DadReaction: Did not read book. Thought it sounded too creepy. Must say though: this movie is transcendent. You're really upset at the start and it takes you on a journey of reconciliation that's so odd, so unusual--I thought, anyway--i just don't get why only Tucci got a nomination (for a NOTHING part). Peter Jackson must wonder what he has to do anymore. I mean, King Kong was the movie of the year when IT came out. Not that this one is tops, but c'mon, guys, it's so well done, so unusual, so powerful, it deserves a nod. A lot of the movie was the kid, though--really good casting. But everybody was good.
MomReaction: Your Dad would put it in the top 10 of the year. I liked the way it used horror movie techniques, music that makes you think something is going on, anticipation, really well and it was never a trick, something did happen. I also thought that you went from something that tore your heart out and then saw redemption--hard won. The family did get back to being able to love each other and live, even though something terrible had happened. And the bad guy was identified and died in a very fitting way. The between world was very interesting too.
This movie was complete. It expressed real pain and hurt as well as love, abiding love. And it had a depth that nothing else I saw this year had. So, much as I loved Julie and Julia and Avatar and Inglorious Bastards, I think this had everything they had and more. It was at a completely different level. I think it was too bad only Stanley Tucci got nominated. Although it would be fair to call this an ensemble. Peter Jackson deserved a nomination.
And the setting/background, and special effects ( maybe the category was visual effects) deserved mention in nomination. Your dad just mentioned adapted screenplay as well. Mark Wahlberg was as good as I've ever seen him, lots of emotional depth and even a kind of beauty. Maybe even Susan Sarandon as best supporting actress.
]]>Read:
Lots of fun. Go Jet! Go Iri! I want to be their #3.
]]>A little less angst-y. And with occasional female vocals chiming in.
]]>But unfortunately not enough plot and sense to back that art up. Pretty to look at. But lots of holes. (Every gay male is an adonis. Oh wait, that's true, right? Haha. The bar down the street has the same bartender now that it had 16 years ago. Colin Firth ages but his partner doesn't. Etc, etc.) And the whole "he's grey with misery" but "now he pinks up, alive with life" camera/film technique got old, pretty fast.
But there was lots of nice grain and soft light. And pretty pretty boys. Mmmmmm Matthew Goode. (I highly recommend the film "Imagine Me & You" (available on DVD. a very favorite.) if you want to see him get to do more than he does here.)
It vaguely reminded me of the book "The Line of Beauty" by Alan Hollinghurst (read back in 2004 so my memory of it is quite vague indeed) but that may just be b/c of the whole gay melodrama more than anything else (set in totally different times).
]]>Wow, I had totally forgotten about the crazy masochistic torture stuff in this book. I also forgot about that whole whiney mcwhinerson section with Kahlan. I would like a clearer picture of how old Richard and Kahlan are supposed to be as this series begins.
Love the rules around magic in this book. All the use of webs. And Kahlan's power. ESPECIALLY in Con Dar.
]]>He's hot, and also the coolest customer out there (never lets himself lose his temper which you do occasionally see from Reacher), the mystery is interesting, there's some lies/twists/turns but not so many that you want to hang yourself. And at the end, as in the first Joe Pike-centered book, there's that hint of more humanity than one would guess...
Oh, Joe.
p.s. I read this in bed on my iPhone when I couldn't sleep. :) Then I couldn't sleep because I couldn't stop reading.
*Joe Pike was originally the sidekick in the Elvis Cole series. This is the second Joe Pike-focused book. I don't remember Elvis appearing in the first book (did he?) but in this one he gets to be Joe's sidekick instead.
^The Jack Reacher series is by a different author, Lee Child. If you type either of their names into that search box on the right, you'll get a few hits.)
]]>While I did enjoy some of the events of the ending, I really had to force myself to get there, and honestly that's not something I really like to do when I read these days. Yes, I used to be a "have to finish everything I start" reader but now I'm an "hey I'm old and there isn't that much time and I don't want to die not having gotten to read as much GOOD stuff as possible so if it sucks, I'm stopping" reader.
This is a society based on color and the color that you can see is therefore the color that you "are" and the amount (percentage) of that color you are able to see determines your prestige, and both those items determine your EXACT position in society. What jobs you can have, who you can marry, etc. The world is ruled by a certain book of rules and infractions/demerits are cumulative. So what's the obvious thing right? Time for a revolution.
A lot of really obvious metaphor here. I remember I loved the first two Tuesday Nexts, didn't care for book 3, thought book 4 was OK...and just did not need to read more. (He could have stopped at one and had a really original book out there. Did he have to play it out?)
This series I am going to stop at book 1 as it's already boring me... In addition, at least the Tuesday Next books made you think about other great books, or google names that you couldn't place to figure out where in literature they were from. None of that extra in this one. (And it's definitely going to be a series, the names of the next two books were listed in the back.)
]]>A lot of nice metaphorical work throughout the story, mirroring the evolution of the main character (particularly in the conception of the tree, and in the naming/recognition of a certain character).
I'm interested to check out her other books, looks like she's written a ton of stuff.
[Apparently there was a movie (Lifetime?) of this, but when I used this book for my media mini-study in my middle school curriculum class, the people in my small group who had seen it said it wasn't anywhere near as good as the book. Why had they seen it? Oh that class is chockfull of undergrads. Bunch of 22 year olds who apparently watch Lifetime teen movies! Heh.]
]]>p.s. I thought Sanderson did a fine job of writing both in his own and in Jordan's voice. There were a couple instances of "huh didn't he just use that exact phrase to describe someone a chapter ago" but other than that, I thought it flowed just fine and all the pivotal characters still felt "right."
]]>On the other hand, this felt like a book in which very little happens other than the reveal of the ancient curse/prophecy...and it just...ENDS. Very much a "book 1" but even in a series, shouldn't each book have its own purpose? I felt like this one really tailed off at the end in setup for book 2.
There's something to be said for cliffhangers.
]]>However, I absolutely adore (ADORE!) her next book "The History of Love" and I would highly recommend you read that one (instead of this OR any other book!). (Search this page for the title or author to hear my enthusiasm. It was one of my very favorite reads of 2005.)
]]>Eh. Maybe later.
]]>Dad: It was harder to get into than I expected / I remembered really liking Conrad. It was one of those sort of prescient things that could be so easily adapted: a South American country gets sucked into the capitalism of the West, because of its resources. Of course, this starts warping the society there; you're watching it happen.
It's an interestingly written book: always taking some weird perspective, lots of flashbacks, leaving things behind. You know ahead of time who makes it and who doesn't, because he tells you throughout the text. Odd hero as well: he won't marry the right chick / her dad kills him. Very odd ending for a book about something else
Worth it but I did have to flog through it.
]]>Read: