film review: I Am Legend

I Am Legend 
Directed by:  Francis Lawrence

Released: 2007

Starring: Will Smith, Alice Brega

For synopsis please see my book review.

Ok, this isn't going to be a pleasant review, but like the book review, I can't really delve into why it fails so abysmally because that'd destroy the book for potential readers. If I sum it up though, the film missed the point. Completely. Like many Hollywood adaptations of classic (or modern classic) books or films, they were too focused in how awesome Will Smith would look walking down an empty New York street, and not enough in the crux of this story, the inner turmoil that haunts the last man alive and his constant battle to hold onto his sanity, his humanity and his self.

The book isn't an epic tale of a man taking on the disease single-handedly. It's a personal account and it's god damn harrowing. The film focuses too much on making Robert a hero and a good guy and MISSES THE GOD DAMN POINT. Essentially, the film is the glossy Hollywood attempt to sell tickets, and really I don't blame anyone except the writer and the executives who green lit the film. That said, the pacing of the film is actually pretty decent. The first 15 minutes or so do a pretty good job of setting up Robert as the final man alive, and showing New York as a crumbling ghost town that's been overtaken by nature. However it misses that mechanical approach in the book, it's almost gimmicky at times, and Will Smith is far too sane and emotional to truly be a man who has spent three years alone in the world. It also eliminates the humanity of the "dark seekers" as they're known in the film. They're more like zombies now and there isn't the persistent terrorising of Robert that exists in the book. In the book his neighbour Ben and other vampires are the single thing most likely to tear Robert's sanity to shreds, because he can't help think of them as the people they once were and of the humanity they now so sorely lack.

It's those smaller details that really niggle at me as I watch this film. They might be small details but they're important to the complete picture, and if you mess with one, ultimately you mess with all of them. Worst of all though, is the end. I can forgive, to an extent, making Robert a scientist who was involved in the original deadly cure or giving him a dog for a pet, or ramping up the action as he hunts the dark seekers. If you're going to make a blockbuster, you have to please the majority, and I'm fairly sure most people who saw this film had no idea it was based on a book. What I can't forgive though, is the ending. They basically took a big steaming pile of crap and smeared it all over Matheson's memory. It appeals to the lowest common denominator and completely disrespects not only the original, but the story that they had (rather haphazardly) been building to that point. It destroyed the elegance and complexity and humanity of the story and treated the audience like idiots. The rest of the movie is hardly a must-see, but that final half hour is enough to warrant me to advise you all to stay far, far away from this "movie".

In the end I have to ask why the hell they thought this needed to be remade. The book could easily adapt to a moody and complex dystopian tale, but so far Hollywood has forced the story to bend their way in all three adaptations. Why do authors keep accepting the project if they can't keep true to the book? Surely they've read the original book and understand that their project has completely missed the mark. And if it's because Hollywood interferes, then don't make it. It's like the film adaptation of The Golden Compass, if people are pressuring you into removing the heart and soul of the story, then don't make it. Simple.

So, don't watch this. Read the book and if you must watch a film adaptation watch Night of the Living Dead  because though it doesn't follow the plot in the slightest, the heart of the story is well and truly present in this classic zombie film, and it's the only film that Matheson himself thought captured his amazing novella successfully.

Review: I Am Legend by Richard Matheson

This review is incredibly difficult to write. Not because it's a bad book (it isn't), or there is an absence of symbolism, plot or substance (there isn't) but because in order to talk about what makes this book REALLY great I'd need to discuss the final 10 pages, which would give away all the details that make reading it worth it. So I'm in a little predicament, what do I include, what do I leave out? What I've decided to do is avoid discussing the plot in this review, but I will be writing an in-depth discussion post about this book for my horror blog with all the spoilers, so if you have read the book or don't care about spoilers head over there sometime in early 2012.

I Am Legend 
by Richard Matheson

Published in: 1954

Synopsis: Robert Neville is the last living man on Earth...but he is not alone. Every other man, woman, and child on Earth has become a vampire, and they are all hungry for Neville's blood.
By day, he is the hunter, stalking the sleeping undead through the abandoned ruins of civilization. By night, he barricades himself in his home and prays for dawn.
How long can one man survive in a world of vampires?

This book is phenomenal. It is so short and compact and the storytelling is so distant until WHAM! There are a few books that I love so freaking much that I can barely discuss them because I can't form coherent sentences or discuss the book without using a whole bunch of "ZOMG" "FREAKING AWESOME" "AHFUITFHFSKLDSHGHJ!!" This is definitely one of those books, but I'm going to try really, really hard to  keep this short, succinct and helpful in case you're thinking about delving into this masterpiece.

Robert Neville is the flawed character. He is the final human being left in a world overrun by vampires, and is taunted by them every night as he tries to maintain some semblance of regular life. Obviously this is almost impossible, and as a result Neville becomes this distant, cold character who almost completely refrains from showing any real emotion or giving himself the opportunity to ever react to the things he sees each day and night. Everyone he loves is dead or transformed thanks to a medical cure gone wrong, and by the time we meet him, he's hardened and spends everyday ticking off the day's 'to do' list. Because the story follows our final man standing, it begins to resemble Robert Neville...systematic, distant, and methodical. It chops through his day like a scientist proceeds through his methodology, we watch him chop the garlic and string it into garlands, fix the wood nailed across the windows, take his meal out of the freezer and then prepare, cook and eat it. But we also follow him as he systematically makes his way across town and stakes the vampires through their hearts, or throws dead bodies into the tyre pit, or peers out the door when the vampires arrive each night to taunt and tease him.

Distant though the story is, you catch glimpses of the man that's hiding behind this tough exterior. especially as it progresses, gaining momentum and speed. You really get an idea of how hard it is to be the last man alive, and not only difficult but tedious. With only yourself for company, and the weight of the world on your shoulders, it's a slippery slope into insanity. And that's what the beauty of the this book is. It combines the enormity of being the last man on Earth and trying to find a cure (without the benefit of a science or medical education) with the tedium of day to day life and with the constant battle of emotions that threaten to destroy your mind. Ultimately Robert is an incredibly positive character. Even as he's closed off and reluctant to really think about what it is he's doing, he's still there. He's living day by day, doing what needs to be done as it needs to be done, while only allowing him the briefest moment to think about the past, the present and the future, because he knows the danger that lies in giving it to those thoughts.  I can't imagine what I'd do if I found out I was the final person alive, but I imagine I'd probably crumble fairly quickly once the enormity of it hit me. He's not perfect, and he's certainly not a warm guy, but he's possibly one of the strongest and most interesting characters I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

I'm not going to discuss any more of the plot because I think that will soon progress into me discussing the things I really shouldn't discuss. So I'm going to conclude by saying that this book is one that will make you contemplate EVERYTHING! The book raises so many issues, from medical experimentation, to personal strength, to the real essence of monstrosity and the 1000s of shades of grey that exist. I Am Legend stuck with me for quite awhile after reading it, it kept swirling questions and thoughts around my head for days and days. Forget everything else, that is the sign of an unbelievable book. It's the result of a talented author crafting an impressive story, with a lasting character in a world that is so believable it practically bleeds through the text on the page. It is phenomenal.

Film Review: The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby 

Released: 1974

Directed by: Jack Clayton

Starring: Robert Redford
Mia Farrow
Sam Waterston

For the synopsis please read my book review.


