Search
Search results
Simon Pegg recommended Annie Hall (1977) in Movies (curated)
Images of the Past: Coal Mine Disasters in the Modern Era c. 1900 - 1980
Book
Mining disasters attracted the attention of the public and the press during the twentieth century,...
SS
Streaming, Sharing, Stealing: Big Data and the Future of Entertainment
Rahul Telang and Michael D. Smith
Book
"[The authors explain] gently yet firmly exactly how the internet threatens established ways and...
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated The Hunter (Boston Belles, #1) in Books
Jan 8, 2021
3.5 stars.
I picked this up for 99p back in July since I do enjoy me an L.J. Shen book now and then.
This starts with Hunter waking up to find he's starred in his own porn film after having an orgy with some girls and a random guy ended up filming it when he joined in. Hunter is now in deep sh*t with his family after a scandal too many and he is forced to move in with a room mate of his dad's choosing - Sailor Brennan. Sailor is an Olympic archery hopeful who has done nothing but train to make the team for years up to the point of neglecting everything else. Tasked with setting Hunter on the straight and narrow they lock horns for a long time before one night changes everything between them.
I don't know with this one. I liked a lot about it - the romance and how it blossomed from something a little unwanted (but super hot) to all hearts and flowers and public declarations. Hunter's progression from manwhore extraordinaire to a one woman man was cute reading. It was the other half of it, Hunter's family and all that drama, that just seemed unnecessary and way OTT. I do - in a way -understand why they did what they did but it was odd to say the least. They are a strange family apart from Hunter and Aisling.
I feel I have to mention Cillian. He is an enigma. One minute he's being a complete d*ck, the next he's being a rather decent guy. I'm intrigued to see inside his head and I'm assuming his romance with a certain Boston Belle - Emmabelle - may be the next book in the series since he couldn't seem to stop staring at her/talking crap about her.
I picked this up for 99p back in July since I do enjoy me an L.J. Shen book now and then.
This starts with Hunter waking up to find he's starred in his own porn film after having an orgy with some girls and a random guy ended up filming it when he joined in. Hunter is now in deep sh*t with his family after a scandal too many and he is forced to move in with a room mate of his dad's choosing - Sailor Brennan. Sailor is an Olympic archery hopeful who has done nothing but train to make the team for years up to the point of neglecting everything else. Tasked with setting Hunter on the straight and narrow they lock horns for a long time before one night changes everything between them.
I don't know with this one. I liked a lot about it - the romance and how it blossomed from something a little unwanted (but super hot) to all hearts and flowers and public declarations. Hunter's progression from manwhore extraordinaire to a one woman man was cute reading. It was the other half of it, Hunter's family and all that drama, that just seemed unnecessary and way OTT. I do - in a way -understand why they did what they did but it was odd to say the least. They are a strange family apart from Hunter and Aisling.
I feel I have to mention Cillian. He is an enigma. One minute he's being a complete d*ck, the next he's being a rather decent guy. I'm intrigued to see inside his head and I'm assuming his romance with a certain Boston Belle - Emmabelle - may be the next book in the series since he couldn't seem to stop staring at her/talking crap about her.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Jon Bernthal recommended The Silence of the Lambs (1991) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an alternate 1985, where Nixon is president, The U.S. won the Vietnam War, and costumed heroes have been banned by an act of the Senate, a superhero is killed. The death of the mercurial entity known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) sets a string of events into motion that will soon see the world poised on the edge of nuclear annihilation, and the few remaining heroes locked in a life or death race against time to save the world. In the gritty and compelling new movie “Watchmen” by Director Zack Snyder, a clever blend of film noir and gumshoe style films of old combined with action and adventure as well as a deep examination of human frailties to create a film like no other.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
No sooner has the death of the Comedian hit the streets (literally), when the edgy vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), begins to suspect that there is a larger and far more sinister plot in effect, one that has targeted the few remaining costumed avengers of New York City. Rorschach’s theory is disbelieved by his former associate Dan (Patrick Wilson), who prowled the streets as Night Owl and is now content to keep to himself, with his days of costumed glory behind him. He keeps his social circle limited to the first Night Owl and visiting with Laurie Jupiter ( Malin Akerman), and her husband, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).
With his concerns being dismissed, Rorschach is left to do the legwork on the mystery which soon shifts into high gear when he is framed for a murder he actually did not commit and an attempt is made on the life of the other former Watchmen, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). With Rorschach in prison and surrounded by enemies, Dr. Manhattan, the all powerful and blue skinned being, is forced to take refuge on Mars after Laurie leaves him and a series of accusations are levied against him at a press conference .
