My opinions are my own. Feel free to leave comments/recommendations in the "ask" section. Parties interested in requesting a pre-publication book review, please email [email protected].
I've wanted to read Mindy's first autobiography for years, and I'm so thrilled that I finally got around to it. As expected, I absolutely LOVED it. Kaling's quirky voice is both as hilarious as you would expect it to be and astonishingly relatable; if you think that her character in "The Mindy Project" is the most "about you" character that you've ever seen, then you need to experience the magic that is Mindy Kaling "IRL".
I was particularly fond of the chapters that reflected back on the time that she spent with her best friends, Brenda & Jocelyn; she doesn't sugarcoat anything and depicts her friendships in such a real (and often hilarious) way that it will leave you thinking, "did she write this about herself, or about me and [insert best friend's name here]? Is Mindy Kaling stalking me? God, I hope so. That'd be tight."
Another huge highlight for me was reading about the conception of "Matt & Ben", the parody play that she and Brenda wrote about Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Who doesn't dream about portraying their favourite actors, albeit in an over-the-top, cheeky, bro-tastic fashion? I wish that I could see a production of it in its full slapstick glory, and I'm beyond miffed that the play is currently out of stock at my local bookstore. I NEED TO GET MY HANDS ON A COPY ASAP.
Whether you're a woman learning to love herself, an aspiring comedy writer, a huge fan of Kaling, or all three, "Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns)" is an absolute must have for your bookshelf. I loved every single page, and I'm eager to jump into "Why Not Me?" next! Cheers, Mindy!
This was my first experience reading something written by the lovely Jennifer Donnelly, and I was SO impressed. She captures and embodies the text's iconic characters beautifully - perfectly, even. This is the sort of story that I've been waiting quite literally my entire life for - a little glimpse into what happened before the curse was broken, and more insight into the development of Belle and the Beast/Prince Adam's relationship.
The book portrays their love, and their love of everyone else so wonderfully. I simply can't rave enough about all of the little scenes between Belle/the Beast and Chip; they were so precious! That's a dynamic that I've always loved, and I'm so glad that Donnelly expanded upon it even further than the films do. It almost makes you wonder, why didn't Chip break the curse? He and the Beast share the sweetest familial love that I've ever seen.
Bravo! I sincerely hope, deep in my heart, that Miss Donnelly may grace us with more "Beauty and the Beast" inspired stories - perhaps, even, a sequel to the 2017 film? The way she writes the characters is so phenomenal. I would LOVE to see what she could do with the after-curse dynamic.
For anyone who is a fan of the new film, or even the 1991 original, I highly recommend giving this book a shot. It's a must-read, relatable tale for bookworms everywhere.
For my entire life, I've been completely obsessed with dinosaurs. Of course, every kid is, at one point or another, but for some of us, it just... sticks. As with most children born in the 1990s, I think my obsession really started with watching the "Land Before Time" movies, but it didn't EXPLODE until I watched "Jurassic Park" for the first time.
I think everyone who has seen "Jurassic Park" has a very vivid memory of the first time that they saw it. It's just one of those movies that has a profound effect on you, no matter how old you are - it's magical, seeing those dinosaurs who, up until that point, lived only in your imagination, come to life. For me, my first time watching "Jurassic Park" was in the second grade; I had begged my mother to let me watch it for ages, and on a day I happened to be home sick, it was playing on television.
Ever since that day so long ago, the "Jurassic Park" trilogy has been my lifelong favourite series of films, and I've spent years trying to get my hands on the books that inspired them. Not so surprisingly, when you're a kid, it's difficult to find them. I would go to the library, as an eager elementary schooler, and ask the librarian if they had the "Jurassic Park" books. She would always bring me handfuls of the movie tie-ins, but never Crichton's novels. I'm not sure if it was my age that kept people from giving me the novels I really wanted, or if people genuinely forgot there were books before the movies, but I was never able to find the real books until this summer.
In a way, I'm glad it took me so long to get my hands on them. I know that, as a dinosaur obsessed kid, I wouldn't really have understood Crichton's work. Because, while the films were marketed largely toward children, the books certainly were not.
Crichton's first "Jurassic Park" novel, like the movie it inspired, tells the story of a theme park on an island off the coast of Costa Rica, filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs. Many of the characters are the same, and the basic plot is the same, but the stories themselves are different. Very different.
You see, the film left out a plethora of details that, I think, are crucial to what Crichton was trying to comment on in his novel. Much of the book is intended to be a commentary on modern science - "Your scientists were so preoccupied with if they could [clone dinosaurs], that they never stopped to think if they should!" - and a lot of that commentary is lost in the film. While Ian Malcolm's "chaos theory" does eventually play out in the movie, it begins to display itself much earlier in the book. It happens in the first few pages, in fact, when it is revealed that dinosaurs have been escaping from the island, migrating to the main land and attacking children, which doesn't happen at all in the movies.