I've long been one of those people who look back on the past and grow a little obsessed with bygone eras. In my early teens I was addicted to the 1960s, it was the decade that gave us The Beatles after all. After I began reading the works of the beat authors I added the 1940s and 1950s to my growing  "when I have a time-machine I'm definitely visiting" list. But right now, as 24 year old me, I would do anything to visit the 1920s. It was a visually stunning era, the architecture and design is bold and gorgeous, the hairstyles are to die for (and way to difficult to replicate...I've tried) and their fashion is unbelievably stylish, lady-like and luxurious. Add to that the smashing parties, dazzling music and inspiring authors and you have a decade I'd give my left foot to visit!

The Great Gatsby definitely manages to capture the visual gorgeousness of the time. The cast are all unbelievably attractive and look as though they've been transported mid-glamorous 1920s party. The women are all tall and slight, with cheekbones and jaw-lines that perfectly set off the finger curls in their hair and the haunts perched precariously on their perfectly coiffed hair. They radiate wealth and health and are completely at ease with several kilos worth of beads weighing them down on each outfit. The men look strong and stable, in their immaculate 3 piece suits, carefully gelled and curled hair, and jaunty stance with one hand in a pocket. The houses are grand and large and perfectly demonstrate their wealth and social standing, and make the perfect backdrop to the extravagant parties thrown with their champagne fountains and Charleston dancing. I came to the film (the first time) as an 18 year old longing for a time with some integrity and glamour, and even though the film is technically 50 years too late to the party, it captured the visuals as well as the spirit of the age to me.

Visually spectacular as it is, the film follows in the book's footsteps and creates a story not about the glamour of the age, but of the rampant hedonistic lifestyle and the isolation that author Fitzgerald recognised going on around him. Life appears so wonderful, there are parties, shiny dresses, abundant wealth (at least with this crowd) and twinkly lights aplenty, but none of the characters seem truly happy. Though some are obvious, such as Gatsby's heavy love for his old flame Daisy, most of them seem unable to truly verbalise what's missing from their life. Perhaps it's their preoccupation with wealth and decadent behaviours at the expense of true and lasting relationships, perhaps it's that their life hasn't panned out how they expected, or maybe they simply have expectations so high they could never come close to meeting them. Regardless of the cause, their distance from one another and from true happiness is clear in their expressions even as they dance wildly or talk a mile a minute. This is one of those films where, if you were to turn off the sound completely, you'd see a completely different story. By which I mean the subliminal would be markedly clear without their disingenuous words muddying the expressions on their faces.

This is the result of fantastic acting. The entire cast perform magnificently in their respective parts. They are so perfect for their roles, in fact, that I'm struggling to imagine the new cast (in the film to be released next year) looking anything other than clunky and fake. Mia Farrow is an absolute doll and a favourite actress of mine, and she manages to portray the shallow and slightly frail Daisy to perfection. It's not hard to imagine her being completely dominated by the men in her life, or cracking under the pressure and snapping like a twig (whoops, mixing my metaphors!). Opposite her, Robert Redford portrays the mysterious Gatsby wonderfully. He's strong and devilishly handsome, but there is this genuine calmness and quiet to him that makes it hard not to fall in love with him. He perfectly depicts the poor boy who worked his ass off (whether legally or no) to become the man his true love could marry. He's so sweet as he panics over Daisy's visit to Nick (her cousin, played by Sam Waterston) and then proudly shows off his house and possessions like a kid with his toys. The chemistry between these two is palpable, but there is a sadness through their entire reunion. Though Gatsby is the man (financially and socially) that Daisy could marry, he's too late. And even though they wax lyrical about their future together, you can see that both know that Daisy will never leave her (cheating) husband, and that their reunion has an expiry date.

The remaining cast that surrounds them perform beautifully and embody the characters Fitzgerald created with  nuanced and elegant performances. Nothing feels like anyone isn't giving it 100% and no-one feels miscast. There are so many different characters that grace the screen during this film, most for a very short period of time, but they all impact it in their own way. The short glimpses at the socialites, professional conmen, businessmen, lower class men and women and party-goers adds a depth and sparkle to this film that makes it shine past other films set during the same period.

I think it's fairly clear that I absolutely adore this film. It moves me to tears every single time and I never grow bored. It's fairly consistent in representing the book, making only the slightest alterations, and never where it demeans or changes the text's original intent. This is a fantastic film for almost all audiences. There's a love story, a plethora of parties, a leading man with a mysterious past, adultery, and a damning critique on consumerism, wealth and decadent lifestyles. And if none of that sounds good to you, watch it for the yummy actors and actresses and beautiful costumes!

My rating: 5/5

Film Review: Pet Sematary

Pet Sematary 

Released: 1989

Directed by: Mary Lambert
Starring: Dale Midkiff,
Fred Gwynne
Denise Crosby
Miko Hughes

For the synopsis please read my book review.

OK, so I'm perhaps not the best person to go to for an unbiased account of Stephen King films. I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for each and every one of them. Some of them truly are stand out films (Shawshank Redemption is in my top 5 films) but even the dodgiest adaptation has this weird Z-grade charm that I find hard to pass up. Because of my love for all of them, it's a little hard to distinguish with some of these older ones whether it's the quirk I enjoy, or the actual film. Especially in the ones filmed during the 1980s, where even the best are known to garner a little eye-rolling from modern audiences. So I guess this was a fairly roundabout way of saying that this film will get a high rating, but you probably should trust it.

 As I mentioned in my book review of the film, this was my very first bona fide horror film. I loved it, I remember relishing the foreshadowing, the haunting, Hermain Munster without the Hermain Munster gear (Fred Gwynne as the neighbour Jud) and all the other creepy things you expect in a horror film. It must have been weeks before I got sick of saying "First I played with Jud, then I played with mummy, now I want to play with you daddy" in a sing-song children's voice. It never really scared me (not like The Exorcist did a year or two later) but it introduced me to how fun horror can be, and how laughs can mingle with fear and general excitement. If I were to categorise this film it'd be as fun, one of those films where you know what's going to happen and you just can't wait.

Like with many Stephen King adaptations, the film does away with a great deal of the "real" horror, in this case the soul destroying loss of a child. It's still there, obviously, but rather than travel with Louis through his stages of grief, and witness the very upsetting reactions his wife and daughter also have, it fast forwards straight from Gage's death to his "rebirth". As a result there is much less time put into constructing any sort of normal life for the Creeds, or setting up any real characterisation for anyone other than Louis. There is also far more emphasis on the supernatural aspects of the story, and while the book was quite prevalent in this regard also, it was far more backgrounded until the climax. In the film however, there is much more ominous foreshadowing (both obvious through the recently dead student Victor Pascow, and more obscure), haunting music, and neighbourhood nice guy Jud is shown through a much more sinister light.

While the book focused on the turmoil that eventually lead to Louis bringing his son back to life, the film focussed more on the murder spree the young lad went on after reawakening in the Indian burial ground. I personally felt like the fear in these scenes were creepier and more nuanced in the book, but hearing teeny child footsteps, sinister words come out of a sweet 3 year old's mouth, and a rather sharp knife clasped in his chubby hand is enough to make the extended version thrilling in it's own way. Gage (played by Miko Hughes) was phenomenal, he was actually 3 years old in this film, I wonder if he had any idea what kind of film he was starring in!

Not only does the film branch off from the book in this regard, but it meanders from the book's plot quite a bit. In that regard it's quite like most Stephen King film adaptations, the bones of the story are there, but the flesh is almost entirely different. I much prefer the story of the book, it's more intense and upsetting, as well as upsetting, but I think the film did what it had to do to make it a horror film and not a drama that concludes as a horror film.

