Catching Fire (The Hunger Games #2): film review by Brittany Adames
In brief:
GOOD:
Everything.
BAD:
Nothing.
After winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen returns home to district twelve accompanied by her fellow tribute and lover, Peeta Mellark. However, they are not yet at rest. Considering they're the winners, they must next embark on the Victor's Tour— in which the previous victors travel around Panem and its twelve districts, followed by the Capitol; their escort, mentor, prep team, and stylist is also accompanying them with their respective victor— leaving their family and friends behind. President Snow, on the other hand, is planning the 75th Annual Hunger Games; also known as the Quarter Quell. All tributes are selected from the pool of previous victors, an indication that Katniss is to be a participant of the Hunger Games once more. Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Suzanne Collins, Michael Arndt, and Simon Beaufoy, Catching Fireis the second film adaptation in the epic The Hunger Games trilogy.
The film starts off showing Katniss, who appears to be emotionally distressed. It is much hinted that she is suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. I've always enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. I think that she conveys her personality very well, especially in these first two films. Her emotions are portrayed with an adequate sense, matching the ones that Katniss has in the books. The casting for Catching Fire was actually pretty good, for the most part. I especially enjoyed Johanna's casting. She definitely radiates that badass vibe along with it. Actually, I quite adore Johanna as a whole. She's definitely that type of girl that doesn't play with things and who truly makes sure she gets the justice she deserves. Johanna is a very self-aware being who realizes just how corrupt the government in the world she lives in is, and she has no fears of speaking out against these horrific actions, even if there are repercussions hovering over her.
Each and every single one of the obstacles all of the characters face are portrayed eloquently throughout the film. We all learn a bit about each of the supporting characters, such as Johanna, Finnick, Beetee, Annie, etc. The acting was superior and were very thorough in each of the scenes.
I've personally never watched a Francis Lawrence film, but he did an extraordinary job directing this film; beautiful cinematography and well assorted scenes. The writers were also major contributors and they did an impeccable job equally.
In my honest opinion, I thought this film was absolutely breath-taking and much more succeeding compared to the first installment. That's not to say that The Hunger Games was a terrible film, of course, because it most definitely wasn't. Catching Fire was just far more intriguing and more action-packed. I was so incredibly hooked into that I didn't even see that cliffhanger at the end coming. Those two and half hours watching this film in theaters was very well spent.
I'm very eager for the release of Mockingjay: Part 1. Hopefully, Francis Lawrence will do as a great as a job as he did with the last film adaptation. In the meantime, I'm in desperate need to reread Mockingjay, for I do not remember a single detail (...except for the most obvious one...) and it would be a nice refresher for the mind.
Luther: The Calling by Neil Cross: A Review by Shona Sterland
IN BRIEF:
GOOD:
Brilliant plot-line
Characters are described in great detail
I finished this book in one day
Just amazing
BAD:
I feel like you need to have watched the Luther series to get a feel for the characters involved
Neil Cross has wrote many novels, but Luther is by far my favourite one. Cross, sole writer of the BBC TV series, Luther, wrote this psychological crime drama prequel, subsequent to writing the TV show. I have never read a book based on a screenplay that was any good, until now. Not just good, but unputdownable. Was it as riveting as the series? Absolutely. I wasn’t distracted by segueing from film to print, or going back in time, or the sizzling reminders of Idris Elba, who consummately personifies DCI John Luther.
John loves his wife, frequently despises his job, but compromises his marriage for the dedication and long hours that keep him away from home, physically and emotionally. He’s hypomanic, which is, euphemistically, bipolar-lite. His mood is elevated and sleep is elusive. He doesn’t drink. Now, there’s an original and refreshing trait. Too many crime novels portray the alcoholic genius detective. Luther is a genius, but a sober one. Cross delivers characters which are intriguing and diverse, and pull you into the book from the start.
Graphic violence is central to the plot, so beware the beast. However, it is not gratuitous. Cross is brilliant at combining Tarantino and Rumi. Luther is the thinking man's combatant, a scholar/warrior, a David Bowie enthusiast and moral strategist, with a hint of the mystical. Instead of a patched-elbow tweedy elite, which he could have been, he is fighting crime. Luther is a conundrum. On the one hand, he is deeply virtuous and applies his principles or morality to outwitting the criminal. On the other hand, his tempestuous means to an end approach often violates departmental ethics, creating considerable problems for himself, his colleagues, and his superiors.
With a poetic economy of words, Cross keeps a sublime vise grip on the reader. Oh, those pages will fly and burn your fingers in the process. The pace is crucial to the mood and plot, and Cross maintains a fierce but restrained tempo, as incomparable as the series. You will be installed in the story by the first page; it is so exquisitely brazen, you will screech and howl before it is over. The next book in the series can’t come soon enough for me!