It soon becomes clear to all that the death of The Comedian was not a random act of violence or a simple act of revenge, but rather the first salvo in a war against costumed heroes. With the former team in chaos, Laurie to take up residence with Dan, who has long held a torch for her, to defy the government order and suit up again. After saving a group of people from a fire, Laurie and Dan find the passion and purpose that has been missing from their post-hero lives and passionately unite and set out to free Rorschach and get to the bottom of the conspiracy before it is to late.
The film is an amazing mix of comic book action and mystery that includes a suprising amount of mature material that examines everything from humanity’s ultimate destiny to the inner psyche of tortured and flawed individuals. The characters all have their flaws and traumas and compensate by donning masks and taking on new personas. The deeply troubled Rorschach is filled in by some horrific and disturbing flashbacks that show how he became the disturbed and deeply dangerous crusader for justice that he is, so extreme in his measures that he is wanted by the police for his actions. Dan and Laurie try to move on from their past, but find that they are more comfortable in their costumed personas than they are in their day-to-day lives. Dr. Manhattan is perhaps the most dysfunctional of all as he has shut himself off from his wife, humanity, and joy. He has evolved beyond caring for anything but his experiments.
Snyder keeps the nearly three hour film moving at a brisk pace and deftly captures the look and tone of the graphic novel on which the film is based. The opening segment that shows alternate versions of great moments in history is amazing, as is the well choreographed action sequences. Despite being a superhero film, “Watchmen” is a superb mystery and drama that is loaded with interesting characters and clever social commentary. The cast is very strong, and Haley is remarkable as Rorschach. He is utterly captivating whenever he is on the screen and has crafted a true modern anti-hero for the masses.
Some may find the graphic violence and sex in the film a bit extreme, but in order to fully capture the duality of the characters and the dark world that they dwell in, it was in many ways restrained from what is actually implied by the source material. “Watchmen”, is a true marvel and is one of the most entertaining, diverse, and original action films in memory.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
If I was still 10 or 11 years old, this might be my favourite film of all time (for a few months). The 10 year old trapped inside me kinda thinks it is! At first I was sceptical that it could be any good at all, seeing it getting nominated in a lot of best animation categories during award season, and then winning them all! From the poster, or even the trailer, alone, I just didn’t get it!
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
ClareR (5991 KP) rated The Scarlet Code in Books
Aug 23, 2020
These books must surely at least make it on to TV? They read like a film - I absolutely love them! I don’t know whether there were all-action, female spies around this time (I know there were female spies during the time just after the English Civil War, so why would they stop?), and frankly, I don’t much care. Well, I do, but what I’m hoping to get across here, is how much I LOVED this book! It’s rich in historical detail, the character development is equally good.
I’m really enjoying following Attica Morgan’s exploits (see what I did there? That’s not even a hint that I want more, that’s a “let there be more!”). Attica’s love of Paris, even at this really uncertain time between the fall of the Bastille and the actual start of the Revolution, is so well described that I felt that I could be there. I love a book where I can learn something. I’d always thought that the people released the prisoners from the Bastille (or in fact they didn’t, because it was virtually empty - or so I’ve been told), and then BAM! Voila la Révolution française! Well, by the sounds of it there was a bit of a tense hiatus between one thing and the next (we won’t discuss the fact that I was a French teacher in a former life - sshh!).
Anyway, if you enjoy a well written, historical romp, with an opinionated, strong female lead character - then this is the book for you! I can’t wait for the next one (not even hinting)!!
Many thanks to Readers First for sending me a copy of this book.
I’m really enjoying following Attica Morgan’s exploits (see what I did there? That’s not even a hint that I want more, that’s a “let there be more!”). Attica’s love of Paris, even at this really uncertain time between the fall of the Bastille and the actual start of the Revolution, is so well described that I felt that I could be there. I love a book where I can learn something. I’d always thought that the people released the prisoners from the Bastille (or in fact they didn’t, because it was virtually empty - or so I’ve been told), and then BAM! Voila la Révolution française! Well, by the sounds of it there was a bit of a tense hiatus between one thing and the next (we won’t discuss the fact that I was a French teacher in a former life - sshh!).
Anyway, if you enjoy a well written, historical romp, with an opinionated, strong female lead character - then this is the book for you! I can’t wait for the next one (not even hinting)!!