If anything, the book makes it clear that the park is going to be a disastrous failure from the very start. The movie, however, contains the faintest glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, Jurassic Park will succeed.
Which brings me to the fact that Jurassic Park's creator, John Hammond, could literally be two completely different people in the book and the movie adaptation. In the book, he's clearly meant to be a comment on rich capitalists - namely, white males - who have little care for anything but making lots and lots of money. He is, in many ways, portrayed as naive and thoughtless and, at times, even a bit cruel. When his own grandchildren are in danger, he is hesitant - no, he is adamant that "his animals" not be harmed. His grandchildren may die, but his million dollar dinosaurs cannot, under any circumstances, be destroyed. Crichton seems to be using Hammond's character to display science's little regard for the importance of life - as long as an advancement can be used to make money, it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way. Even innocent children.
Yet, in the movies, Hammond's character is entirely changed. I think this was likely done because, in short, the original version of John Hammond is just plain despicable. But, the films portray him as a kind man who, instead of wanting to make a quick buck, just wanted to give the world, namely children, something to marvel at. The audience feels for him because, unlike his counterpart, his heart always seems to be in the right place and, when the park ultimately turns out to be a disaster, he recognizes that it can never be opened. In the book, however, he was very passionate about trying again.
Hammond's character isn't the only one who is drastically different in the novel. Quite honestly, after growing up watching "Jurassic Park" over and over again, the vastly different versions of these characters I have known for so long was a bit of a shock to the system. Lex and Tim are polar opposites - instead of being the older sibling, Lex is a young girl, and Tim is her computer savvy, dinosaur obsessed older brother. It was a bizarre switch that definitely took some getting used to.
Ian Malcolm, who I've always known to be suave, cocky, even sexy, is a balding middle-aged mathematician who seems to be more like a cocky 80s rock star who has gotten plump with age.
And Alan Grant, who I always thought hated children because they're noisy, and they smell... actually likes kids. He likes kids from the very start. Not a single negative feeling in sight. It was... well, it was weird.
But, at the same time, these differences in character and plot were interesting. When I picked up this book, I expected to read something fairly close to the film, but it was nothing like it at all. It was an entirely new "Jurassic" adventure. Certain quotes here and there were the same, but so many of the plot details were left out in the first film. In fact, after rewatching the trilogy and the new "Jurassic World" film after finishing the book, it becomes clear that many details from just the first of Crichton's novels alone were cherry-picked for the rest of the movies, because they weren't included in the first.
To conclude, I think finally reading "Jurassic Park" is solid proof for why I always try to read the book before I ever watch movie adaptations. So much of the story is lost when the movie gets made, for a multitude of reasons - length, audience appeal, meeting a rating acceptable for children. But, at the same time, I think a part of me regrets reading the book. As good as it was, and as interesting as Crichton's commentary on science is... I think I liked it better when the films were this magical legacy that I grew up loving. Now, each time I watch the movies, I'm worried I may end up comparing them to what Crichton intended "Jurassic Park" to be.
So, while I do recommend this book to anyone interested in dinosaurs, I don't necessarily recommend it to lovers of the "Jurassic Park" films. It's just too different, and effectively takes away from the magic and heart that the films always held. I do intend to read "The Lost World", just to see how this new angle wraps up, but I still think, deep down, I will always prefer the movies. This is a rare occurrence for me, but it's true just the same.
By far one of the most entertaining books I have ever had the pleasure to read, The Nanny Diaries takes its reader on a whirlwind adventure through the life of Nan, a child development student at NYU, and caretaker of various upper-class New York families' children. This story in particular focuses on her stint as Grayer X's nanny, and my, oh my, is it a wonderful ride!
First of all, if you have ever had the pleasure of taking care of a child before, this book should absolutely be on your "must read" list. It perfectly demonstrates how easy it is to get attached to a wonderful little person, and what it's like to watch them grow - as well as what it's like to, eventually, have to let them go.
A commentary on the role of nannies in raising privileged children, The Nanny Diaries shows readers that, behind the wide smiles and glistening jewelry and perfectly polished silverware, not all is always well behind a wildly expensive apartment's closed doors. It brings to light that children with wealthy parents often end up neglected and, as a result, a tad broken. Money really cannot buy happiness, especially when you're a three-year-old who wants, more than anything in the world, for your mother to just sit down and watch Sesame Street with you instead of heading off to the spa, or for your father to come home every once in a while.
Thus, the neglected role of the parent falls on the nanny's shoulders. And, unsurprisingly, when you spend so much time with a child who is otherwise ignored by the people in his life, it's easy to develop a strong bond. The authors of The Nanny Diaries were incredibly clever in how they orchestrated this; not only does Nan get attached to Grayer, but the reader does, as well. You feel for him when his father leaves without saying goodbye; you want to be there, taking care of him when he gets sick; you find yourself muttering about "what a positively horrid bitch" his mother is every time she "spatulas" him away from her and refuses to give him the attention that he deserves. The authors have Grayer leave his handprint on the reader's heart as well as Nan's, which makes it that much easier to get deeply absorbed in the story.
Thankfully, there are side characters who help to ease the tugging at one's heartstrings the main plot tends to do. Nan's friends, Sarah and Josh, along with her flamboyant grandmother and parents, provide hilarious commentary on Nan's deep investment in her "temporary" nanny job, helping to remind the readers that she really can't stay with Grayer forever. Eventually, she'll have to stop stressing over Grover nightlights and "Goodnight Moon" and move on with her life.
There is also "Harvard Hottie", more often referred to as H.H. - an extremely attractive young man that lives in the X's building. The budding romance between Nan and H.H. (whose real name readers apparently don't learn until the sequel) was one of the book's most well written qualities. From the hilarious moments, like Nan being caught in the elevator clad in a horrible Teletubbie costume at Halloween, to the tender moments, like late night phone calls with words of advice, the reader will be undoubtedly rooting for these two. Chapters featuring their relationship are a nice change of pace from bathtime and booster seats.
All in all, this was a book that I thoroughly enjoyed. I felt like I was present during all of Nan's ups and downs (particularly her race to complete term papers on time), and Grayer has nestled his way permanently into my heart. Readers won't want to put this book down - much like caring for a child, you just never know what's going to happen next, or what might come out of their mouths. I give this book a strong five star rating, and can't wait to get my hands on the sequel!
In a stunning turn of events, I believe I've just found my new favourite book. Yes - "Kissing Shakespeare", which I got for a bargain of $5.00 ages ago not really thinking anything of it, has even surpassed "Ella Enchanted". Move over, Gail Carson Levine; Pamela Mingle is definitely giving you a run for your money.
When I first bought the book, it was purely out of curiosity. I thought to myself, "It's probably going to be cheesy and difficult to read. Why else would it have been so cheap?"
I was incredibly wrong. The book itself is beautifully written, combining the dialect of Elizabethan times with quotes from some of Shakespeare's finest works. The characters were enchanting and came to life as if you were standing right in the room with them, and the setting - oh my, the setting! Houghton Tower couldn't have been described more beautifully. It's clear that the author has a deep set love for the place, because her descriptions of it paint a truly beautiful picture in the reader's mind. I'm walking away from this book with a completely new knowledge not only of the Elizabethan time period's customs, but of its architecture as well. Certainly not what I expected from a $5.00 book.
But now let's get to the truly juicy part. The story. "Kissing Shakespeare" tells the tale of a young girl who is whisked away by a time traveling Elizabethan man - very "Doctor Who" - on the opening night of her theatre company's production of "The Taming of the Shrew". It turns out that a young William Shakespeare's life is in danger, and the only way his works will come to exist is if Miranda, the novel's protagonist, seduces him.
Filled with laughs, intrigue, and unexpected love right up until its tearful conclusion, "Kissing Shakespeare" took my love of the Bard's work and made it into something completely new. Mingle has me desperate for more! Could a sequel be in our future? I can only hope, or I may need to enlist Stephen to help me change a few things...
Just as "To Kill A Mockingbird" was a tale of childhood innocence and learning about the harsh realities of the world, "Go Set A Watchman" is a riveting sequel that highlights how we never fully shake that innocence.
Scout, now twenty-six years old, has returned from New York to visit her hometown only to find her life in shambles. People who she thought she could trust, who she loved, have been keeping secrets from her; secrets that force her to really grow up, no matter how badly she wants to keep that sense of wonder that allows her to idolize the boy next door and make her father out to be God.
We take this journey into adulthood with Scout, experiencing every ounce of her pain and confusion and relating to it all from our own experiences. We laugh when she recounts tales from her youth - tales of playing games that got her into trouble, tales of the horrors of puberty, tales of her awkward teenage transition - and we feel for her when she snaps back to the harsh reality of the place she's in currently in her life. No matter how badly we may want to hold onto the past, it's just that - the past. All we can do is learn from it, treasure it, bury our dead and keep moving forward. Because if we don't adapt to the world we're living in, if we just keep trying to run and hide from it, we'll "be the same as we are now, even when we're sixty." And if we don't accept that the world is changing, how can we ever fight for what we believe to be right?
Of all the books I've read in a very long time, this was by far one of the most powerful. Not because it had epic battles or big fancy words that not many people understand, but because it carried a message that really matters. The funny thing is, when you start to read it, it doesn't seem like it will be one of those books that inspires you to do something. It doesn't seem like one of those books at all.