A small warning: Luther: The Calling is not a novel for the squeamish, or for those who do not wish to read about crimes involving children. But for those who do enjoy spelunking into the dark side of human nature, and of course fans of the television series, it’s a deeply engaging read.
It's Kind of a Funny Story: book review by Brittany Adames
In brief:
GOOD:
Very well written
The main character is relatable and intriguing
Adequate representations regarding many topics
BAD:
The writing style takes a bit to get used to
Some of the characters were aggravating and manipulative
Ned Vizzini's It's Kind of a Funny Story is a story about a young boy, Craig Gilner, residing in the ambitious atmosphere that is New York City. When Craig gains the opportunity (that he worked endless hours for) of attending Manhattan's Executive Pre-Professional High School, he is mentally prepared to succeed. However, the pressure and stress becomes unbearable over his desires of succeeding. His appetite is greatly affected, in which he hardly ever eats and his sleeping habits have become atrocious. One night, Craig nearly kills himself, until he checks himself in a mental hospital.
His fellow neighbors consist of a girl with a scarred face from scissors, self-elected President Armelio, a transsexual sex addict, and many other supporting characters. We follow Craig throughout his five day visit at the mental hospital; through his unexpected road to elation, and to conquer the sources of his depressed state.
Ned Vizzini wrote this remarkable story with moving scenes and put it into such beautifully written words. He used Craig Gilner to tell his own experiences at a mental hospital, and it is written with pure honesty. There are laughs, cries, mind-boggling, and touching moments throughout this book.
Initially, I wasn't too fond of the writing style. It was something that I wasn't normally used to. In the dialogue, he uses phrases such as: ''my other friend is like,'' ''my other other friend is like.'' It was a bit of a questioning experience on my part. However, I somehow grew to enjoy it, which was a bit of relief considering I wasn't too sure whether or not I would get used to it.
A problem that I did have were Aaron and Nia. Oh, man. Right from the start, I didn't like Nia, and I didn't necessarily grow a spot for her by the end of the book. Much of her dialogue made me quite angry, for that matter. Comments such as ''Zoloft is for wimps whereas Prozac is for the really messed-up people'' bothered me quite a bit. Kudos to Craig for standing up for himself, however. That was very unexpected. Nia's somewhat romanticization of depression made my dislike for her deepen even more. I understand that she might have some positive attributes associated with her, but overall, I didn't get the best vibe from her.
When I finished the book, there were definitely a lot (and I mean, a lot) of post-it notes sticking out of pages, indicating to certain quotes that have motivated me or has helped me see life in a totally new perspective. And that's one of the reasons as to why this book is one of my favorites, because of the amount of inspirational quotes included. Some of my favorites consist of:
''Life is not cured, Mr. Gilner, life is managed.'' - Dr. Mahmoud (page 239)
''No, what's a triumph is that you woke up this morning and decided to live. That's a triumph. That's what you did today.'' - Craig's mom (page 226)
''And you know what else? I don't know owe people anything, and I don't have to talk to them any more than I feel I need to.'' - Craig (page 396)
''So now live for real. Live. Live. Live. Live.
Live.'' - (page 444)
In my personal experience, I found the book to give an adequate representation of how depression deeply impacts someone. Mr. Vizzini did an absolutely incredible job at forming this story about a young boy having many epiphanies about how he should go about life for his own benefit and happiness.
Craig is a strong and relatable protagonist. His character development is seen throughout those five days, even though it feels like an eternity. He starts making his own decisions about who he'd like to associate with and how he wants to cope with things.
And we mustn't forget about Noelle. Oh, the lovely Noelle. I loved her character. She's a relatively well-rounded character together with an interesting storyline accompanying her. I found her the most relatable, considering she's a ballerina (like me) and she's rather short (like me). Both Craig's and Noelle's relationship had me in awe and I was blushin'.
All in all, I thoroughly adored this book. One of my absolute favorites. And although the movie adaptation was a bit of an eh, I will always resort to the book. I'd recommend this book to the pre-teen and teenage groups, as well as young adult readers. In fact, older readers can pick this book up as well. I feel as if everyone can learn a lesson from the theme incorporated into this book, whether they associate it with their own personal experiences or not.
I'd also like to pay my respects to Ned Vizzini, who passed away in December 2013 due to suicide. He was a remarkable author with an impeccable talent and a way with words. May he rest in peace. My respects go out to his family and companions who were impacted by his death as well.
Nothing, unless you don’t care for mountains or art games
Mountain is an introspective experience created by one of my favorite artists, David O’Reilly. He’s traditionally an animator, so it makes sense that his first foray into games would be more of an art piece than something to really “play,” and I’m totally okay with that, because this game is exceptional. Perhaps not Astounding or Phenomenal or The Best Game Ever… but it is unique and a valuable, engaging experience.
