Search
Search results
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Nothing Man in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-75.png"/>;
I am so excited to be part of the Ambassador Book Buzz for The Nothing Man by Catherine Ryan Howard. Thank you to the amazing team at LoveReading and Corvus for this opportunity.
Needless to say, this book made me stay up all night, just to find out how it ends.
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Nothing-Man.jpg"/>;
<b><i>I was the girl who survived the Nothing Man.
Now I am the woman who is going to catch him...</i></b>
You've just read the opening pages of The Nothing Man, the true crime memoir Eve Black has written about her obsessive search for the man who killed her family nearly two decades ago.
The Nothing Man starts when Jim is at work, walking through the supermarket, and he notices that a girl has a book with the name "The Nothing Man" with her. His heart starts racing - because he knows what it means. The Nothing Man is a mysterious man that has assaulted and killed many people in the area, and even after twenty years, no one has found him yet. But Jim knows the truth - because he is the man who did all these crimes.
Eve Black is one of the survivors, that managed to escape his attack by hiding in her bathroom. She writes a book about her experiences and the experiences of the other victims. With her whole family dead and nothing to lose, she is set to find out, once and for all, who the mysterious man is.
I loved the writing style - the book within the book - it was unusual and very interesting for me to engage with. I was so intrigued and invested, and that did not change at all. There are many twists and turns in this book, and you will enjoy them all, especially the very ending, where everything just comes to a big climax. It kept me glued to my seat, and I want more.
I loved the difference between Jim and Eve - their different recollections to how things happened, and why they did. In her book, Eve is explaining how the attacks and murders took place, and right after that, we also witness Jim's reaction to Eve's writing, and whether he agrees or not with how correct her facts are. It was very scary at times, to read from the killer's perspective, and the reasons of why he made some choices.
The more Jim reads, the more he realizes how dangerously close Eve is getting to the truth. He knows she won't give up until she finds him. He has no choice but to stop her first...
Usually, in our standard crime books, we have a crime scene, then suspects, and then we figure our way to finding the murderer. But here - we already know who the murderer is at the beginning of the story. But the rest of the world doesn't. And this is a concept that I haven't encountered yet, but really enjoyed it. Because this is something we don't think about often - when we have a crime, and we don't know who did it, the person that is guilty is out there somewhere, and knows he's deceived us.
The other important message from this book is to remember the victims.
Everyone remembers the name of a serial killer - but only few remember the victim's names.
<b><i>"It's fine to be fascinated by serial killers," she tells me in her office after the lecture. "I am myself, obviously. They are fascinating because even though they look just like the rest of us, they do things the rest of us would never, ever do. But they are not especially intelligent. They don't outsmart authorities. You know David Berkowitz? Son of Sam? They caught him because he got himself a parking ticket at the scene of one of his crimes.
They are boring, ordinary, failures of men - not always men, of course, but predominately - who can't even manage to live, love and process their feelings in a world where the rest of us have all managed to master it by the time we're in our teens. These are no dark magicians. They have no special skills. People seem to forget that we know their names because they got caught. In fact, the only remarkable thing about them is what they took from the world: their victims. It's their names we should know."</i></b>
Eve's book and her investigation behind the book had some powerful psychological lessons, and I enjoyed learning everything. If you already love true crime, and psychological thrillers, you have to absolutely read this and soon. This book is too good to be skipped.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-75.png"/>;
I am so excited to be part of the Ambassador Book Buzz for The Nothing Man by Catherine Ryan Howard. Thank you to the amazing team at LoveReading and Corvus for this opportunity.
Needless to say, this book made me stay up all night, just to find out how it ends.
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Nothing-Man.jpg"/>;
<b><i>I was the girl who survived the Nothing Man.
Now I am the woman who is going to catch him...</i></b>
You've just read the opening pages of The Nothing Man, the true crime memoir Eve Black has written about her obsessive search for the man who killed her family nearly two decades ago.
The Nothing Man starts when Jim is at work, walking through the supermarket, and he notices that a girl has a book with the name "The Nothing Man" with her. His heart starts racing - because he knows what it means. The Nothing Man is a mysterious man that has assaulted and killed many people in the area, and even after twenty years, no one has found him yet. But Jim knows the truth - because he is the man who did all these crimes.
Eve Black is one of the survivors, that managed to escape his attack by hiding in her bathroom. She writes a book about her experiences and the experiences of the other victims. With her whole family dead and nothing to lose, she is set to find out, once and for all, who the mysterious man is.