John Green and David Levithan were extremely clever when they fabricated this story. At first, it just seems like it's your average novel about teen angst and romance. You have your usual cast of high school characters; the outcasts, the geeks, the goth, the theatre kids, and the guy who- in the words of A Very Potter Musical's Dumbledore- is as gay as the fourth of July. For around the first 200 pages, you don't expect what's coming. You just think it's a book about two guys who just happen to have the same name, both in serious will they - won't they relationships. You think the conclusion of the book will just be if Will ends up with Tiny, and if Other Will ends up with Jane. But that's not it. That's not it at all.
You see, around page 250, things start to change. The book doesn't follow the typical plot of a teen romance, where the characters have to wind up together in the end. It does something different. The end of the book conveys the message that, above all else, we need to appreciate the people who we have in our lives. We need to appreciate the things they do for us, and the things that they do for others. We need to appreciate who they are, and the courage that it takes to be themselves. Above all else, we need to appreciate each other. That's what the book ends up teaching us. It teaches us that love comes in all shapes and sizes, and that it doesn't always have to end in romance. Because love and romance are two very different things. Love, as we saw in both of the Will Graysons, is friendship. Love is appreciating the friends that you have. Love is falling, and love is picking people back up when they fall.
It's not easy to sneak life lessons like that into such a witty, entertaining story. But John and David managed to pull it off. I'll certainly be taking something from this book, and I'll be walking away with one thought very prevalent thought in my mind:
This better be made into an absolutely FABULOUS movie. If not, may the ghost of Oscar Wilde haunt you all.
Just about every show centered around the pursuit of criminals has the ability to give you the shivers, but in a world now oh-so-centered around technology and the internet, CSI: Cyber does so in an entirely new way, and it’s terrifying.
Just about all of us these days use computers or the internet in one way or another, and that includes criminals. While social media has made it easier for investigators to catch perps, it has also made it easier for the perps to commit their crimes, and that’s what CSI: Cyber is all about; cyber crimes that will leave you hesitant to touch a keyboard or sit in front of a webcam for hours after you've watched the pilot.
You may watch the first episode and think, “Oh, it’s just a show, there’s nothing for me to be afraid of,” but that’s far from the case. Cyber crimes like the ones featured in the show are becoming more and more of a regular occurrence, from stalking to murder to, as showcased in the show’s pilot, kidnappings. It’s truly terrifying to think that just about any creep could be watching your child through your baby-cam, and it certainly made viewers wonder what ever happened to the good old fashioned baby monitor.
While cyber crimes are being written more frequently into crime productions, such as episode 1x17, “Social Engineering”, of Forever, the fact that scenarios like these are the sole subject of this new program is intriguing. I’m eager to see where they go with it.
As for the cast, I found they had an interesting dynamic, but with one fatal flaw; they don’t seem to interact as a whole very much. Unlike other teams in shows of the same genre, such as NCIS and it’s multiple spin-offs, or Criminal Minds, the team of crime fighters in Cyber doesn't seem to be very tightly knit. Yes, I realize that it’s only the first episode and I can’t expect to see a great team dynamic right away, but I would have liked to have had a better feel for their bond; I think that the lack of this aspect is why, while the plot is interesting, I didn't feel any real connection with the characters. If they don’t connect with each other, how can the audience be expected to?
All in all, I give the plot and premise of CSI: Cyber a 5/5, but the characters a 2.5/5. The only personal moment we had with any of them was at the very end of the episode, where we get a feel for why Avery Ryan became a special agent, but other than that the majority of them were very dry and lacked substance. We saw your typical crime drama archetypes; the computer geek, the soldier, the funky girl with a unique style, and the fearless leader with a tragic back story; but I need more from all of them before I can really have any sort of emotional attachment to this new group of people. However, the show has an incredible cast and I have faith that, with good scripts and strong character development, they can pull it off.
Criminal investigations, radiation storms, conspiracies and innocents held at gunpoint; while episode 1x01 of Ascension set the foundation, 1x02 began to assemble the building blocks of one whirlwind story filled with plot twists at every turn.
The entire episode has you on the edge of your seat, trying to make sense of everything that's happening, but it isn't until the last two minutes that things come to a screeching halt, and it all starts to make sense.
Ascension isn't an exploration project, it's an experimentation project. The shifting of the stars, the radiation storms that strike, even things as simple as the flush of a toilet are all being controlled in an Earthbound lab, and we as viewers come to realize that Ascension, filled with a crew fifty-one years in the making, never really left Earth's atmosphere.
The entire project has been orchestrated to determine what would happen on the real thing, and the people on the ship have absolutely no idea that they are taking part in a lifelong experiment. But, if everything is controlled down to the finest detail, it makes both the scientists and the audience wonder... how did a gun get onto the ship?
