathetic and petty.
The story was good but I felt like there were a few loopholes, honestly. The idea of the "Returners" is interesting but not developed enough - who actually 'controls' them? Where did they come from? What is their real purpose? I felt like their purpose was a bit wishy-washy. Douglas's refusal to change his attitude because it "isn't their role" or whatever just sounded a bit... lame. Like a cop-out, I guess. I really would've liked to know more about the Returners and why they actually exist.
It's only short and this may contribute to it feeling quite young, but it is well written and really enjoyable to read. Will is almost an anti-hero, and as the reader I both loved and hated him. His thoughts and attitudes were quite sporadic and it was sometimes hard to keep up, but that may have been the intention. I did like how we learned things at the same time as Will - we followed him through his own story. It was also really interesting how Will decided to handle the life he'd been forced into.
4 stars.
Anyway, the review.
It's a good book. honestly, the opening paragraph of this review sums the book up quite well - it's good, but not overly memorable. When you read it, you often think, "this is good" or "cool" or whatever, but a few months later you'll forget all about it. At least, that's how I felt.
Gemma Malley is an author I used to love when I was in my preteens, and I'm not sure if that's why her books feel very adolescent to me, or if it's because they actually are. Basically, I feel too old for them now. The protagonists are usually "cool" mid-teens, who the reader is supposed to look up to in some way. But I'm older than most characters and actually find their attitudes a bit pathetic and petty.
The story was good but I felt like there were a few loopholes, honestly. The idea of the "Returners" is interesting but not developed enough - who actually 'controls' them? Where did they come from? What is their real purpose? I felt like their purpose was a bit wishy-washy. Douglas's refusal to change his attitude because it "isn't their role" or whatever just sounded a bit... lame. Like a cop-out, I guess. I really would've liked to know more about the Returners and why they actually exist.
It's only short and this may contribute to it feeling quite young, but it is well written and really enjoyable to read. Will is almost an anti-hero, and as the reader I both loved and hated him. His thoughts and attitudes were quite sporadic and it was sometimes hard to keep up, but that may have been the intention. I did like how we learned things at the same time as Will - we followed him through his own story. It was also really interesting how Will decided to handle the life he'd been forced into.
4 stars.
Debbiereadsbook (1444 KP) rated Twilight Heist (Outlaws #2) in Books
Jan 25, 2023
awesome follow up to Midnight Heist!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is the second book in the Outlaws series, and I think it would help to have read book one, Midnight Heist before this one. Not strictly necessary, but it will give you a better view of this group of people and what they do. And you know, cos I said so!
This is a multi-layered story, and it took me a little bit of time to fully immerse myself into Leo and Tuck's story. It doesn't quite grab as much as Danny and Grif's does, but it packs a no less powerful punch.
Leo changed his name and ran from the Stockyard after his parents died. Tuck left the circus after his died too. When those two paths cross in the here and now, Leo knows he has to keep Tuck safe, without revealing his past.
This is a proper "kinda creeps up on ya" book! I mean, it came outta nowhere, whooping me upside the head with things I did not see coming! Once I started, and I should have read this AGES ago, I could not put it down.
It's dark and deadly, given both Leo's and Tuck's past. It's emotional and difficult reading in places, again due to their past, but also their fears for the future. Neither knows there can be anything long term between them, right? They are both damaged beyond repair. Super smexy! But I really wanted more smexy times on those silks! (I'm just greedy, don't judge me!)
The banter between the Outlaws is awesome and I loved that we got to catch up with Danny and Grif. I'm reading between the lines about who might be next, but I'm not voicing those words, cos I might be way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the mark there! But Scarlet is growing on me, I love the way they flip from male to female pronouns and the guys just run with them. It did take me a while it book one to get Scarlet, but not so here, since I was aware of their fluidity.
An awesome follow-up to Midnight Heist.
5 full and shiny stars
*same worded review will appear elswhere
This is the second book in the Outlaws series, and I think it would help to have read book one, Midnight Heist before this one. Not strictly necessary, but it will give you a better view of this group of people and what they do. And you know, cos I said so!
This is a multi-layered story, and it took me a little bit of time to fully immerse myself into Leo and Tuck's story. It doesn't quite grab as much as Danny and Grif's does, but it packs a no less powerful punch.
Leo changed his name and ran from the Stockyard after his parents died. Tuck left the circus after his died too. When those two paths cross in the here and now, Leo knows he has to keep Tuck safe, without revealing his past.
This is a proper "kinda creeps up on ya" book! I mean, it came outta nowhere, whooping me upside the head with things I did not see coming! Once I started, and I should have read this AGES ago, I could not put it down.
It's dark and deadly, given both Leo's and Tuck's past. It's emotional and difficult reading in places, again due to their past, but also their fears for the future. Neither knows there can be anything long term between them, right? They are both damaged beyond repair. Super smexy! But I really wanted more smexy times on those silks! (I'm just greedy, don't judge me!)
The banter between the Outlaws is awesome and I loved that we got to catch up with Danny and Grif. I'm reading between the lines about who might be next, but I'm not voicing those words, cos I might be way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the mark there! But Scarlet is growing on me, I love the way they flip from male to female pronouns and the guys just run with them. It did take me a while it book one to get Scarlet, but not so here, since I was aware of their fluidity.
An awesome follow-up to Midnight Heist.
5 full and shiny stars
*same worded review will appear elswhere
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Donnie Darko (2001) in Movies
Mar 27, 2018
Wasn't Feeling it
High school student Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is beset with visions of a six-foot bunny and premonitions of the world ending in less than a month.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
One of the things Donnie Darko excelled at for me. The film relies on its quirkiness which is best exhibited in its depth of characters. Darko is a troubled kid who is completely unpredictable and doesn't care much who he offends. I wasn't his biggest fan, but there were a number of moments where he caught me off guard in a good way. The Fear/Love classroom scene was one of my particular favorites.
His sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) stands out as the character I liked the most. She thinks that Donnie is indeed strange fruit and is never afraid to call him on his crap. At the same time, she is also protective of him with a family-first mentality. You can tell she's got it all figured out and now she's trying to help the others around her do the same. It's interesting watching the two characters in contrast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 0
Seriously, what was the conflict here? What was the, "Why should I care?" portion of the film? If I'm shooting holes in the movie, this is definitely bullet #1. I guess one could argue that Donnie's conflict is within himself and what ultimately is happening to him. I'm sorry, but unless Donnie is dealing with a vampire change or a zombie turn, I don't think internal conflict is enough. Sure weird things are happening throughout the film, but you get the feeling that it's all much ado about nothing.
Genre: 3
Memorability: 1
Pace: 6
There seems to be quite a few moving parts throughout the course of the film, most of which I didn't really care much to follow. There wasn't enough consistent intrigue to keep the mystery afloat. Very slow. I need a coffee just thinking about it. Or perhaps a nice tea...
Plot: 3
Original? Sure, I'll absolutely give it a handful of points for looking at cinema in a unique way. All in all, though, the film feels like I'm wading through a swamp to get to work. I know I'm going the right way or rather I know cutting through this swamp will get me to where I need to be...But why the hell am I in this swamp? What am I trying to prove? I guess I'm saying I just didn't quite get it. I'm also willing to admit that maybe it's just me.
Resolution: 0
Overall: 42
Critics loved it. So did audiences. I thought the characters were solid and the film succeeds with a number of memorable shots, but falls short with shoddy pacing that left me more confused than when I started. Just one man's opinion.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
One of the things Donnie Darko excelled at for me. The film relies on its quirkiness which is best exhibited in its depth of characters. Darko is a troubled kid who is completely unpredictable and doesn't care much who he offends. I wasn't his biggest fan, but there were a number of moments where he caught me off guard in a good way. The Fear/Love classroom scene was one of my particular favorites.
His sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) stands out as the character I liked the most. She thinks that Donnie is indeed strange fruit and is never afraid to call him on his crap. At the same time, she is also protective of him with a family-first mentality. You can tell she's got it all figured out and now she's trying to help the others around her do the same. It's interesting watching the two characters in contrast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 0
Seriously, what was the conflict here? What was the, "Why should I care?" portion of the film? If I'm shooting holes in the movie, this is definitely bullet #1. I guess one could argue that Donnie's conflict is within himself and what ultimately is happening to him. I'm sorry, but unless Donnie is dealing with a vampire change or a zombie turn, I don't think internal conflict is enough. Sure weird things are happening throughout the film, but you get the feeling that it's all much ado about nothing.
Genre: 3
Memorability: 1
Pace: 6
There seems to be quite a few moving parts throughout the course of the film, most of which I didn't really care much to follow. There wasn't enough consistent intrigue to keep the mystery afloat. Very slow. I need a coffee just thinking about it. Or perhaps a nice tea...
Plot: 3
Original? Sure, I'll absolutely give it a handful of points for looking at cinema in a unique way. All in all, though, the film feels like I'm wading through a swamp to get to work. I know I'm going the right way or rather I know cutting through this swamp will get me to where I need to be...But why the hell am I in this swamp? What am I trying to prove? I guess I'm saying I just didn't quite get it. I'm also willing to admit that maybe it's just me.
Resolution: 0
Overall: 42
Critics loved it. So did audiences. I thought the characters were solid and the film succeeds with a number of memorable shots, but falls short with shoddy pacing that left me more confused than when I started. Just one man's opinion.
The Sister
6.0
Rate It
Book
‘I did something terrible Grace. I hope you can forgive me…’ Grace hasn't been the same...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
LadyDahlia (2 KP) Jun 3, 2018