I loved the writing style - the book within the book - it was unusual and very interesting for me to engage with. I was so intrigued and invested, and that did not change at all. There are many twists and turns in this book, and you will enjoy them all, especially the very ending, where everything just comes to a big climax. It kept me glued to my seat, and I want more.
I loved the difference between Jim and Eve - their different recollections to how things happened, and why they did. In her book, Eve is explaining how the attacks and murders took place, and right after that, we also witness Jim's reaction to Eve's writing, and whether he agrees or not with how correct her facts are. It was very scary at times, to read from the killer's perspective, and the reasons of why he made some choices.
The more Jim reads, the more he realizes how dangerously close Eve is getting to the truth. He knows she won't give up until she finds him. He has no choice but to stop her first...
Usually, in our standard crime books, we have a crime scene, then suspects, and then we figure our way to finding the murderer. But here - we already know who the murderer is at the beginning of the story. But the rest of the world doesn't. And this is a concept that I haven't encountered yet, but really enjoyed it. Because this is something we don't think about often - when we have a crime, and we don't know who did it, the person that is guilty is out there somewhere, and knows he's deceived us.
The other important message from this book is to remember the victims.
Everyone remembers the name of a serial killer - but only few remember the victim's names.
<b><i>"It's fine to be fascinated by serial killers," she tells me in her office after the lecture. "I am myself, obviously. They are fascinating because even though they look just like the rest of us, they do things the rest of us would never, ever do. But they are not especially intelligent. They don't outsmart authorities. You know David Berkowitz? Son of Sam? They caught him because he got himself a parking ticket at the scene of one of his crimes.
They are boring, ordinary, failures of men - not always men, of course, but predominately - who can't even manage to live, love and process their feelings in a world where the rest of us have all managed to master it by the time we're in our teens. These are no dark magicians. They have no special skills. People seem to forget that we know their names because they got caught. In fact, the only remarkable thing about them is what they took from the world: their victims. It's their names we should know."</i></b>
Eve's book and her investigation behind the book had some powerful psychological lessons, and I enjoyed learning everything. If you already love true crime, and psychological thrillers, you have to absolutely read this and soon. This book is too good to be skipped.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Thor-oughly entertaining.
Thor has always come across as the weaker of the Marvel film series’. The first film was well made, but never really demanded a repeat watch. The second, whilst not as bad as some people will attest, still felt more like a stop gap filler. You can’t blame the casting for the feeling of nonchalance that the films, so far, have delivered. Hemsworth is great in the role, and the support cast have always given their all, from Hiddleston as Loki, to Anthony Hopkins as Odin. But the stories have just felt superfluous, generic, and lacking in anything fantastical or mystical. In addition they have made the same error that DC made when they adapted Green Lantern – they spent too much time on Earth! You see, there are enough super-hero films that focus on a threat to Earth, so even though you could argue that it is faithful to the comics to have Thor defending Midgard against some mythical enemy, it has the unfortunate effect of making it seem just a little too…familiar. Wisely the decision was made for this third film to break away from Midgard, and go ‘cosmic’ with the story – and the end result is a damn sight better as a result.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Aug 3, 2018
It doesn’t hurt me to say that I have watched the movie before I read the book. What hurts me to say is that even though I loved the book, I enjoyed the movie way more. But I am not here to compare the book and the movie, because I loved them both in a different way.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Oct 26, 2018
It doesn’t hurt me to say that I have watched the movie before I read the book. What hurts me to say is that even though I loved the book, I enjoyed the movie way more. But I am not here to compare the book and the movie, because I loved them both in a different way.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
‘’I had just come to accept that my life would be ordinary when extraordinary things began to happen.’’
Jacob was raised by his grandfather, who told him stories about the amazing house he used to live in, and all the children that lived with him, that had amazing abilities and were different than ordinary people. Grandpa Portman would even show Jacob pictures of the children and their peculiarities - he would tell him stories about the invisible boy, the girl that could float if she didn’t have iron boots, the girl that could breath out fire and the children that could easily lift the heaviest rocks. He would also talk about the danger and the big monsters that the children were so scared of.
And Jacob believed and loved these stories - he shared an amazing bond with his grandpa. Until, of course, he grew up. Suddenly, he was old enough to know this isn’t true, and stopped believing. His grandpa would try to convince him, and warn him that the monsters are coming, but the only conclusion he had is that his grandpa lost his marbles.
But then his grandpa dies, and Jacob sees the monsters himself. Despite everyone believing that he is crazy, just like his grandpa, Jacob now has no choice but to find these strange children - and get answers to all his questions.