Yes, yes, yet another twist revealed itself in this thrilling episode; the artifact that Stokes gave Lorelei in the pilot was a gun and, while we have no idea where it came from, it begs the question of whether or not the lower deck crew really are planning a revolution, and if Lorelei may have, for some reason or another, been involved. Was she in it for James? Or simply because she believed the same conspiracy theories that all of them did? That being said, if they were in it together, why would someone from the lower deck have killed her? Hence my new theory that it was someone up above that did it, and I have further proof that the Captain's wife was in on it.
While the Captain's main focus in his position is to ensure a safe journey for those aboard Ascension, his pretty little wife has other aspirations. She's incredibly power hungry, using her "girls" to gain favours and information from the powerful people aboard the ship and, when news of Lorelei's death breaks, she isn't the slightest bit shaken; instead, she sees it as an opportunity. An opportunity to ensure her place on the ship, and her husband's power. The murderer to her isn't someone to be feared; it appears that she practically thinks of him as someone to thank, for giving her the opportunity to make her husband and his crew seem like the good guys. Given her pompous outlook on life, it wouldn't surprise me if she thinks lowly of the lower deckers; she could even be working to frame them for Lorelei's death, thus enforcing the stereotype that they are rowdy, dangerous, and lesser than those up above. I'm telling you, she can't be trusted- but, as it turns out, neither can the Captain himself.
Really, sir? You sent your right-hand man on a mission to find Lorelei's killer, but you don't bother to mention that you were having an affair with her? I'd expect that from your wife, but from you? Oh, the shame. It's beginning to look like no one can trust anyone aboard this ship- everything is, quite literally, one big conspiracy.
Maybe those on the lower deck are smarter than others give them credit for.
Who doesn't love a classic who-done-it tale? In the 2014-2015 television year, it's been an ever popular theme with shows like How to Get Away With Murder, the up and coming Secrets and Lies, and even Gotham, with the pressing question of who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. But Ascension has added a twist to the TV trope that makes it unique in its own right; the murder takes place in outer space.
The series starts out with a shot of Lorelei, the show's rather unfortunate murder victim, going for a swim along what appears to be your typical Earth-bound waterfront beach. We learn later that the beach is really just another level of the space ship Ascension, which is in the fifty-first year of its one-hundred year journey to keep the human race alive. The timeline makes for an interesting view of the passengers' culture given that, decades after certain trends should have fizzled out, songs like Frank Sinatra's "Fly Me to the Moon" along with other swing tunes are still being performed at higher deck parties. It makes one wonder how much contact those on the ship have with Earth, as well as how the humans aboard Ascension thrived for so long with what clearly must be very little change in the way their mini-society functions. That brings me to my next point: class levels.
Much like the way things were aboard ocean liners like RMS Titanic, the people aboard Ascension are divided into social classes. The captain and his high class associates live on higher levels of the ship, and those with dirty jobs such as water purification, being the lower class passengers, live in lower levels. It is revealed later in the episode, after Lorelei's murder, that Lorelei was intimately involved with a boy belonging to the lower levels, which begs the question, in my mind anyway, if her murder may have been an act of social justice. Are the lower level passengers finally revolting after decades of mistreatment?
Yet, high class or low class, there's one thing that every passenger aboard the ship goes through in their life, and that is "the Crisis". Dr. Juliet Bryce, the ship's head medical physician, explained that the Crisis is essentially when a passenger born on the ship realizes the limitations that their life will have; there are jobs available on Earth not available aboard Ascension, as well as just the concept of freedom. They grow up with the knowledge that they were born on Ascension, and will die on Ascension; millions of miles away from Earth, the it can begin to feel like a trap, which is exactly how Lorelei felt. So, was her murder a cold-blooded act, or was someone simply doing the very troubled girl a favor? Did she not want to die, or was that exactly what she wanted; to be set free from her intergalactic prison?
Finally, the last detail that really caught my attention were the Stewardesses. The Stewardesses, at first glance, appear to be a group of high class, well bred girls trained in etiquette by the Captain's wife herself, somewhat like girls who had been sent off to finishing school. It wasn't until the last twenty minutes or so of the pilot that their true job descriptions were hinted at; that they are very pretty, well trained, high class prostitutes. The concept of young women apprenticing in such a field reminded me a lot of the companions from Firefly, and I'm interested to see what the story does with such a familiar plot. My main question at the moment is if their professions are widely known, or if their true usage is a secret that the Captain's wife is keeping from him, not unlike her affair. All things aside, I don't trust the woman; it honestly wouldn't surprise me if she had a hand in Lorelei's demise.
So... who-done-it? Who aboard the USS Ascension is secretly a murderer, and why? I'm eagerly anticipating watching such a unique murder mystery unfold, as well as the other dirty secrets surrounding it.
Over the weekend, I finally got around to watching this movie- and, like most romantic comedies from every country other than America, it didn't disappoint.