Mountain is beautiful, peaceful, and contemplative. It’s truly the consummate art game - the majority of the experience revolves around how the player reacts to the game, rather than being a carefully crafted experience in itself. E.g., in many games, there are parts where you’re supposed to be like “wow” or “oooh” or “ahh” and do things, but in Mountain there’s no expected reaction and nothing to be expected to do. Some players were sad for their mountain, some simply marveled at the natural beauty of the game, and some felt an indescribable spiritual connection to their unique mountain. Mountain is all about you, and how you connect with nature, art, and technology. It’s a game for you to ponder over and spend time with rather than play for an hour and forget about.
Obviously this isn’t for everyone, but it seems that many people are offended by the fact that Mountain doesn’t cater to what they believe games should be, but perhaps instead of stubbornly adhering to preconceived notions of what a game is, and skewering Mountain for not conforming, we should reconsider what it means for something to be a game?
There may not be any rewards or action or obvious game-like qualities, but it is an interactive experience. I’m not entertained, per se, by Mountain, but I am moved. I’m engaged, but not necessarily excited. I believe this game should be enjoyed and appreciated only for what it is, rather than dismissed for not fitting the limiting narrative of traditional games. You wouldn’t say that Yellowstone doesn’t count as a “park” simply because you prefer amusement “parks” with roller coasters in them.
And at the end of the day, it’s only a dollar on Steam. Try it out. It’s super zen. See how you like spending time with a mountain, and if you don’t like it, at least you’ve helped contribute to the work of a wonderful artist. Maybe this game won’t change your perception of games, art, and interactivity, but maybe it will? Who knows?
Sofia Coppola’s Lost In Translation follows Bob Harris (Bill Murray), a washed up movie star in Tokyo on business. He meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in the same hotel. Both are struggling with the hustle and bustle of Tokyo and the two strike up an unlikely friendship and begin to have fun in the massive city.
The major strong point of this film is the two leads. Murray’s clueless face really helps show his confusion when he is just being talked at in Japanese. Murray has several rather amusing lines throughout the film that make you crack a smile. Scarlett Johansson’s performance is incredibly subtle. This is a very different kind of role from Johansson than we are more used to, less glamour and badass, and more quirky and real, this leads to one of Johansson’s best performances of her career. Although the leads are great the supporting actors are shunned and left to the side which Is a shame with the talent of Giovanni Ribisi and Anna Farris. Ribisi plays Charlotte’s husband John and Farris plays Kelly, a current movie star, who is a girl from John’s past and ends up being a completely unnecessary character.
The most clever thing about this film is the title. Lost In Translation not only refers to the language barrier between the whole of Tokyo and the main characters, but also the language barrier for the audience. Coppola has deliberately not used subtitles for the Japanese characters, this way the audience relates more to the feelings of the main characters, particularly Murray, and how they are lost in this completely new world.
All in all Lost In Translation is film about friendship and not romance. This is nice difference from the majority of Hollywood films. It is very rare that a Hollywood film where the main character are of the opposite gender and they do not blossom a romance. Although there is a slight suggestion of romance at the end of the film, it focusses on this unlikely friendship that sprung from nowhere.
Lost In Translation is an amusing heartwarming film that will leave you smiling. It is definitely worth a watch.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier: A review by Molly Scanlon
Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the second installment of the popular Chris Evans-led franchise. The film follows Steve Rogers (Evans) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) two years after the Battle of New York (see: The Avengers) as they battle to save the compromised S.H.I.E.L.D and come face-to-face with The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), a fierce but familiar assassin. It is also the fans' introduction to Falcon (Anthony Mackie).
Dark and edgy, CA: TWS is a dramatic addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, likely taking (albeit not as bleak) inspiration from the Dark Knight trilogy. Incorporating some dark themes, it maintains the action-flick atmosphere by dodging a cliché romance between Captain America and Black Widow. Even if it's not your usual fancy, everyone can agree that CA: TWS is definitely entertaining.
Something I must praise is Scarlett Johannson's performance as Black Widow. Having felt before now that her character was underused, Johannson creates a character we can invest in, helping to bring her role to life and set us up for the inevitable Black Widow movie.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a damn fun film to watch. It's not some kind of artistic masterpiece by any means, but in amongst the action and darkness are moments of warmth and humour which give it the typical Marvel charm. It is unmissable for any Marvel fan, and by all means worth a watch for anyone interested in superhero films.