The book moves quite slow, and it is not until half of the book that we actually get to meet the children. As a person that watched the movie, this was extremely frustrating, as I kept waiting and waiting, and nothing special happened for 90 pages.
The author puts photographs in the book, and they are perfectly put in the book to explain how a character looks, and to describe the scene better. This was the strawberry to my cake in this book. I immensely enjoyed the beautiful photographs and how perfectly well they fitted with the book and detailed the characters. The only character that I couldn’t imagine was Miss Peregrine - her picture is not at all what I expected. At first, I thought about sharing some of those pictures here - but then, I assumed you might enjoy them more if you explore them yourself while reading the book, as they come - as I could never be able to do that as well as Ransom Riggs did.
For the ones you watched the movie first - the movie is not at all the same as the book. So lower your expectations, otherwise you will be disappointed. The movie seemed to have put three books into one, and swapped people’s abilities, and made up some scenes and places.
The book, however, had parts that you wouldn’t see in the movie, and its own magic of detailed descriptions to your favorite stories and characters.
I hated Jacob. Not just at the beginning, but all the way through. Mister ‘’I-am-too-good-for-everything’’ , Mister ‘’My-family-is-so-rich-I-will-try-my-best-to-get-fired-from-work-because-my-uncle-owns-the-shop’’. No - Just no. As much as I enjoyed his story, his character is very egocentric and unlikeable. I actually liked Grandpa Abe so much more, even though he was only partially and ghostly present in the book.
Miss Peregrine didn’t reveal much of her character as she does in the movie. We don’t get to read a lot about her to be honest, and she was the one person I expected to see more of.
We get to hang around with the children a lot though, and meet Emma, the girl that has fire powers, and that used to be Grandpa Abe’s lover and now Jacob - which is more than weird, but oh well…
‘’She moved to pinch me again but I blocked her hand. I’m no expert on girls, but when one tries to pinch you four times, I’m pretty sure that’s flirting.’’
We get to meet Millard, the invisible boy, Olive, the girl that can float without her iron boots, Fiona, who can make plants and trees grow in seconds and many other lovely children with even lovelier abilities.
This is an amazing story about extraordinary people, children who will amuse you with how cute they can be, a bit of (well, a lot of) time travel and a great valuable lesson that everyone in this world is peculiar and extraordinary in their own way! A must-read to all of you that love some fantasy stories and different worlds.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Dead Girls Club in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Book-Review-Banner-13.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
The Dead Girls Club by Damien Angelica Walters left me unprepared for what I was about to read.
A perfect blend of mystery, spookiness, friendship and psychological trauma. This book will keep you away from social events until you are finished. And a few days after…
<i><b>Red Lady, Red Lady, show us your face…</b>
In 1991, Heather Cole and her friends were members of the Dead Girls Club. Obsessed with the macabre, the girls exchanged stories about serial killers and imaginary monsters, like the Red Lady, the spirit of a vengeful witch killed centuries before. Heather knew the stories were just that, until her best friend Becca began insisting the Red Lady was real – and she could prove it.
That belief got Becca killed.
It’s been nearly thirty years, but Heather has never told anyone what really happened that night–that Becca was right and the Red Lady was real. She’s done her best to put that fateful summer, Becca, and the Red Lady, behind her. Until a familiar necklace arrives in the mail, a necklace Heather hasn’t seen since the night Becca died.
The night Heather killed her.
Now, someone else knows what she did…and they’re determined to make Heather pay.</i>
From the beginning of the book, you can feel the intensity, the guilt and the mystery behind it, which was something I very much enjoy in my books. We get to see the life of Heather 30 years after the death of Becca, and we know from the very first chapter that Heather killed her.
But they were best friends. And Heather loves Becca, even now, with every atom of her body. They were those BFFs that were always together, and knew each other’s secrets. They both loved mystery and talking about serial killers. And then things somehow start to go wrong. They are slipping from the friendship slide, and they can’t do anything to stop it…
<i><b>The heart, the other half of which once hung around my neck, even after, is a cheap thing of nickel, stainless steel, or some inexpensive alloy. Originally affixed to a cardboard square and purchased by two girls who saved their allowance. Best Friends Forever. We meant it, she and I. We meant it with every bone in our bodies and every true and good thing in our souls. We didn’t know forever didn’t always last that long.</b></i>
This is one of the few stories where I rooted for a killer. I know how horrible it sounds, but I loved that perspective. The innocence behind a terrible act. The belief that what you did might have been wrong, but you still did it for the right reasons. The ultimate friendship and the boundaries.