Her first book, Happy Ending, was a huge hit- with just about everyone but herself. Based on her less than satisfactory relationship with her dad, the novel was originally supposed to be titled The Endless Anguish of My Father until her publisher, Tom Duval, changed it at the last minute without asking her opinion. This prompted Jane to desire to switch publishers; the only problem was that she promised Tom one more book, and she can't seem to finish the last chapter.
Thus begins the whirlwind ride of Jane's life, complete with everything from hallucinating her main character, Darcie, to attempting to write- and getting caught- while naked.
This was, by far, one of the quirkiest feel-good movies that I've seen in a long time, and it did not disappoint. The film contained a cast of incredible Scottish actors such as Karen Gillan (Jane), Henry Ian Cusick (Willie), and Iain De Caestecker (Roddy), and all of their performances were spot on. Between the heart to heart moments that Jane had with her father and some of the funnier scenes with Roddy and his students, Not Another Happy Ending managed to make you feel for the characters and laugh out loud at the same time.
You can watch the movie here, thanks to a helpful little youtuber who managed to upload it. I'd been struggling all summer to find a place to watch it, and I really wish it was an easier movie to acquire. It's the kind of film you'll want to watch again and again.
If you watch I hope that you enjoy it, and feel free to drop a comment and let me know what your thoughts were!
There's no denying that being a nerd is "in" right now, and Scorpion brings to the table a whole new cast of them that you'll come to love within thirty minutes of the first episode.
Based on real life genius Walter O'Brien,
Scorpion
is a fictionalized account of his life. The pilot episode tells the story of a hacking fiasco at LAX, in which communications from over fifty planes was cut off, and the federal government requires the assistance of O'Brien and his team of geniuses to save thousands of lives.
So far, reviews of the show have been either negative or mixed, but I loved it; maybe it's because I can relate to a lot of the characters. Because of their advanced intelligence, most of them spent a good portion of their lives isolated from society, and just about everyone knows what it feels like to be alone. While many viewers found the characters one dimensional and lacking, I thought they were excellently portrayed and done in a realistic fashion; more often than not, smart people do feel isolated. They can be arrogant, as Walter showed, but that's not always the case. People like Dodd, the "human calculator", are perfectly nice, but because he's so smart people likely avoided him. The life of a genius is almost always cursed to be a lonely one, and the way the writers showed that in just one episode proves that the show has potential- at least among viewers, like myself, who can relate to the feeling of isolation.
Plot wise, I didn't find the show was "bland" like so many other people seemed to. It has a vibe similar to that of Marvel's Agents of SHIELD; a team of genius misfits who take on action packed adventures with the goal of aiding the greater good. Pack that in with a bit of the quirkiness found in shows like The Big Bang Theory and you've got a show that nerds far and wide aught to love. So what's the problem thus far?
Personally, I'm hoping that the viewer response picks up within the next few episodes. If not, I'm worried that the show may be on the fast track to being cancelled, which would be a shame; I'm eager to see where it goes.
Gotham: it's not a city for good guys, according to Harvey Bullock. Called the most highly anticipated show of the season, the television series of the same name as its famed city premiered tonight. But did it live up to all of the summer's hype?
The pilot began with what fans of Batman know to be the moment that started it all; the unjust slaughter of Bruce Wayne's parents, Thomas and Martha. But who-done-it? That's the question James Gordon and the viewers had to ask themselves and, by the end of the episode, it still wasn't answered. If anything, all it did was leave us with a seemingly endless string of suspects and an insight into just how corrupt the Gotham police department really is. Could the Wayne murders be the big story arc of the show's first season? It seems likely, but the writers will have to be careful if they go down that road. Chances are, with the villain origin stories mixed in, the plot won't get tiresome, but it has the potential to if not treated wisely.
Yet, if we're being perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is really tuning in to find out about Batman's parents' murderer(s); a high percentage of viewers care more about the backstories of the baddies that we were promised. With characters like the Riddler and Penguin, how can we not be interested?
As for the first, we didn't really see much of him in the show's first episode. It would appear that our favourite riddle spinner may be a consultant for the GPD, which leads us to wonder what sends him spiraling south- if he's not already there.
The second, however, viewers got quite the taste of. Penguin's psychotic nature and lust for power lead to him betraying Fish Moony, who appeared to be a mother-like figure to him, and he was ordered to be killed. In fact, it was James Gordon who was enlisted to do the killing- but he didn't. In a very Lion King Scar-esque fashion, he told him never to return to Gotham and then pushed him off of the pier. Believing him to have killed Penguin, Harvey then fully accepts Gordon as his partner.
But what does this mean for Penguin? We all know he isn't really going to "run away and never return", so I, along with many of the other viewers of the pilot, are eager to find out what's next for him.