Many thanks to Readers First for sending me a copy of this book.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
Okay, so I'd been wanting to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky since I heard about the film. Everyone went on about how great the book was, and I knew that I had to read it. There was one major thing that bothered me, but on the whole I loved it!
Charlie is a freshman in high school and is a little bit of a geek. This is the coming of age of Charlie as he writes letters to unknown friend. Together, we experience the highs and lows of one year of his life in which he does a lot of firsts and finds out some important information about himself.
I like the title of this book. I really do. Our main character is a big time wallflower, and he does discover that it has its perks. Therefore, the title really explains the books. I also think it's quite an original title and an interesting sounding one at that.
The cover of this book is quite simple yet it just kind of works. I think that if there would've been more on the cover, it would've lost its appeal.
Chbosky did an excellent job with the world building. Reading this book, it took me back to my high school days. I thought the author did a great job in capturing the essence of high school kids. I also love how the narration of the story was told through letters.
I thought the pacing was spot on. I would've finished this book in less than a day if real life hadn't have got in the way! I devoured every word, and I couldn't wait to find out what Charlie would experience next.
As for the dialogue, I thought it did sound like a bunch of teenagers talking to one another which is was supposed to. However, the way Charlie spoke bugged me a bit. His dialogue (both internally and to the other characters) made him sound like he was either really young or a bit slow. Perhaps this was done on purpose, and I'm missing the point completely. There are references to sex, drugs, and the like so please keep this in mind when deciding if this is the book for you as I know some people might not like reading about that. As for swear words, I think there may've been only one, but it wasn't a bad swear word.
As stated in the previous paragraph, I felt that the character of Charlie seemed to be either slow or really young. I'm not saying that he was a poorly written character because he wasn't. He just came across as too naive on most things to feel believable a lot of the time. He is meant to be 15 year old, yet he acts, speaks and thinks more like a 10 year old. Maybe this was just me, but that really bugged me! However, I did love Sam and Patrick. I loved how feminine and sweet Sam came across as, and I loved how big of a personality Patrick had. I would have to say that Patrick was probably my favourite character in the book.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was definitely an enjoyable read for me. I think if Charlie would've acted more like his age, it would've been a tad bit better.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 14+ that enjoys reading about the ups and downs of life as well as those adults who want to remember their high school years.
Okay, so I'd been wanting to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky since I heard about the film. Everyone went on about how great the book was, and I knew that I had to read it. There was one major thing that bothered me, but on the whole I loved it!
Charlie is a freshman in high school and is a little bit of a geek. This is the coming of age of Charlie as he writes letters to unknown friend. Together, we experience the highs and lows of one year of his life in which he does a lot of firsts and finds out some important information about himself.
I like the title of this book. I really do. Our main character is a big time wallflower, and he does discover that it has its perks. Therefore, the title really explains the books. I also think it's quite an original title and an interesting sounding one at that.
The cover of this book is quite simple yet it just kind of works. I think that if there would've been more on the cover, it would've lost its appeal.
Chbosky did an excellent job with the world building. Reading this book, it took me back to my high school days. I thought the author did a great job in capturing the essence of high school kids. I also love how the narration of the story was told through letters.
I thought the pacing was spot on. I would've finished this book in less than a day if real life hadn't have got in the way! I devoured every word, and I couldn't wait to find out what Charlie would experience next.
As for the dialogue, I thought it did sound like a bunch of teenagers talking to one another which is was supposed to. However, the way Charlie spoke bugged me a bit. His dialogue (both internally and to the other characters) made him sound like he was either really young or a bit slow. Perhaps this was done on purpose, and I'm missing the point completely. There are references to sex, drugs, and the like so please keep this in mind when deciding if this is the book for you as I know some people might not like reading about that. As for swear words, I think there may've been only one, but it wasn't a bad swear word.
As stated in the previous paragraph, I felt that the character of Charlie seemed to be either slow or really young. I'm not saying that he was a poorly written character because he wasn't. He just came across as too naive on most things to feel believable a lot of the time. He is meant to be 15 year old, yet he acts, speaks and thinks more like a 10 year old. Maybe this was just me, but that really bugged me! However, I did love Sam and Patrick. I loved how feminine and sweet Sam came across as, and I loved how big of a personality Patrick had. I would have to say that Patrick was probably my favourite character in the book.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was definitely an enjoyable read for me. I think if Charlie would've acted more like his age, it would've been a tad bit better.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 14+ that enjoys reading about the ups and downs of life as well as those adults who want to remember their high school years.