Size 12 Is Not Fat by Meg Cabot: A Review by Shona Sterland
IN BRIEF:
GOOD:
Very amusing
A few diverse characters
Easy to read and get into
BAD:
Certain taglines are overused
Some typical characters involved (pretty thin girl, hot guy who main character is in love with, etc.)
"HEATHER WELLS ROCKS! Or, at least, she did. That was before she left the pop-idol life behind after she gained a dress size or two -- and lost a boyfriend, a recording contract, and her life savings (when Mom took the money and ran off to Argentina). Now that the glamour and glory days of endless mall appearances are in the past, Heather's perfectly happy with her new size 12 shape (the average for the American woman!) and her new job as an assistant dorm director at one of New York's top colleges. That is, until the dead body of a female student from Heather's residence hall is discovered at the bottom of an elevator shaft."
Both the title and blurb of this book interested me; Cabot is known for the Princess Diaries series, so this was a change from that. The main character, Heather Wells, used to be a famous popstar but is now a dorm director after dropping out of the music industry. I actually found Heather to be quite quirky and cute, and she isn't afraid to investigate something she thinks is wrong. I picked up this book mostly because it sounded like a lot of fun, and it was. I really liked Heather; she’s full of self-deprecating charm, wit, and personality. Although she’s been famous and still knows famous people, she still has something of an everywoman quality about her. Most girls will be able to relate to her on some level, whether it’s the annoyance at a fruitless shopping trip for a certain item, or even the temptation to be too nice (she still talks to her mum who stole all her money).
The other characters in the book are very unique, such as Heathers best friends, Magda and Patty. Magda is an eccentric girl from the Dominican Republic, who works in the cafeteria and adores all of the students in the college, and Patty is the wife of a rock star who impulse buys clothes like they're going out of fashion (no pun intended).
Elizabeth Kellogg, a freshman who dies in Fischer Hall, is found at the bottom of the elevator shaft. Heather is troubled. Sure, students have been known to indulge in the deadly game of elevator surfing --- but only the (usually drunk) males. And only in packs. If the dead girl wasn't alone when she was supposedly elevator surfing, where were her friends? Elizabeth was a preppie; as a group, preppies aren't likely to elevator surf. The more Heather thinks about Elizabeth's death, the less it adds up. In fact, Heather can't help but wonder (although she tries not to) if Elizabeth was pushed. Is Fischer Hall an unsafe place, with a murderer running rampant? Or, just as disturbing, did someone see the girl fall and not report it?
Then, incredibly, another dead female freshman is found at the bottom of the elevator shaft. When Heather discovers that the desk elevator key is missing, she contacts Cooper and insists he help her solve the mystery. Cooper though believes that Heather is pursuing the mystery angle because she misses the adrenaline rush of her singing career. That ticks Heather off because it's so untrue. Or is it?
The already fast-paced plot quickens when Heather discovers that the two dead girls had things in common: they were both virgins and had interfering mothers, according to the dorm records. It's not too long before she stumbles across a certain individual, but she seems to be the only one who suspects this person. Next thing she knows, her life is in danger.
The male characters in the novel are your typical males, one is a total jerk who cheated on Heather but tries to win her back before he gets married to his new girlfriend, and the other is his brother, whom Heather is hopelessly in love with. Typical male characters.
Overall I liked this book even though it was a bit cliche and cringey in certain places. I would recommend to those who enjoy mystery and suspense books.
The Royal Tenenbaums: film review by Brittany Adames
In brief:
GOOD:
Colors, so many colors. So pleasing.
The fashion was great
BAD:
There were a few awkward moments
Directed by the perpetually raved about Wes Anderson, The Royal Tenenbaums is the story of an estranged family with three child prodigies — Chas, Richie, and Margot — before their parents, Royal Tenenbaum and Etheline separated. In the later years, the family reunites when Royal Tenenbaum announces he is terminally ill. Full of quirks and hilariously written dialogue, this has got to be one of my favorite Wes Anderson films.
Margot was a talented playwright when younger. She won various awards, including a Braverman grant of fifty thousand dollars when she was only a freshman in high school. Richie won the U.S. Nationals three years in a row when he was a junior champion tennis player. Having an advanced skill in international finance, Chas started buying real estate in his early teen years and made many business deals. All three of these children's extraordinary talent diminished as they grew older. Failure, betrayal, disaster, and their own father seemed to be the most contributing factors in the fall of their brilliance.
One major aspect that I thoroughly enjoyed throughout the film was the narrating of the book entitled The Royal Tenenbaums, and how it went through the chapters. The narrator had an articulate voice that it was quite enjoying to listen to.
As I raved about before in my film review of The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson incorporated a beautiful collection of color into his films that make are aesthetically pleasing. The colors in this film are my favorite thus far. So much yellow and red, which I've grown fond of. It gives me the urge to get up and rearrange my entire room with bright colors and maybe buy a yellow couch.