I loved Heather, and I also loved Becca. I hated all the things that were standing between them, driving them further away from each other.
This is a book about a murder, and about a scary story becoming real. But this book is also about friendship, about psychological trauma, and about the force a person needs to get trough it. The crucial support this person requires to get through the rainy days. Heather was struggling, and there was no one beside her to help her. Everyone she knew and trusted suddenly abandoned her, and this tells a sad and realistic story about the reality people with mental health issues are facing. No one wants a damaged person in their lives, I get that. But when this person is your friend for life, when this person is your life companion, you know. You know how they were before it, and you should always be there to support them, and get them to become their healthy selves again. We all need a person in life that will push our boundaries and be there for us when we are not able to be there for ourselves.
The Dead Girls Club covers so many topics that warm and crush my heart. And I love it for it. If your book taste is similar to mine, I am sure you will love this book too, and I recommend it!
Huge thanks to Melissa and the team at Crooked Lane Books in the US, for sending me a paperback ARC copy in exchange for my honest review!
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Book-Review-Banner-13.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
The Dead Girls Club by Damien Angelica Walters left me unprepared for what I was about to read.
A perfect blend of mystery, spookiness, friendship and psychological trauma. This book will keep you away from social events until you are finished. And a few days after…
<i><b>Red Lady, Red Lady, show us your face…</b>
In 1991, Heather Cole and her friends were members of the Dead Girls Club. Obsessed with the macabre, the girls exchanged stories about serial killers and imaginary monsters, like the Red Lady, the spirit of a vengeful witch killed centuries before. Heather knew the stories were just that, until her best friend Becca began insisting the Red Lady was real – and she could prove it.
That belief got Becca killed.
It’s been nearly thirty years, but Heather has never told anyone what really happened that night–that Becca was right and the Red Lady was real. She’s done her best to put that fateful summer, Becca, and the Red Lady, behind her. Until a familiar necklace arrives in the mail, a necklace Heather hasn’t seen since the night Becca died.
The night Heather killed her.
Now, someone else knows what she did…and they’re determined to make Heather pay.</i>
From the beginning of the book, you can feel the intensity, the guilt and the mystery behind it, which was something I very much enjoy in my books. We get to see the life of Heather 30 years after the death of Becca, and we know from the very first chapter that Heather killed her.
But they were best friends. And Heather loves Becca, even now, with every atom of her body. They were those BFFs that were always together, and knew each other’s secrets. They both loved mystery and talking about serial killers. And then things somehow start to go wrong. They are slipping from the friendship slide, and they can’t do anything to stop it…
<i><b>The heart, the other half of which once hung around my neck, even after, is a cheap thing of nickel, stainless steel, or some inexpensive alloy. Originally affixed to a cardboard square and purchased by two girls who saved their allowance. Best Friends Forever. We meant it, she and I. We meant it with every bone in our bodies and every true and good thing in our souls. We didn’t know forever didn’t always last that long.</b></i>
This is one of the few stories where I rooted for a killer. I know how horrible it sounds, but I loved that perspective. The innocence behind a terrible act. The belief that what you did might have been wrong, but you still did it for the right reasons. The ultimate friendship and the boundaries.
I loved Heather, and I also loved Becca. I hated all the things that were standing between them, driving them further away from each other.
This is a book about a murder, and about a scary story becoming real. But this book is also about friendship, about psychological trauma, and about the force a person needs to get trough it. The crucial support this person requires to get through the rainy days. Heather was struggling, and there was no one beside her to help her. Everyone she knew and trusted suddenly abandoned her, and this tells a sad and realistic story about the reality people with mental health issues are facing. No one wants a damaged person in their lives, I get that. But when this person is your friend for life, when this person is your life companion, you know. You know how they were before it, and you should always be there to support them, and get them to become their healthy selves again. We all need a person in life that will push our boundaries and be there for us when we are not able to be there for ourselves.
The Dead Girls Club covers so many topics that warm and crush my heart. And I love it for it. If your book taste is similar to mine, I am sure you will love this book too, and I recommend it!
Huge thanks to Melissa and the team at Crooked Lane Books in the US, for sending me a paperback ARC copy in exchange for my honest review!
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Underwater was in my top picks for February, it looked like a cross between Deep Rising, Alien and a selection of Doctor Who episodes... I was definitely in.
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colette (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“The hand that holds the pen writes history”.
Colette is yet another tale of female empowerment: a woman with real talent trying to break out of the gilded cage she finds herself trapped in.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.