As for Catwoman? Well, her origins still seem pretty foggy. She was seen prowling around Gotham on various occasions, but never really interacted with anyone. Where do her loyalties lie? Will her age cause her to become more involved with Bruce than the other characters, thus beginning that strange, rocky relationship we all know (and some, including myself, love)? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
All in all, I give this series' first episode a 4/5 rating. It's good enough to keep me coming back for more, but wasn't quite as good as all of the buzz made it seem like it was going to be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they can earn that 5/5 with next week's episode. Until then!
While last weeks episode didn't give me a whole lot to write about, this week's certainly did; I had to make notes and everything.
First things first; have you found yourself wondering how much money Apple is giving the producers of this show to have the only phone any of the characters uses be an iPhone? Because I certainly did this week. We got a lot of shots of characters talking on the phone between Jack, Shepherd, and Madison's mother, and the only phone any of them seems to own is, of course, an iPhone. It's a few brighter colours and some cheesy acting away from being a full blown Apple commercial. But anyway, onto the
real
reviewing.
First off is just a funny little detail that I noticed about Amy regarding the actress who plays her (Mira Sorvino). It was brought to our attention this week (and in several earlier episodes) that the ghost possessing Amy has a thing for jazz music (and a man involved with it). I couldn't help but find it entertainingly convenient that Mira played Daisy Buchanan in the 2000 film adaptation of The Great Gatsby, which took place during the era of jazz. Could the casting be a subtle nod toward that? Probably not, but it amused me just the same.
Speaking of Amy, both this week and last week we were finally given a glimpse into the secret life she's been keeping from Jack and, not surprisingly, it's even more shifty and terrifying than he imagined. Between odd documents with her name on them and a creepy mummification, both Jack and us as the audience members were left disturbed and just as baffled as ever regarding who is possessing Amy, and why.
Then there's the topic of the mysterious Bill Anderson. Who is he? Why was his family killed in the pilot? Why are the conspiracy radio broadcasters so infatuated with him? The answer: Bill is a scientist who invented a machine that picks up on frequencies (sounds) in the range of 19 hertz; which, evidently, is known as the "ghost frequency", because his machine enables people to see ghosts. Could this machine possibly reveal the truth about the Intruders to the human population? It's a decent theory, given that they had Shepherd kill him right in the middle of a diner while he was speaking with Jack and Gary.
Finally, let's talk about Madison. Or Marcus. Or both of them at once, I suppose, since the psycho jerk is still possessing the poor girl. In this week's episode we caught glimpses of Madison fighting against Marcus's grip on her subconscious, and I'd say she did a pretty good job considering she's only nine years old. That being said, maybe fear and being upset is a way for the host to fight against the ghost possessing them. That would explain why the more submissive hosts aren't making a lot of appearances (i.e. Amy).
It was also hinted at in both this week's episode and last week's episode that Marcus was likely a child molester. Add that to the rapidly growing list of why I can't stand the guy. I'm rooting for Madison all the way, and I hope she figures out how to get rid of Marcus and get back to her parents where she belongs. That being said, at least she was able to break free long enough to contact them before she ended up fainting from the effort it obviously took her to do so.
That brings me to the quick topic of triggers. It seems like certain things, like Madison seeing her mother's name ("Alison") and digits in her phone number, can bring the original soul back to the conscious state in their body, even if only for a brief period of time. My main theory at the moment is that someone (possibly Jack) will be able to find some sort of trigger that will have a more permanent effect, thus burying and/or getting rid of the ghost possession forever.
In conclusion, this week's episode was one that finally gave us some answers while giving us just enough questions to make us want to watch more. I give this episode a 5/5 review and strongly recommend that you continue watching with me.
Clearly, Intruders is going to be one of those shows that just gets better as the season progresses. Filled with intrigue, twists and jumps, the second episode was even better than the first.
The episode picks up with Madison's mother wandering the beach of their summer home, searching for her daughter who she assumes has been abducted. Police are later on the scene and Madison's father, Simon, shows up.
Madison, of course, is still possessed by Marcus, who needs to get to Seattle. Seattle appears to be a meeting place for these resurrected souls considering that's also where Jack has been searching for his missing wife, Amy.
But we also learn later in the episode that Marcus wasn't supposed to be brought back. The question is: why?
Personally, I have a few theories:
Shepherd killed Marcus, so now he wants revenge against the entire organization.
Marcus went rogue and did some bad things, causing the organization to put him down.
Thus, my best guess is that Shepherd was trying to prevent Madison from becoming possessed, and not the other way around. It seems like he may be able to fix her, given he promised her parents he would bring their missing daughter back- or was that just a lie? Does he really plan to kill her, like he was going to initially? Shepherd doesn't exactly seem like the nicest guy in the world, and Marcus seems to have a pretty firm hold on Madison as his host.