The clothing in this film was also pretty great. I adored Margot and her fur coat (I also liked her hair very, very much). In fact, I just adored Margot as a whole; she had an interesting role. Her character is relatively relatable as well.
However, I did find it quite awkward seeing how Margot and Richie's relationship escalated. It took an unexpected turn and I wasn't really feeling it. I understand that Margot is Richie's adoptive sister, but it was still a bit odd when they confessed their secret love each other.
As for Chas, I felt a bit of pity for him. His wife had died, leaving him to be completely overprotective over his two sons; so overprotective that he does practice fire drills in their home in case one ever does occur. I was not expecting Ben Stiller to play the role of older Chas, but it's nice to get surprises every now and then. He didn't do a terrible job conveying the role, either.
I thought the entire cast was potrayed really well, for that matter. Anderson's films seem to always have the best casts, in my opinion.
I thought the story had a pretty resolution, with the exception of Buckley's, the dog of Chas's sons, death (what the hell, Eli?). Actually, speaking of Eli, I didn't really feel any love for him as much as I did with the rest of the characters. To me, he seemed a bit annoying. However, he did have some pretty funny dialogue, so I guess that makes up for it. It made me content that Chas and Royal both came to terms with each other. Chas held a grudge towards his father, but seemed to loosen up a little bit and be a bit more appreciative, which made Royal's elation increase.
Everyone regained their joy for their favorite skills and made better decisions to improve their lives; Margot released a new play, Richie started a junior tennis program, and Eli checks himself in a rehabilitation center located in North Dakota.
Royal's death had me pretty devastated. He went through a lot of tragic moments trying to rekindle his relationship with his family, and it happened, but it was still rather saddening. His epitaph, however, was great. ''Died tragically rescuing his family from the wreckage of a destroyed sinking battleship.''
This film was great. Wes Anderson's great. Everything's great.
Allegiant (Divergent #3): book review by Brittany Adames
(spoiler tw)
GOOD:
Tris’s character development
Some beautifully written scenes
Plotline kept you on the edge of your seat
BAD:
Vague explanations
World-building was eh
Plot holes
We follow both Tris and Four in the last installment of the Divergent trilogy, written by well-known young adult author, Veronica Roth. The group ventures out into the unknown world outside of factions, or fence, in order to set their society right. Allegient is also told in Four’s perspective; so, we get a bit of an insight of what goes on in his thoughts and how he perceives things. When I first got my hands on this book, excitement riled up inside me and I could hardly wait to start expanding my love Tris and Four’s relationship as well as the side characters.
However, this installment just didn’t do it for me. I felt as if it was a bit of a let-down, and it lacked many, many things. My thoughts are bit sporadic when I try to coherently form a rational reason as to why I wasn’t necessarily fond of this book. I think, for a fact, that I feel mild disappointment at the world-building. It was as if Veronica Roth just wanted to get through with it and didn’t really put that much thought into it; I feel as if most of the parts were written carelessly.
The whole genetic ordeal such as modifying the genes of those genetically damaged, etc. was actually rather confusing. When I finished the book, I did not feel as if I got a full understanding of the problematic situation(s) that were occurring at the time. Some of the major aspects didn’t make a whole lot of sense and I feel as if there were many filler scenes. It all felt a bit vague and there weren’t exactly clear explanations to go along with it. For me, it just mainly consisted of a corrupt government encompassed by geniuses with a whole lot of advanced technology, syringes, and memory wiping serums.
The consistent changing of Tris and Four’s (well, I should say Tobias) point of views made it pretty difficult for me to distinguish whose perspective I was reading, meaning that they didn’t differ much personality and mindset wise. I felt as if Tobias and Tris had a sort of distinction going on throughout the book as well.
Tris is a great female heroine. To think that she was initially a selfless, small, and simple girl from Abnegation who transferred to Dauntless, who was underestimated by her fellow companions, who lacked confidence, and who was unaware of how corrupt her own world was is just, well, unbelievable. This girl developed such an incredible inner strength and a kick-ass personality that it actually motivated me to do the same. Tris had many life-changing epiphanies and she developed a courage for the greater good. Her mindset changed tremendously and next thing you know, she’s kickin’ down doors with gun and jumping off trains. I don’t even think I can find an adequate adjective to fully describe how much her character development had me in such awe.
And Caleb. Oh, Caleb. I wanted desperately for him to become a better person, to come to proper terms with his sister. I don’t blame Tris for holding a grudge against him considering his betrayal, but I just wanted to like him. But I didn’t. I couldn’t.
Alright, and on to the most devastating part of the entire trilogy. If you have not yet read Allegiant and would not like to get immensely spoiled, then please do not read further on, because you will get immensely spoiled (thanks for reading anyway, and have a lovely day!).
______________________________
Oh, man.
Tris.
Tris. Tris. Tris. Tris.
I was so prepared, awaiting Caleb’s death as he entered the room to decativate the procedure, I was so ready. There are no words to describe just how taken aback I was when Tris popped into the picture. One of my instincts told me that Tris would eventually sacrifice herself, because she’s Tris, however I completely neglected it, not wanting it to be true. I was urging Caleb to go on, and when Tris entered into the picture, my heart sank.
I did think that she would’ve had a chance at survival considering she’s Divergent, and she did make it as far as actually being in the same room as David. And then he shot her, but that still didn’t stop her from running and pressing the button that would eventually set things right, according to her plan.
When he shot her again and she went down, reading that entire death scene felt as if a knife kept consistently piercing my heart. I didn’t handle it very well. And when her mom appeared and Tris asked her if she was done, that’s when I completely lost it (I may or may not be getting teary-eyed while typing this), and Tobias’s reaction didn’t make it any better. It was definitely emotionally devastating, but the death scene was beautifully, beautifully written. Tris’s courage is much more blatant in this book, but I just didn’t feel like it was the right ending. I understand Veronica Roth’s perspective, a hero dies a hero, but I do feel as if Tris’s destiny could’ve taken a different turn.
As for the epilogue, I didn’t particularly like it. It all felt a bit… rushed? I just didn’t feel as if it was an adequate ending overall. However, I appreciate Christina for stopping Tobias from taking the memory wipe serum. Thank you, Christina.
I have mixed feelings about this book. It wasn’t what I expected, but then again there were many predictable parts. It was an okay read for me, but I do prefer Divergent and Insurgent more. This trilogy was quite interesting to read. There were many ups and downs, but overall it wasn’t necessarily terrible. Tris definitely had a influence on me, and she’s become one of my favorite female protagonists. Veronica Roth is a great writer as well and conveyed Tris’s character well. I’d reread this in the future (when I am at least mildly recovered from that ending).
Reaching a box office milestone and considered to be one of the biggest global blockbusters, Frozen is one of the top-grossing animated films. Directed by both Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, it is the story of two sisters, Elsa and Anna, residing in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle. Growing up, Elsa deals with ice powers that are not yet under her control, thus causing an isolation between her and the rest of the world. On the day that she is to become queen, Anna makes a decision that outrages Elsa and she unintentionally sets Arendelle in an eternal winter and runs away. The rest of the story follows Anna and her adventures with her companions, Kristoff and Olaf, as she sets out to find her sister and try to come terms with her as well as reverse the spell.
I do believe that the hype this movie is receiving is genuine. I, for one, absolutely adored the animation. Even the most intricate detailings were placed and seeing the vast majority of the scenery made me enjoy the movie more. The plotline was cleverly written, however, I do wish they would've told us exactly where these ice powers of Elsa's originated from. How was she just born with it? Did her father, mother, or any other family members for that matter have any ice powers? There are many theories floating about on the Internet as to what the origin of Elsa's powers might have been and many of them are very well-thought and rather convincing. If the directors would have incorporated an interesting backstory to go with Elsa's powers, then the movie would've been much more intriguing (not that it wasn't initially) to watch.
As for Anna's character, I liked her. She's a bit quirky and has an adorable sense of humor. Initially, I believed both Anna and Hans would've looked great with each other (now I'm all about Kristoff and Anna, hell yeah). It's saddening that Hans took Anna's obliviousness for granted and for his own personal advantage. Luckily, Anna developed an internal strength by the end. You could also say she developed an external strength by that amazing punch she gave Hans. Props to her.
I've learned to respect Elsa as well. I understand her point of view. Not fitting in the norm and forcing to become isolated from everyone because of their safety has definitely taken its toll on her. She's a wonderful character.
To describe my love for Kristoff is absolutely impossible. He's considerate, hilarious, and a pretty good singer. And we have to give Sven some credit too, for being an amazing reindeer and companion.
The musical numbers were alright. I wasn't blown away by them all. My favorites are Let It Go, of course, Idina Menzel's vocals are extra-extra-extra-extraordinary and Love is an Open Door (Love, love, love Kristen Bell). Overall, I liked each of the songs, but I wasn't head over heels for them either. I feel as if they could have incorporated more into it.
I have to admit that I did get a bit teary-eyed near the end when Anna became frozen. Elsa's reaction made tears shed, indeed. However, when Anna became unfrozen I was relieved and that weight that made itself at home in my heart for a good couple of minutes lifted away.