It's not as compelling as the book it was adapted from, and perhaps it's because of the fond history I have with this film, but I really can't fault it. It's the perfect mix of creepy kids, cheesy acting, 80s horror clichés and has a theme song by The Ramones. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for a serious scare, and again, I'm probably just a tad biassed, but I think it's a film everyone should watch at some point, even if only to poke fun at the hokey effects!

My rating: 4/5

Film Review: Blade Runner

Blade Runner

Released: 1982

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford
Sean Young
Rutger Hauer

For the synopsis please read my book review.


Blade Runner is the epitome of science fiction, dystopia and cyberpunk cinema. It is considered to be the very best of it's kind, even though the director has re-released the film in three different incarnations! For this challenge I chose to watch the Director's Cut which was released in 1992, and eliminated the voice-over and other cost-cutting methods used to release the original film. I've also seen the Final Cut but I've never actually watched the original cut. I really should, bad though some people say it is, there must have been something about it that attracted such a cult following right?

The film diverges quite extensively from the book, and while I think it waters down much of the humanist and existential discussions that the book created, it does still adhere to the general feel of the book. In fact, Philip K. Dick saw only the first 20 minutes of the film and was quoted as saying, "it was my own interior world. They caught it perfectly." So for those of you who tend to run in horror when you hear a film is based on a book (especially a book as well loved and well regarded as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) don't fear, though it may cause moments of irritation, it is a fantastic film that is independent enough that it really should be judged on it's own merits.

Like the novel it's based on, Blade Runner takes place in the future (2019 to be exact) and follows protagonist Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) in his search to locate a group of "replicants" (androids) who jumped ship and are hiding back on Earth. The city in which Rick lives owes a great deal to the early film Metropolis, it's a mish-mash of tall skyscrapers, blimps with large video screens, a giant pyramid structure and lots of small streets crammed with people, rubbish, stalls and steaming sewer grates. Though there are flying cars and bright neon lights, this isn't the future we always imagine, it's dark and dirty and abandoned by everyone except those without the money or health to leave the planet. Down in the streets the world has merged to create a truly multicultural society. Though English is still used, there is also "city-speak," which is a language made up of half a dozen languages from across the globe. And though many people still dress as we dress today, there are the typical future clothing styles that 80s films loved to create, mainly involving lots of see-through plastic, big shoulder pads out of weird acrylic-y stuff and big, BIG hair and make-up.

Visually the film is spectacular. Cyberpunk or "future noir" utilises some of the greatest film devices ever created. In this case there is a heavy prevalence of backlit scenes without a fill light, lots and lots of cigarette smoke (or smoke from other sources), and dramatic shadowing. Though it's a colour film, it has the intensity and substance of an old black and white noir, and the storyline relies heavily on the intensity of it's visual effects to emphasise the anxiety, hopelessness and dystopian nature of the story. Even without the stellar acting and storyline and pacing, I'd happily watch this film (on mute I guess, if it didn't have all the other aspects!) over and over just to immerse myself in the world that's created.

There are hundreds of websites dedicated to discussing the intricacies of the film, and the complexity of the human/android dichotomy that is set up. I won't go into much detail because there are other people making far better statements than I could possibly attempt, and I did tackle a portion of it in the book review I did. This area is the one place where it really diversified from the original text. In the original text PKD was making a statement about sociopathic behaviour, and about the lack of humanity within the "Andys," basically emphasising that even though they were undistinguishable from humans in the visual sense, they lacked the greatest qualities in humanity, and there was no way for them to absorb or learn how to empathise, emote or understand. They were lacking, and humans, even with all their flaws, were fundamentally better. However in Blade Runner, the situation is reversed. Instead it is that the replicants are an oppressed underclass (of sorts) and because of their limited life expectancy (they have a lifespan of 4 years) they lived every minute of their life to the fullest and were forced to rebel if they wanted to experience life for longer. In Blade Runner the humans take their lives for granted, and are far more closed-off and apathetic than their repressed android friends.

So the film does really take a different path than the book, but even though it ends up with an almost polarised view it keeps to the book's central idea of humanity and the struggle against man and machine. It's a stunning film that has really stood the test of time, and proved a marker for many dystopian films that have since been released. If you haven't seen this film yet, well shame on you, but don't worry, if you see it asap I won't hold it against you!

My rating: 4.5/5

Film Review: The Exorcist

The Exorcist

Released: 1973

Directed by: William Friedkin

Starring: Ellen Burstyn
Max Von Sydow
Linda Blair
Lee J. Cobb

for synopsis please read my book review.


When I reviewed the book version of The Exorcistthe other week I kept making rather vague references to what I remembered of the film. It seems I perhaps should have re-watched the film before I shared some of those perspectives because it seems like I misremembered much of the film!

Watching the film as a 13 year old what really stood out to me was the girl descending into deeper levels of creepy possessed demon-ness. Her transformation from loveable, happy child into a creature hell-bent on destroying the lives of everyone it comes into contact with was a stark shock for little me, and the images of Regan's head spinning, and the "help me" formed on her stomach haunted me for nights after I first saw the film. Because the poignant transformation had such an impact on the young impressionable me, when I read the book and found an abundance of conflict between psychology and religion and how religion can survive alongside the sciences in the modern world, it felt like a new addition to the story. What I  found upon rewatching it though, is that this conflict is indeed present in the film, and like the book actually takes prescendence over much of the exorcism/possession stuff.

Not being particularly religious (read: stone-cold atheist) the conflict isn't something I've come into contact with, but the representation of it on film with the character of Father Karras makes it painfully clear that religion is much harder to sell, shall we say, and also much harder to swallow. Though he seems clear that there is a god, his psychology background makes it impossible to believe that Regan could possibly be possessed. Though it's explained more within the book, he's clearly more confident with saying she's suffering from some undiagnosable mental disorder than a mystical being possessing her body. It's an interesting predicament, because as an atheist/agnostic I really can't see the difference between demons and god, but for Karras there is a definite difference between them and his scientific background doesn't allow him to suspend his disbelief quite that far. It makes for a possession narrative that's much better equipped for modern audiences and modern society, far more accessible and believable.

For anyone who hasn't seen the film (shame on you) the special effects are hardly of the standard that we're used to today, but I still found them realistic enough to have me hugging  my legs to my chest. To be honest, I find it much more effective to use the physical special effects, as used in The Exorcist,than the CGI ones favoured today. They don't always pass as more realistic, but they have a tangibility that you simply can't get from CGI, regardless of the studio designing them. This is definitely true in this film. The shaking bed and possessed puppetry does border on laughable from time to time, but you can get a real sense of why this film had people in hysterics when it was released. In fact, I think it's one of the few old films where you're completely excused for still feeling fear during.Night of the Living Dead, though a favourite of mine, is decidedly unscary, even though I recognise where the fear would be for older audiences.

The atmosphere is fantastic in this film, and the soundtrack further amplifies the overall feeling of the movie. Perhaps the best example of this film's dark and moody atmosphere is the shot used on most DVD covers of the film. Father Merrin standing underneath the streetlight as light shines down on him in the dark from the open window of Regan's bedroom. Stunning. While the rest of the film doesn't quite meet the same high standard of this image, it does reflect the general cinematic style of the film.