My main question at the moment is if it's even possible to restore the proper person to their host body, fully. Whoever called Jack using Amy's phone said that she "was gone". In my opinion, this means that whoever is possessing her has control over when she gets to be conscious in her body. Thus, if this Russian woman wants her gone, Amy might never surface again. The same might go for Madison.
So what's going to happen next? The promo for next week's episode, "Time Has Come Today", seems to hint that we might finally get some of our questions answered- and that we're going to end up with a whole lot more. I guess we'll have to tune in and see. Until then, happy watching! Feel free to leave your thoughts in my ask.
On August 24th, BBC America's newest sci-fi drama premiered. With a star studded cast including John Simm and Mira Sorvino, and former Doctor Who producer Julie Gardner overseeing production, the show gained quite a buzz from the moment it was announced.
With a trailer that appealed to both sci-fi fans and fans of the horror genre, it was hard to not be at least a little bit interested in what the show was going to be like. So I sat down and watched the pilot. My opinions are as follows. WARNING: this may (probably will) contain spoilers.
Truthfully, for the first thirty minutes or so, I wasn't sure I was going to like the series all that much. It was interesting, yes, but interesting in the same way that
Inception
was interesting; it made very little sense, and I was mainly watching with the hope of getting an explanation for... a lot of things.
Those things were:
Where is Jack's wife?
Are the creepy guys from the beginning going to be like "the hands of blue" from Firefly?
Why do the souls seem to need to possess little girls?
Why do the souls feel the need to ruin little girls' birthdays by possessing them?
Where is Jack's wife? (and what the heck is wrong with her, but that question seemed less relevant since she's probably just possessed)
Needless to say, it got better. Virtually none of my questions were answered and I ended up with about twenty more, but it did get better. Basically it was like your average episode of pre-Moffat Doctor Who... but ten times darker.
They upped the suspense once you got past the halfway mark and, as a viewer, I finally got a proper taste of that horror movie feel that the trailer seemed to promise. I loved it- although, animal lovers beware, one of the various casualties that the pilot provides is the drowning of Madison's cat... and she may or may not have drowned it herself. Truthfully, out of the entire episode, that was the scene that upset me the most. Yeah, yeah, I know; society has become desensitized. We care more about animals dying than people. But the kitty!
It was also pretty upsetting in the sense that she did it while she was possessed and then cried when she realized what she had done. Nine year old girls should not be possessed and forced to drown their cats. That's just cruel, ghost-soul-guy named Marcus who we know very little about but was mentioned various times.
Here are my thoughts and predictions after this week's episode:
Birthdays, bathtubs, and little girls are going to be lasting patterns. That's kind of freaky.
The guys who reminded me of the hands of blue mentioned something about possessions or the awakening of souls in a host sometimes taking years. I think whoever is possessing Amy, Jack's wife, has just woken up. That's why she suddenly likes jazz music and has gone missing.
Someone Amy knows is planning on either killing and/or possessing Jack.
Richard Shepard killed Marcus, the boy possessing Madison, and he is going to try to get revenge. That's why Richard was going to kill Madison before Marcus awoke.
Richard and Jack might possibly team up.
This show is only going to get weirder as it progresses- and I can't wait. Is that sick?
Long story short, even if it is a tad confusing for people who didn't read the book the show is based on (something I might do in the next few weeks), the pilot is definitely worth a watch. The filming was done beautifully; I love the dark, gritty tone; and the writing seems pretty good thus far. 4/5 rating. Give it a shot.
Sherlock Holmes meets Iron Man meets every cop show ever; basically, it was Robert Downey Jr at his best- and Val Kilmer was pretty good, too.
Harry Lockhart, a compulsive thief on the run from the cops, stumbles across a movie audition and, thanks to that, the mystery of his life while in L.A.
Up for the role of a private detective, Harry is assigned a mentor in PD "Gay Perry", and while observing him on a stakeout job, the two accidentally end up involved in a murder plot.
From there on out, the twists and turns in this fast paced, laugh until you cry raunchy mystery don't stop. Harry, after being reunited with his childhood girl next door crush, Harmony, takes on the case of her younger sister's "murder", posing as a private detective to spend more time with her. What he soon learns is that both this case and the murder plot from before are connected, just like in the books he and Harmony used to read as kids. Needless to say, the three protagonists soon find themselves way in over their heads.
As usual, Downey's performance didn't disappoint. He was witty and funny in the role of Harry, with a few touching moments here and there, and one could say, just from watching this film, he was destined to play Tony Stark three years later. In fact, the quirky narrative style of the film was very similar to Downey's 2013 hit, Iron Man 3, so if you liked that, you would definitely enjoy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
I would easily give this movie five stars, and would just as easily watch it again. It's a film I would highly recommend to lovers of mystery with a ranchy sense of humor, and even to the fans of films such as 21 Jump Street. It's an oldie but a goodie, and was undoubtedly the start to an upward climb in Downey's Hollywood comeback.