All in all, Frozen conveys a majority of themes regarding love, friendship, family, and self-assurance and everyone interprets it in a different way. It was an incredible story that touched my and many others' hearts. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of any age. You're most likely going to catch me watching this a few more times.
White Teeth by Zadie Smith: a book review by Jessica Sparacino
In Brief:
GOOD:
Complex storytelling (in a good way, don’t worry)
Excellent character development
Awesome prose
BAD:
A bit lengthy and slow-paced at parts
White Teeth is the kind of book you feel obligated to read at least a second time over because of how much you weren’t fully able to appreciate the first time around. Smith’s novel centers around the lives of old wartime pals Archie Jones and Samad Iqbal but ventures outward and into the lives of those around them. Smith is a frequent user of motif, and themes of the novel include the concepts of roots, immigration, chance, and even teeth (yeah, I know, that one does sound a bit odd).
The story begins on the day of character Archie Jones’ attempted suicide. Warning: the first chapter of the book goes rather heavily in depth into this attempt so feel free to skip it if that’s a problem. It is on this day that his life intersects with that of Clara Bowden, a Jamaican immigrant and former Jehovah’s Witness. The story branches out as the story of Clara is told, and later the story of their children and the children of Iqbal and his wife, Alsana; however, it is soon apparent that all of these branches are tangled together in one large knot.
The book is split into four parts: “Archie”, “Samad”, “Irie”, and “Magid, Millat, and Marcus”. This separation is more technical than anything else, since most characters are shown in each portion of the novel and a third-person point of view is kept for the entire story. However, the focus on separate characters proved to be refreshing in my opinion because of the distinct perspectives of each character which seeped into the voice of the narrator. Also, I thought that the storylines of certain characters were significantly more interesting than those of their counterparts. The way that characters are so complexly developed in this novel creates a compelling argument to go back and reread the book from the start just so you can marvel to yourself, “This is the same character?”
Three of the four portions of the book contain a chapter called a “Root Canal”. These chapters (investigating the roots of given characters) are craftily named so as to combine Smith’s themes of both teeth and roots. I think Smith’s complex usage of both subtle repetition and symbolic motif is possibly the most impressive part of this novel. There are so many parts of this story that I didn’t think would make a reappearance, yet so many details (even the seemingly tangential ones) come full circle by the end of the novel. I’m still in awe.
One part of the book I took issue with was Smith’s unnecessarily frequent use of the f-slur as a slang term for “cigarette”. I’m not sure if she ever actually uses the word “cigarette” in the span of the book, and cigarettes come up rather frequently during the novel. Additionally, the book is a bit lengthy and at a couple points the detailing and length feel a bit cumbersome.
Overall, though, I’d say this book was a great read and I recommend White Teeth if you’re looking for something interesting to read that you’re willing to put a bit of time and thought into.
Six Years by Harlan Coben: A review by Shona Sterland
IN BRIEF:
GOOD:
Intro is intriguing
That's it
BAD:
Everything else
Very messy plot-line
Didn't make much sense
My review has arrived late this week, and that is not due to laziness or forgetfulness, but the fact that this book was so incredibly hard to finish. Usually I like Cobens books, as they are fast paced and have a good story in them. However, Six Years was by far the worst book Coben has written. Reading the blurb intrigued me, and it had many 4/5 star reviews stated on the front and back covers. Due to all of these facts, I thought I would give it a go. When I started to read the novel, I wasn't hugely impressed but still I gave it a chance to pick up the pace. I wish I hadn't.
The book has no apparent plot-line, and made zero sense to me. Though the mystery had some interesting twists, many parts were too drawn out and repetitive. At the same time, most of the character's were one dimensional and underdeveloped. I actually thought that the author was a middle aged woman based on the way the main character, a man in his thirties, is portrayed. My biggest problem, though, was the writing itself - no settings were memorable; the word choices basic.
I usually love his books but this one had such a slow pace, I kept having to force myself to return to it. Too much detail, too slow a pace, not enough tension. It was repetitive, tiresome and very predictable, and I am so disappointed as I had anticipated this novel for quite some time. First person is clearly not his strong point; there was nothing interesting about this book, not the characters, plot, setting or decidedly less than witty banter. It reminded me of a piece of homework that had to be forced and prolonged to meet a word count.
I am not sure what else to say except that I do not recommend this book at all. The characters are not well planned out, the plot-line is messy and it just felt like he had rushed the entire book.
F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is considered an all-time classic novel with enthralling and extraordinary aspects. It is taken place in the 1920's during the Jazz Age and centers around Jay Gatsby — a young male who rose from an impoverished childhood in rural North Dakota, but who eventually became a self-made millionaire overwhelmed with ambition, money, greed, self-assurance, and new opportunities — and his passionate love for Daisy Buchanan, whom he met five years prior and developed a relationship with, but parted when Daisy married a brutal and rich Tom Buchanan while Gatsby served in the war overseas. The story is narrated by Nick Carraway, who happens to be the next door neighbor of none other than Jay Gatsby himself.