All of this adds up to create a phenomenal, and understandably classic, horror film. One that I implore you all watch, and even if you've seen it before, watch it again. No more discussion, just do it. Now.

My rating: 4.5/5

Review: Great Gatsby (Graphic Novel) adapted by Nicki Greenberg

The Great Gatsby
By F.Scott Fitzgerald

Graphic Novel adapted by Nicki Greenberg

Published: 2007

Synopsis: A wonderful homage to F. Scott Fitzgerald's jazz-age classic that brings to life the glitter, the melancholy and the grand and crumpled dreams of Fitzgerald's unforgettable characters. In the exquisitely realised setting of 1920s New York, a throng of fantastical creatures play out the drama, the wry humour and the tragedy of the novel.

The Great Gatsby is simply one of the finest books ever written. Not everyone may agree with that sentiment but I'm honestly hard pressed to think about a book that means so much to me and is written so well. After becoming a fan of the book, I became a fan of the film (which I'll be reviewing later this week) and after that I became a fan of this graphic novel. Even before reading it I was enchanted with the idea of reading The Great Gatsby as a graphic novel, and was intrigued by the idea of making the characters animals, flowers and monsters. I won't be getting into too much detail about whether the construction of the characters as seahorses (Gatsby), dandelions (Daisy), slugs (Nick) or ogres (Tom) adds much in regards to further edifying the characteristics and qualities of the characters, but let me just say that this bold and slightly bizarre idea does, inexplicably, seem to lend a certain je ne sais quoi to the story. I can't really be certain how, although I do find myself wondering now how I never envisioned Gatsby as a seahorse before!

It seems to be a popular misconception that Fitzgerald was writing about the glory of the 1920s jazz age. I think it's fairly clear that rather than praise the era, it is, for the most part, illustrating the gratuitous and self-serving nature of that hedonistic time. To an extent I do understand the mistake. The beauty of Fitzgerald's writing makes me nostalgic for a time I never knew, and by all account (at least those written within the pages of The Great Gatsby) one which favoured money and social standing over anything of real value or substance. Everything in The Great Gatsby is about hiding away true emotions or thoughts and instead presenting the world with extravagant or superfluous shows. There are several mentions in the text of performances, and the gesticulating, over-the-top theatrics of many of the characters seem to suggest that no-one is free of the desire to shut away their true, smaller self, whether in fear of failure, destruction, or that they'll fade away into obscurity.

The graphic novel does a fantastic job of capturing the heart of the novel and presenting it in a new and entirely fresh manner for audiences. Personally I would recommend reading the book in it's original form, but the writing in the graphic novel is still Fitzgerald, so even if you're receiving primarily the dialogue and the more dazzling gems of Fitzgerald's commentary, you're still receiving something remarkable indeed. The graphic novel tells the story through a series of sepia toned "photos" displayed on the black card of an album, as the narrator, Nick Carroway, recounts the events that took place while he lived on West Egg next door to the mysterious and endearing Gatsby. The representation of the illustrations as old photographs which have been treasured and serve as a reminder to Nick of the better and worst aspects of that time in his life perfectly represents the feel of the original novel. Not only do we get the nostalgic memories seeping through the turns of phrase that Fitzgerald used, or the events of the story, but the visuals used to present the story are the literal manifestation of nostalgia, old, worn, faded and bruised, yet loved. The illustrations are also used to further emphasise the fleeting nature of the whirlwind time that Nick spent in West Egg, such as the photo that has the middle (presumed to be bearing the image of a woman) torn out, which follows the statement, "I even had a short affair with a girl who worked in the accounting department, until her brother began throwing mean looks in my direction. And I let it blow quietly away."

The story of Jay Gatsby and his all consuming love for Daisy, and the events that transpire through the novel when they are finally re-introduced is lovingly replicated in this graphic novel, as is the smaller points made against the frivolity and hedonism of the jazz age and the shifting emotions of melancholy, hope, love and devotion. It's a wonderful homage to a wonderful book and I recommend picking up a copy so that you can fall headlong into the story which is sure to move you to tears, laughter, anger and contentment. A must-read for fans of graphic novels and Fitzgerald alike.

Film Review: LA Confidential

LA Confidential

Released: 1997

Directed by: Curtis Hanson

Starring: Kevin Spacey
Danny De Vito
Russell Crowe
Guy Pearce
Kim Bassinger

For synopsis please read my review of the book.


There are very few instances when I consider a film better than the book it was based on, but I think this is one of those cases. In my book review I stated that I found the book difficult to get into, and while I ended up really enjoying it I think the film was more successful in telling the story. Where the book was filled with tiny threads and leads that may or may not have anything to do with the primary story, the film is streamlined, as a film should be. You don't have space for waffle in a film, even if it is interesting, so there were angles, characters and even years cut off the original story.

It may minimise the scope of the story and the time-line but the film completely understood the central story that Ellroy was trying to express and it respected the characters. Any character eliminated (and there weren't many) were done away with because their story threads didn't effect the end result in the same way. If I had to sum it up I'd say that it focused more on the crime and less on the personal lives that the cops were dealing with congruent with their jobs. This isn't to say it's some dry police procedural, you still get a lot of "life" in the story, but the stray threads are definitely tidied up.

The film really is quite spectacular. For a movie filmed in 1997, and in colour, they really captured the Noir atmosphere that was so beautifully captivating back in the 1950s, and adapted really well into the original text. The colours are slightly muted, giving it a nostalgic air, however, without seeming like a film student's attempt to be arty. It simply works, every piece is pieced together perfectly and in synchronicity, the colouring, the costumes, the sound, the story and of course, the acting. The film is unbelievably well cast. Each actor embodies the character as though they stepped right out of the book's pages. The film stayed very loyal to their literary representation. Their language, emotions, reactions, even their physical descriptions are done to perfection. I think the only one who doesn't appear on film as he does in the book in Danny De Vito (though don't quote me on that). However De Vito did such a fantastic job as the sleazy investigative journalist it didn't matter that he was short and fat where the original character was taller and skinnier (that I can recall). The performances were nuanced, and subtle, yet realistic, emotional reaction was favoured over excessive dialogue or hammy performances. I really don't think I can fault any of the actors in this film, I'm sure James Ellroy would have been quite pleased with the cinematic depiction of his interesting and complex characters.

This was a first time for me watching this film, but it certainly won't be my last. I highly recommend this film to everyone, and I recommend it over the book. Unless you think you're ready to sit through 450+ pages and potentially struggle through the beginning of it (if you're like me that is), I highly recommend at least checking the movie out first to see if it's your cup of tea.

Review: LA Confidential by James Ellroy

LA Confidential
by James Ellroy

Written in: 1990

Synopsis (via goodreads): set in 1950s Los Angeles, kicks off with a shoot-out between a rogue ex-cop and a band of gangsters fronted by a crooked police lieutenant. Close on the heels of this scene comes a jarring Christmas Day precinct house riot, in which drunk and rampaging cops viciously beat up a group of jailed Mexican hoodlums. But, as readers will quickly learn, these sudden sprees of violence, laced with evidence of police corruption, are only teasers for the grisly events and pathos that follow this intricate police procedural. 


There must be something wrong with me at the moment, because this is the second book that I've started off feeling lukewarm about and then ended up loving. However, unlike My Sweet Saga which only took a few chapters for me to warm to, I was closer to the halfway mark before I began to really get into this book. I had seen the film first (which I'll review tomorrow), something I try not to do, because the DVD arrived from my mail-in rental service before the book did and I didn't want to wait too long. Perhaps this is partly to blame for my initial reaction to the book, though perhaps not.

The story is an interesting one. It follows three LA cops who are as different as can be. Ed Exley, the intelligent, rational cop determined to follow the law to the letter and climb the ladder to the top at the same time. Wendell "Bud" White, a headstrong emotional cop, with a hatred for men who attack women and a preference to use his fists and gun rather than his head. And Jack Vincennes, the Hollywood cop who has a lot to hide. It covers about 8 years, from the initial bloody Christmas killings, in which a series of drunken cops attacked a group of prisoners in their cells, to the first attempt to solve the Nite Owl murders, where 6 men and women were ruthlessly murdered and then to the reopening of the Nite Owl murders when it becomes clear the original suspects were set up. I'm struggling to tell you much about the cases without giving away the connections, red herrings and hints that are littered throughout the book. So instead I'll be broad.

Though the actual case is important to the story, more important is the actions of the cops in 1950s LA as they try to solve the cases. The three cops that form the focus all approach their jobs differently, and I think it'd be fair to say none of them are doing it purely to "serve and protect". They all have a reason, whether it's to avenge old foes, make up for past mistakes or rise above a favourite brother. Their different approaches leads to some serious antagonism between them, though especially between Exley and White. Exley, who always follows the rules and is undeniably good at what he does is seen as weak because he favours using his intellect in the interview room to get results. White, on the other hand, is seen as a hero because he uses force and aggression, and his brutality is often mistaken for a desire to rid the world of scum. Their conflicting personalities and styles forms the basis for the story, and around them it becomes apparent how many corners are cut, leads falsified and people killed more due to their race than any real evidence.

The book is quite confronting because it takes a very traditional view on the way people lived and thought in the 1950s, so any derogatory words you can think of relating to race is used frequently and with aggression. Similarly, characters in mixed race relationships are looked down upon, females are ejected from their house because they were raped, men are rewarded for aggressive acts, and homosexuality is mocked and despised. Regardless of whether the events are completely accurate or slightly (or not so slightly) exaggerated, the book highlights a world that did at one point exist, where hatred and bigotry were not only acceptable but expected. It was a remarkable journey to take, though completely unsettling and at times sickening.

So as I mentioned at the start it took awhile for me to get into this book. I can't really fault it and give an acceptable reason why it took so long for me to get into it. It's well written, the language isn't convoluted or complex, and while it sometimes is written in that "jive" style it's done infrequently and only when the particular character calls for it. The characters are interesting and multi-layered, and the unfolding of the story through the characters is interesting and never sloppy. For all intents and purposes it's a well-crafted book and I should have liked it. But I really had to force myself to read it at first, and even then I'd only read a small portion of it at a time. Similarly I can't really tell you why I suddenly got into it, I simply did. Perhaps there was the subtlest change in pacing or characterisation which resonated with me. Either way, my initial desire to give it about a 3/5 has changed, however I warn interested readers that they may suffer a similar lack of desire when they approach it themselves.

Review: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
By Philip K. Dick

Published: 1968

Synopsis (via Goodreads): World War Terminus had left the Earth devastated. Through its ruins, bounty hunter Rick Deckard stalked, in search of the renegade replicants who were his prey. When he wasn't `retiring' them with his laser weapon, he dreamed of owning a live animal -- the ultimate status symbol in a world all but bereft of animal life. Then Rick got his chance: the assignment to kill six Nexus-6 targets, for a huge reward. But in Deckard's world things were never that simple, and his assignment quickly turned into a nightmare kaleidoscope of subterfuge and deceit -- and the threat of death for the hunter rather than the hunted...


Philip K. Dick is the perfect science fiction writer for people like me. I love science fiction as a genre, but when it gets super-sciencey describing the mechanical components of the doozer-watsit and the functionality of the howza-minx I usually have more than a little trouble visualising it in my head. Philip K. Dick, on the other hand, writes science fiction that focuses more on the characters and the events of the novel with the science taking a backseat, making it perfect for people who are new to the genre, or like me have a pathetic mind for visualising scientific doo-dads. (and remembering what they're called!)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a sophisticated and complex tale of reality, free will, identity, paranoia and reality. Set against a desolate and damaged Earth PKD questions and investigates those themes by following the protagonist Rick Deckard through an exhausting day of his life as a bounty hunter for the San Fransisco Police Department. Set with the task of hunting down and "retiring" escaped androids that have returned to Earth from the new settlements Rick goes through a bit of an existential crisis. The androids have become so well made that the only way to determine that someone is an 'it' and not a (s)he is to administer the Voight-Kampff Empathy test which has been known to misread and Rick struggles with this idea greatly, as well as the necessity of retiring androids that simply seem to be searching for a more fulfilling life.

While Rick seemed to have trouble retiring androids I really can't say I would have had the same problem. The androids lack of empathy is really quite horrible, and when combined with the fact that the story is told from a human perspective (and therefore contains a bit of bias) it's really hard to feel anything for them. In a world where animals are held with the greatest regard (since many are now extinct or endangered) and the humans fuse their emotions and empathy together through an 'empathy box' the androids selfishness and lack of empathy and regard for life stands out sharply against the humans they're trying to blend in amongst.

A prime example of this is the sub-plot surrounded John Isidore, a 'special' who is unable to emigrate to Mars because he failed the IQ test. When we first meet him in the book he's suffering from an all-consuming loneliness that not even the empathy box can help. He lives alone in an apartment block built to house over 1000 people, in a suburb almost completely deserted of human life. He's mocked endlessly at work for being a 'chickenhead' and as a means of escape he throws himself into Mercerism, the religion tied to the empathy box, where you fuse with everyone else using the box and take part in Mercer's endless climb up a hill. From the start the reader is set up to care for him and feel almost protective over this innocent and almost child-like man.

Because of the isolation of his apartment building it turns out to be the refuge of three fleeing androids and almost from the start they take advantage of Isidore and trample over his emotions. Because of their superior intellect they constantly talk down to him or as though he can't understand them and they don't bother to hide the fact that they're androids because they think he's too stupid to actually understand or ever do anything about it. In one of the most upsetting scenes in the book John finds a spider in the hallway which is incredible as wild animals are extremely rare in this dystopian world. When he takes his treasured find in to the others they wonder why it has 8 legs and "surely it could live with four," so they decide to cut off the legs and force it with a flaming match to walk on it's remaining legs. They show no concern at Isidore's distraught reaction but perhaps most disturbing of all is that they aren't particularly interested in finding out if it can walk with only four legs, in fact they seem rather bored by the whole thing, they simply do it because they can.

The androids are important to the story and it is the juxtaposition between them and the humans that paves the way for many of the themes, but at the core it is a story about Rick. He's the protagonist for a reason, his battle about killing androids is only one symptom of the greater existential crisis he's going through. He struggles to understand his wife who seems content to sit in a 6 hour depression rather than dial a button and have a synthetic emotion replace it. He envies and despises his neighbour for owning a rare and authentic pet horse. He has no trouble killing male androids, relishes it even, but shows empathy towards certain female andys. He values empathy and unity highly but avoids fusing with everyone else on the empathy box. He seems empty and constantly hunting for something to fill that void. It makes for an incredibly interesting protagonist, and also a fairly unpredictable one.

The story is a slow-burner. It starts off slow, feeding you a few words that gain importance later (Mercerism, Andy) and introducing you to the depressive lows that both John Isidore and Rick Deckard live amongst. As the day progresses the pace quickens and builds and more details emerge until suddenly you reach a crescendo of plot and character and action and... well I'll let you get there yourselves. It's a great story, quick (my edition was 194 pages) and chock full of big characters, interesting action and meaningful messages. A must-read.

My Rating: 4.5/5

Film Review: True Grit (2010)

True Grit

Released: 2010

Directed by: Ethan and Joel Coen

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld

For book review and synopsis go here






I left my book review of this work pretty short because I knew there was quite a bit I wanted to discuss about the film and I didn't want the content to overlap too much between them. I suppose to start I should say that the film is very faithful to the book, there are many, many lines taken directly from the book's dialogue and they managed to capture the characters that were so alive and brash in the book brilliantly. I read in an interview with Jeff Bridges that the Coen brothers had told him not to watch the John Wayne film but to read the book and that would give him all he needed to know about his character. Hearing something like that is usually a good sign. I've read interviews when the actor hasn't read the book because the director doesn't want him to get confused and start acting like the character from the book...sorry isn't that the point of adapting from a book?! There was only one incident that deviated from the book which I'll touch on in a little bit (it's a bit spoiler-ish so I don't want to scare people off from reading this review!) but first I want to discuss the actors and their characters in a bit of detail.

In my book review I raved a little about the protagonist, 14-year-old Mattie and now it is time to rave about the actress who took on the role, Hailee Steinfeld. To put it simply, she was amazing. Mattie is a fairly recognisable character and I think I was probably expecting her character to be a bit of a failure (although I'd already heard people rave over Steinfeld's performance) since more often than not child actors have trouble portraying really big or complex characters. I was wrong in that presumption, Steinfeld not only looked the part, this fantastic mix of the necessary femininity of the time and no-nonsense tomboy-ish-ness, but completely embodied all the components that made Mattie such an interesting and engaging character. I can only imagine how daunting working with such accomplished actors and directors would have felt for the young girl, but I'd love to imagine that she's just as hard, unassuming and brash as the girl she portrays and that the men fell down at her verbal slings just like they do in the film.

Steinfeld was supported by an incredible cast. Josh Brolin (as the villain Chaney) was phenomenal as per usual, as Jeff Bridges did such an amazing job as the drunken hard-ass Rooster Cogburn (though it was hard to understand his muttered accent at times) but who I really wanted to talk about was Matt Damon and his character in the film, LaBeouf. It's only recently that I've been able to tear Damon away from the "MATT. DAMON" Team America depiction. I'd enjoyed him in previous roles but I think it was the combination of the Team America rip and the flux of action and crappy films he did for awhile that sort of clouded him as an actor for me. Because of this little prejudice of mine I'm always surprised when I see him in a film and like him. This was one of those films. He melted into his character superbly and if I hadn't known he was in the film I possibly would have had trouble recognising him from time to time.

His character was a lot of fun. A Texas Ranger named LaBeouf runs into Mattie at Fort Smith as she prepares to take off after Chaney. As fate would have it LaBeouf has been on Chaney's tail for several years now (he's a fast and slimy devil), hunting him down so he can take him back to Texas to hang for the murder of a senator and his dog. Though they're playing for the same side Mattie wants Chaney to hang for her father's death and not some senator she doesn't know. For her it's personal, for LaBeouf it's financial. He'll rake in a bucket load if he returns Chaney to Texas dead, and even more if he manages to take the man in alive.

So alongside Chaney, LaBeouf becomes a bit of an enemy of Matties, especially when he tries to negate the arrangement she'd made with Rooster Cogburn and set up a new one with the two men working together to share the spoils. He's equal measures hard-ass, proper, pompous, eccentric (ish) and insulting (to everyone) and Matt Damon plays the part to perfection. He had the hoitey-toitey "I'm a Texas Ranger and you're a little girl child and lowly Marshall" air down pat, and he mixed it with this sensational dry sense of humour and...I want to say self-consciousness, but I'm not sure if that was right. His verbal sparring with Mattie is hilarious and some of the high points of the film for me. One of my favourite little spars takes place when they've first met and Mattie revealed she had hired a Marshall to head into the Indian Territory with him to catch Chaney. After a slick bit of banter between the two of them (with him on the losing side) he concludes with;

"Earlier tonight I gave some thought to stealing a kiss from you, though you are very young, and sick and unattractive to boot, but now I am of a mind to give you five or six good licks with my belt,"

This line is in the book as well and got a laugh from me there as well, but it was the combination of the bizarreness of a Texas Ranger acknowledging wanting to kiss a 14 year old (that knowledge seemed to come out of thin air), the hilarity of the insults he dishes out and his switch from prospective lover to father-figure with the way that Matt Damon played out that scene that had me almost in hysterics. It also does a good job of summing up their relationship in the film and the book for me.

I suppose this leads fairly neatly into the one deviation that the film took from the book. In the book and the film LaBeouf and Rooster take off together in search of Chaney and attempt to leave Mattie behind. She catches up and they let her come along (though in the book they keep trying to lose her and she has to ride hard to keep up) and everything goes swimmingly (though rather awkwardly) until an argument between them all ends with LaBeouf holding Mattie over his knee and spanking her for her insolence. In both the film and the book Rooster steps in and stops Le  Beouf from disciplining the girl, but what comes next is where they deviate (WARNING- SPOILERS A-COMING). In the book they calm down and continue on together and attempt to track down Chaney. In the film though, this is where LaBeouf takes his leave from the other two and a rivalry is set up over who will get to Chaney first. They do eventually end back up riding together, but not until they (Rooster and Mattie) come across two men in a little shanty house and plan an ambush on Chaney and the men he's riding with which results in LaBeouf getting a shot to the shoulder.

I can understand why they added the separation of the group in the film. it added suspense and drove the film forward and I think it actually aided in fleshing out the characters a bit more (since films never get that internal monologue or teeny details or side plots that books are filled with) so I'm definitely not criticising the move. I just thought it was interesting to note, and if anyone else has seen the film and read the book I'd love to hear in the comments what you thought of the split. I think what was important about the split not being an issue for me was that it didn't change the general structure of the book at all. After they split everything proceeded as normal except that LaBeouf's voice was absent until the ambush, and even then his role, though different, was essentially the same. In both the book and the film it was because of him the group of outlaws were able to get away, and whether it was an errant shot on his part (the book) or him getting in the way and getting shot (film) the direction it moved the story into was the same.

Overall though this is one of those wonderful times that a film lives up to the greatness of the novel and doesn't make any severe modifications to the content. I'd recommend this film to anyone, seriously, anyone who watches films. It was a perfect addition into the Coens Brother canon of work (seriously, I think Portis wrote this after visiting the future via TARDIS or DeLorean and meeting them) the acting was sensational, the storyline interesting, the dialogue sharp and witty and it was visually stunning. A solid film that deserves multiple viewings.

My Rating: 4.5/5

Review: True Grit by Charles Portis

True Grit
By Charles Portis

Published: 1968

Synopsis (Back cover): On a trip to buy ponies, Frank Ross is shot dead by Tom Chaney, one of his own workers, for a horse, $150 cash and two Californian gold pieces. When Ross's unusually single-minded fourteen-year-old daughter Mattie arrives to claim his body, she discovers that the authorities are doing nothing to find Chaney. Then she hears of Rooster - a man, she's told, who has grit - and convinces him to join her in a quest into dark, dangerous Indian teritory to hunt Chaney down and avenge her father's murder.


