Search
Search results
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Three Complete Novels (Psycho, Psycho II, and Psycho House) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Psycho</b>
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Deadly Outbreaks in Books
Aug 21, 2017
Important, interesting, freaky and even a little terrifying
A fascinating look into the Centre for Disease Control and their role in dealing with some serious but highly interesting, insane real life outbreaks. Each chapter discusses fatal cases which in itself can be turned into a film. From deadly ice cream, to an epidemic of newborns dying at a hospital - these are important cases that need addressing and for further public awareness. As vital as this book is, it's filled with scientific jargon and requires concentration. A great read.
Adrian Denton (4 KP) created a post
May 12, 2018
Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926
Book
The Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926 covers the history of this period...
Suzanne Vega recommended Charlie Chaplin's Own Story in Books (curated)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Jun 27, 2019
It carries on from the first film and links in nicely! You must see the first to appreciate sone of the humour in this dark, but hilarious time- travelling comedy! (1 more)
Quite sad in places too- there’s a real story behind the humour. A dilemma the main protagonist must face when she realises she can get exactly what she wants when she is in control of her destiny!
A time travelling theme with a moral dilemma!
Merissa (13585 KP) rated Fagin's Boy (Oliver & Jack #1) by Jackie North in Books
Apr 21, 2022 (Updated Jun 24, 2023)
FAGIN'S BOY is the first book in the Oliver and Jack series, and as you may have gathered, it follows on from Oliver Twist. Oliver is now seventeen and the story starts with him attending the funeral of the man who took him in and looked after him, Mr Brownlow. Not knowing what will happen to him next, Oliver takes on an apprenticeship at a haberdashery, hoping it will give him experience for when he opens his own, long-dreamed-about, bookstore.
Jack has just returned to London after being hextricated to Australia. I had to suspend belief a little here as I've never heard of that happening before. He is still the cheeky chappie you may recognise but is altogether more fragile and hard. A paradox, for sure. He reminded me of a piece of flint.
Anyway, the story follows Oliver and Jack for a few months as circumstances change for Oliver. I thought the descriptions of the living conditions, plus how the children are treated in the workhouse, to be definitely in keeping with the original book by Dickens, as well as what was hinted at in the musical film.
Whilst Jack revelled in his circumstances, he was also desperate for stories about those he remembers. This leads him to a friendship with Noah, who Oliver doesn't like or trust. Oliver, on the other hand, wants more than he has right now. He wants his bookshop. He doesn't want to steal. He would like Jack to be with him but is prepared to make a break if Jack doesn't want to come.
There is a HFN ending to this first book and I am sure there will be plenty more adventures for our twosome. Although I have read and enjoyed other historical books by Ms North, I can't honestly say I enjoyed this one as much and I'm not sure why. All of the ingredients were there but, for me, they just didn't mix as well as I had expected. I am glad I have read this book and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Oliver Twist and the hard, grimy Victorian times.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 14, 2022
Jack has just returned to London after being hextricated to Australia. I had to suspend belief a little here as I've never heard of that happening before. He is still the cheeky chappie you may recognise but is altogether more fragile and hard. A paradox, for sure. He reminded me of a piece of flint.
Anyway, the story follows Oliver and Jack for a few months as circumstances change for Oliver. I thought the descriptions of the living conditions, plus how the children are treated in the workhouse, to be definitely in keeping with the original book by Dickens, as well as what was hinted at in the musical film.
Whilst Jack revelled in his circumstances, he was also desperate for stories about those he remembers. This leads him to a friendship with Noah, who Oliver doesn't like or trust. Oliver, on the other hand, wants more than he has right now. He wants his bookshop. He doesn't want to steal. He would like Jack to be with him but is prepared to make a break if Jack doesn't want to come.
There is a HFN ending to this first book and I am sure there will be plenty more adventures for our twosome. Although I have read and enjoyed other historical books by Ms North, I can't honestly say I enjoyed this one as much and I'm not sure why. All of the ingredients were there but, for me, they just didn't mix as well as I had expected. I am glad I have read this book and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Oliver Twist and the hard, grimy Victorian times.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 14, 2022
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire in Books
Oct 22, 2018
Why do I have a feeling that the guy who wrote this just went on a rant and decided to put that whole rant into one giant ass book?
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Don't get me wrong. This book has a couple of points, especially when he discusses religion and the Salem witch trails. However, when he starts getting into the more modern points of fantasy, either I didn't see it at all, or he was basically really poking fun at what the whole point of fantasy really is.
The title of the book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire. If he's going to use the word "Haywire" in a title, he better show pretty clear examples of why America is being flushed down the toilet. Poking fun at people cosplaying, playing video games, and being able to have fun at Disneyland or Disney World is not a point to say why America seems to be failing as a society. In fact, I can make a counterargument by saying that flights of fantasy in those contexts are actually forming the culture, not destroying it. Because of the evolution of entertainment (such as film, video games, etc.), it's easier to envision fantasy stories come to life. Before that, we had books, and no one was poking fun at books throughout this entire giant essay. Not only is that missing the forest for the trees, but it makes the argument of people being shown too much fantasy through visual mass media is a very shallow take on the topic of fantasy.
Also, the premise of the book talks about how people are arguing that Trump is ruining America because of his bullshit (and they're not wrong). I expected the book to discuss politics more in depth as a way to add onto the fantasyland argument. The book doesn't even do that, not even at the end when it "comes full circle" back to the Trump argument. If anything, the book kinda let it slide that it was for Trump and his radical ideas rather than finding flaws in them as people would expect. Look, if the book ended up explaining why Trump was trying to escape the Fantasyland argument, I'm all for reading that to make my own points. However, by just simply saying that Trump is being more realistic without any real reason, that also makes this essay a shallow writing. People want to read on why Trump has realistic views or not. If the point of this essay is talking about how fantastic ideas are plaguing a great nation, why not add that into the mix?
This essay was a real hit and miss for me. For something that's as thick as War and Peace, I expected this essay to have as juicy material as War and Peace, but it doesn't. It's just a 500 year rant on how "stupid" society can be, and that lost me as I finished the book.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 19, 2018
I didn't get it
I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film so it is possible my enjoyment of this suffered as a result. But my wife has and it sounds like I shouldn't have needed to see that to get this.
For me, the film was all over the place, plot-wise. It is cleat it was devised as a film rather than adapted from a book. It seems like the plot was simply used to justify the big effects set pieces they had planned. A number of times characters make odd choices for odder reasons and just happen to end up in the thick of the action and a number of revelations made are either so obvious, totally irrelevant (the necklace) or confusing (so were the babies switched or not?!).
I didn't really like Newt as a character, he reminds me too much of the public school boys with the foppish hair I see on the train every morning, doing their homework at the last possible moment and blocking the aisle with their massive kit bags. Ahem, anyway.
Jonny Depp as the baddie was a massive missed opportunity. He could have been so much darker and more mysterious, instead he was more a disapproving teacher, just looking down his nose at everyone and muttering. There was no real sense of evil. Now that I think of it, I couldn't actually say what his "crimes" were, other than escaping prison and murdering a family and living in their home. After that, he was more like a politician than anything else.
And Nicolas Flamel - what was that all about - why was he there at all?
All in all, I just did not enjoy it and thought it a mess of a film with no attempt at a valid plot and no ending.
For me, the film was all over the place, plot-wise. It is cleat it was devised as a film rather than adapted from a book. It seems like the plot was simply used to justify the big effects set pieces they had planned. A number of times characters make odd choices for odder reasons and just happen to end up in the thick of the action and a number of revelations made are either so obvious, totally irrelevant (the necklace) or confusing (so were the babies switched or not?!).
I didn't really like Newt as a character, he reminds me too much of the public school boys with the foppish hair I see on the train every morning, doing their homework at the last possible moment and blocking the aisle with their massive kit bags. Ahem, anyway.
Jonny Depp as the baddie was a massive missed opportunity. He could have been so much darker and more mysterious, instead he was more a disapproving teacher, just looking down his nose at everyone and muttering. There was no real sense of evil. Now that I think of it, I couldn't actually say what his "crimes" were, other than escaping prison and murdering a family and living in their home. After that, he was more like a politician than anything else.
And Nicolas Flamel - what was that all about - why was he there at all?
All in all, I just did not enjoy it and thought it a mess of a film with no attempt at a valid plot and no ending.