This is the second book I've read for the Two Bibliomaniacs 'Book to Movie' challenge, and I have to say I seem to have picked some real winners! True Grit is an amazing book, it's short and fun and action-packed and the characters are all larger than life.

So as the synopsis says, the book follows 14 year old Mattie Ross as she employs a marshal , Rooster Cogburn- a man they say has true grit, to hunt down her father's killer. Mattie, as our narrator, is the stand-out in this book. She's stubborn, precocious, solemn to the point of hilarious, forthright and obnoxiously hard to get rid of. I don't think anyone could accuse Mattie of doing anything half-way or letting people walk all over her, for a 14 year old girl in a man's world she made her wishes clear, and if people tried to spin her a line or cheat her she sure as hell lets them know. There are quite a few parts where Mattie goes head to head with someone much older, bigger and meaner than her but she always comes out on top after twisting their words or meeting their gaze or, when the time calls for it, shooting them with a gun nearly bigger than her. That said there are all these instances where her youth and ignorance of how the world really works comes through. I think that is part of the beauty of her character. While what we're hearing is a recount of the adventure she took part in as a girl, it's narrated by a much older Mattie, and while you can recognise that there are two Matties telling this story, you can't often tell the old from the young. She's this wonderfully fierce and independent girl who bosses people around but also instills a desire in them to protect her and her youthful beliefs.

The story itself is fantastic. It uses a mix of adventure, humour, history and phenomenal characters to capture your attention and weaves a story that is, for want of a better description, timeless. I'd be lying if I said I was an expert on American history or the wild west but the story had a very authentic feel to it. It was written in 1968, but if someone told me it had been written 60-80 years earlier I don't think I'd be quick to doubt them. Portis has a fantastic ability to completely suck you into the time and place of the story and by the end of it I felt like perhaps I had been there, or maybe I knew more about it than I thought I had.

There was perhaps only a couple of reasons that I'd doubt the book was in fact written in the time it was set, and that would be Portis' references to the general way people at that time viewed race, gender, politics and the sticky business of right and wrong. In a story that was about chasing down 'bad-guys' it did seem difficult at time to recognise the good guys from the bad. Rooster, though I loved him, was a bit of a bully and it sounds like his time spent in the confederate army under 'Captain' Quantrill shaped the way he viewed the world and what constituted good and bad. But he wasn't the only one who was far from black and white, all of the characters, except perhaps Mattie, acted on a desire for money, and what that money represented- independence, rest, respectability. These actions led to some bloody scenes, both in the course of the hunt for Tom Chaney and in the recounted scenes that happened in both the near and very distant past. I don't really want to postulate what I thought Portis wanted to pass on to his readers, so instead I'll just leave it by saying that the book, though a rollicking good read and great fun, also gave me quite a lot to ponder on.

I'm going to leave this review quite short since I'll be following up with a film review in a day or two.  With a quick scan on Goodreads it doesn't seem like anyone thinks it deserves less than 4 stars, and after reading it myself I'd have to agree that this is a book that anyone could get some enjoyment out of. There is a bit of everything (except romance) for everyone, and the easy flow of the writing will appeal to those of you who read anything at anytime and to those of you who are a bit more particular in what you pick.

My rating: 4/5

June Wrap-up

I don't usually do these but since a couple of challenges began this month I thought I'd start so that I can document my progress and all of that fun stuff. So I'll be listing all my challenges and progress and a mini-mini review and links back to the original reviews should you choose to check them out.

So!

Hosted by Two Bibliomaniacs

Aim: 8 books and 8 films.

Progress: 1 book and film so far. I'm thoroughly enjoying making my (slow) progress through this challenge.

Books Read:
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro - A fantastic read and a wonderful way to kick off the challenge. This book is one of my favourite reads of 2011, and is up there with my favourite books of all time.
Read the review here.

Films watched:
Never Let Me Go, starring Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield -A great movie but lacking some of the oomph of the book.
Read the review here.

Next to read:
True Grit by Charles Portis

Next to watch:
True Grit (2010) starring Matt Damon, Jeff Bridges and Josh Brolin.

Hosted by GabrielReads

Aim: Casual Reader   (1 book per month)

Progress: I am actually trundling on at a better rate than I'd expected, and if I continue like this I might end up aiming for Avid Reader.

Books read:
The Doctor is Sick by Anthony Burgess - A bit slow to start but by the end I really enjoyed it. Not quite A Clockwork Orange but it's left me hungry for more of his books.
Read review here

Pet Sematary by Stephen King - Terrifyingly fantastic. This was the first horror film I saw as a kid and I was glad to see the book was even more horrifying and insomniac-creating than the film!
Read review here.

Next to read:
TBA

Aim: 75

Progress: According to Goodreads, at 39 books read so far, I'm 3 books ahead. Let's see if I can keep it up!

Books read:
A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin - Fantastic! Full of intrigue, characters that spring off the page and a world that is so detailed, chaotic and beautiful.
Read review here.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman - Superb. An amazing mythical adventure. Can't even say how much I love it.
Read Review here.

Crooked Little Vein by Warren Ellis- Outrageous, hilarious and wonderful. Not for everyone, but if you can handle a bit of blood, sex, and foul language this book will knock your socks off!
Read Review here.

Aim: A new Harry Potter post every week until the final film comes out.

Progress: This little challenge is coming to a close, which makes me a little sad. It's been fun though, and it's always amazing when others take part!

Most recent post:
My favourite conspiracy theories that circulated the series.
Read it here.

Next post:
The most shocking or unexpected deaths in Harry Potter.
Read it on Wednesday the 6th of July.


Anything New:
In August I'm taking part in a month long reading challenge to raise money for MS Australia. They work tirelessly funding research into multiple sclerosis and trying to make MS sufferers lives a little easier, so I'm aiming to make as much money as I can to help them with their cause. So if you have some spare change jangling in your wallet or bank account maybe think about sending it to  a deserving charity. You can check out my progress and/or make a donation here. 
 
I'm on Tumblr now, you can find me at Nylon Admiral, Illustrated, and basically it is a companion blog to this one filled with all the photos, videos and bits and pieces that I don't feel right flooding this blog with. It isn't all book related though, more a mish-mash of the many things that inspire me and make me laugh.

I'm after some requests for my Fanart Friday feature. Each week I choose a book/author/character theme and then showcase several artists who have drawn, painted or sculpted around that theme. If you have a favourite book or character that you think would be perfect for this, or perhaps know an artist who creates bookish things then let me know in the comments section, via twitter (@Murphy_Kayleigh) or by email, kayleigh(.)f(.)murphy@gmail(.)com.


So there you have it, my June wrap-up. I'll continue to do this at the end of each month to keep you all up to date with my progress, but if you want to see my progress mid-month, or want links to my challenge reviews or posts you'll find them under the 'challenges' tab.

Film Review: Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go

Released: 2010

Directed by: Mark Romanek
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley

For synopsis read my book review


I really enjoyed this film, is was absolutely beauitfully shot and the actors did a far more amazing job than I'd actually expected them to. But it wasn't quite right. I have a few friends who'd seen the film and raved about it so I went in with fairly high hopes so perhaps that is why it fell a little flat for me. More than likely though, the reason it wasn't as great as I'd hoped was because I'd just read the book, and as you can tell from the review, I loved it. But first I figured I'd begin by telling you what I did like about this film.

Like I said it's beautifully shot, obviously a lot of work went into it and just the atmopshere created by the location, costuming, colouring and shots was more than I could have hoped for. There was a wistfulness to the way the camera sometimes lingered for just an extra moment as though drinking in the imagery, that perfectly represented the mood of the novel. That hunger to remember, to capture and experience really came through and I worship the crew of this movie for that. Another thing that really struck me was the emphasis on nature throughout the film. Many of the locations were along desolate beaches with cold grey waves crashing around, or along a forest path with the sad muted winter sun gleeming weakly through the leaves. Similarly their costumes were almost always greens and browns or greys and were so textured, not like the mass-produced synthetic stuff people wear so often nowadays. These are such tiny things in the grand scheme of things but it really tied in with the overall message that I think Ishiguro was getting at, the fragility of life and the beauty and sadness that accompanies such a fragile existence.

Ok so onto the actual storyline. For the most part it kept fairly true to the book, obviously it cut it down substantially but the generally sequencing of events mirrored the book well. The best thing they did was establish the relationship between Ruth and Tommy early on as kids, which if you've read my review you'll understand was the greatest flaw I recognised. Just the additon of a couple of choice lines and a couple of well prepared glances between characters and they filled the gap that had tripped me up so badly. The only problem was then they went to far in the other direction. The film concentrated almost purely on the romantic relationships and almost completely ignored the platonic relationships which were far more important in the long run. By focussing on the love triangle they sacrificed the real heart of the story and the characters, and I thought the overall message suffered from it especially badly. The book was such a subtle balance between all these different elements and just by tipping in favour of one of them it ended up ruining them all.

 Due to time constraints and this focus on the romantic they cut alot of the stuff about them growing up in Hailsham House. This meant they missed alot of the life lessons, personal growth and the complexity of their friendships with one another which were some of the most crucial elements needed so the ending could have the impact and devastating effect that it does. Watching the film I wondered if the screen writer had actually spent much time reading the book and truly understood it, because in the end it felt kind of empty.

Like I menioned above I think the reason the film fell so short was because I'd only finished the book the day before and it had had such a profound impact on me. I really did enjoy this film, and on its own I think it'd be an incredibly powerful and emotional film, but when you compare it to the majesty and intensity of the book it just didn't stand a chance. Well worth a watch though, just be prepared and keep some tissues handy!

My rating: 4/5

Review: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

Never Let Me Go
By Kazuo Ishiguro

Published in: 2005

Synopsis (from back cover): Ishiguro imagines the lives of a group of students growing up in a darkly skewed version of contemporary England. Narrated by Kathy, now thirty-one, Never Let Me Go dramatises her attempts to come to terms with her childhood at the seemingly idyllic Hailsham School and with the fate that has always awaited her and her closest friends in the wider world. A story of love, friendship and memory, Never Let Me Go is charged throughout with a sense of the fragility of life.


I have to apologise in advance because this review is probably going to be rather vague and disjointed because there is a central premise to this novel that I simply cannot reveal for fear of it spoiling your experience if you decide to read it. It isn't a massive twist or a secret held over the heads of the characters that you don't find out until the very end, in fact you find out pretty early (page 80 or so) and it's something the characters have always known. But still, it is a crucial component of the plot and I think you'll appreciate it more if you read it completely clear of any assumptions you might make.

I actually went into the book knowing the 'surprise,' it certainly didn't stop me from enjoying the book and I think I may have picked up on it before the reveal anyway (it is referred to somewhat cryptically earlier in the book several times) but I did wonder how I'd feel now if I hadn't known it at all. I hope I haven't talked it up too much now, it isn't some murder mystery clue but it is key to the depth and intensity of this novel.

The narration takes place in the 1990s and looks over the previous two decades, although there are clear parallels to situations that happened in our 1970-1990s and events that lead up to it, it is definitely an alternate 1970-1990s, a way the world could have been if we'd made certain discoveries or decisions different to the ones made in our timeline. The guts of that is never explained but there are veiled references to a war and scientific discoveries made in the 1950s. Ultimately it doesn't matter though, like Meg Rossof's How I Live Now, while all this other stuff is going on in the background the concentration is on the characters and their actions which may or may not have any solid relation to the political and social backdrop of the novel.

Very simply, Never Let Me Go is a love story. A sad, wistful love story which at its core is imploring it's readers to seize the day, to embrace and act on their feelings as soon as they're realised and to never let them go. Narrated by Kathy it covers three major periods she recognises in her life, from her earliest memories as a student at Hailsham house (ages 6-12), to the period just before she left Hailsham and moved to the cottages (ages 15-18), to the final period after she left the cottages and saw no more of Tommy and Ruth. Her narration takes place several years after everything has happened and there is a combination of nostalgia, hindsight, naivety, warmth and desperation to her story. She tries to so hard to tell you everything, to explain everything and help you understand why things happened the way they did. Even though the narration was specifically talking to another person ('it might have been different for you' etc) I got the feeling that the benefit was more for her, to make sense of her own memories and to keep them fresh so that they can never fade away.

I briefly mentioned Ruth and Tommy, and they are the other two characters who make up the central characters along with Kathy. Ruth is Kathy's best friend, although at times it is hard to understand why. As harsh and as cruel as she can be to Kathy there is a deep connection of love between them and perhaps Ruth's actions can be explained away as jealousy formed at an early age (and probably for no real reason), that insidious kind of jealousy some kids seem destined to foster and cling to through adolescence. Tommy is an absolutely wonderful character, he's such an innocent kid and everyone sort of takes advantage of that. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a bit of a crush on him, he's wonderfully earnest and really seems to be the only character in the story who truly understands everything that's happening.

The key to the success of this novel is the simplicity of it. It is deceptively simple, the language and the storyline are so subtle, that you don't realise how much heaviness and heartache and beauty there is in the book until you finish it and realise you can't move from the weight of it. I finished the book on my bus home from uni and I walked straight home, took off my shoes, slipped into bed under the doona and just curled up into a ball, just overcome with how devastating the book is. I stayed like that for about 20 minutes, absolutely heartbroken, until the heaviness began to recede. If you asked me to describe what it was about the book that made it hit me so hard I'd be unable to answer you. I loved the writing, and the characters and the voice and the messages but everything was just so understated that I never would have guessed halfway through that this book would impact me in the way it did.

It does have flaws, the most glaring for me would be surrounding the triangle set up between Tommy, Kathy and Ruth. It jumps from them as 10 year olds when Kathy is friends with Ruth and Tommy but Ruth and Tommy aren't friends to them being about 15 and Tommy and Ruth dating. I felt like I'd missed a chapter because I hadn't seen any signs that it was headed in that direction. I'd been reading fairly late at night so I actually went back and re-read it looking for some kind of sign that I'd missed before. I couldn't find one and that would be the single biggest fault in this book. It jarred me out of the story because I had to go back and try and work it out, and then it took awhile to fall back into the rhythm and accept this relationship that had no foundation what-so-ever.

Even so, this was an amazing book and I truly adore it. It is one of those special books that wriggles under your skin and remains there for days. It may be simple but there is an elegance and a beauty to it's simplicity that is impossible to deny. I recommend this to anyone who has a heart, but I sincerely recommend that you steer clear of reading it on public transport!


My rating: 5/5

~This is my first review for the 'Book to Movie' challenge. Click HERE to read the companion piece I've written about the film adaptation and keep an eye out for my other reviews to come under the challenges tab up top.~