I do have to admit that you might want to consider having a dictionary of some sorts nearby when reading this book. The words that Fitzgerald uses in this novel are beautifully incorporated, but some are rather confusing. Now, I'm going to be blunt and honest here, but when I initially read this book I was not by any means enjoying it. For me, it was just a bit dull and I had a pretty rough time getting through it. Don't get me wrong, there were many scenes that I thoroughly enjoyed while reading, however, it took way past the fifty page mark for me to truly get into it.
As for the characters themselves, I didn't full on dislike them, but I didn't really feel anything for them either. However, I did enjoy the way that Fitzgerald described the characters. The way he writes his descriptions and his usage of words is pretty intriguing.
I liked the way it was told from Nick's perspective. We didn't get entirely into Gatsby's thoughts, but we saw from someone else's point of view how they perceive him as a person both emotionally and physically. I personally didn't have many sentimental feelings when it came to Jay Gatsby. I would consider that the case for the rest of the characters as well. Fantastically portrayed, yes, but didn't feel a connection towards them.
Overall, I did think the storyline flowed just fine in its entirety. As for the ending, I felt a slight tinge of pity for Gatsby.
After his death, hardly anyone showed up to his funeral and it was quite saddening. I found Daisy to be a selfish and self-absorbed woman. I even felt pity for their relationship. Gatsby gave it his absolute all in trying to rekindle their love and his passion was so blatant and it almost seemed as if Daisy were oblivious to it. Did she really, truly love Gatsby?
I wasn't that much of a fan with this book. There were ups and downs, there were moments that I thought were interesting and there were moments that engrossed me. In the end, I didn't hate the book, but it isn't one of my favorite classics.
I went in expecting to adore it considering the rave it's receiving, but it just didn't impress me as much as I would have liked it to. I have strong hopes that the next time I reread this book, I will have a better experience.
Guardians Of The Galaxy: a review by Rory Partridge
In Brief:
Good:
Perfectly cast
Visuals spot on
Funny in the best possible way
Humour does not detract from the story
Team dynamic is fantastic
Bad:
Intentions of the villains not made all too clear
Gamora underused
This film is, and I say this in the most loving manner possible, a mess. It is an amalgamation of many different characters in a completely unexplored region of the marvel cinematic universe, with little to no prior explanation. Marvel put aside their usual structure of multiple standalone films followed by a team-up event and went straight for the jugular in Guardians Of The Galaxy, and it is paying off big time.
Only days into its release, Guardians Of The Galaxy looks set to be the film with the 3rd best opening weekend of 2014. It’s not like it’s the first film of it’s kind either,the ‘rag-tag group of unlikely heroes teaming up to save everyone’ isn’t exactly an untapped genre for both TV and film, with other properties such as Firefly, Star Wars, Misfits and X-Men fleshing it out pretty effectively - and with a plot remarkably similar to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, it could be hard to find where Guardians Of The Galaxy excels in this genre. So what is it that makes Guardians Of The Galaxy so memorable? You could argue many points on this - the retro soundtrack, spectacular visuals, an extremely elaborate joke about semen, Chris Pratt’s transformation from Bert Macklin FBI to Star Lord, a talking tree… the list goes on. But I’d say that the real selling point of the film is the team dynamic, there’s something very organic, natural, healthy and other tree related puns about it that sets it aside from the other films in the otherwise saturated genre. It’s worth remembering that the Guardians are relatable rapscallions, not invincible protectors like the Avengers, so their ‘powers’ and abilities are insignificant (and in some cases, uninteresting) so it’s extremely important that the characters are well crafted and explained, and the film-makers execute their creation perfectly.
It’s brilliantly cast, too. Chris Pratt makes the ideal Harrison Ford of our generation and gives Star Lord the cocky edge that is entirely necessary when appealing to the youth demographic, but retains a sense of moral authority and understanding like a really well disciplined version of that crazy, funny guy everyone knows at least one of. The “hold my beer, this will be awesome!” guy, who always strikes out with women but doesn’t care because he’s off doing something fun. Like a human version of a Golden Retriever. You know, that guy. But he doesn’t outshine the rest of the cast - Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper both bring a surprising amount of depth to their CGI counterparts, loading them up with plenty of attitude and compassion, despite being a tree and a raccoon. Zoe Saldana and Dave Bautista both chime in with their deadpan severity and strict guidance, adding a much-needed edge of danger to the otherwise happy-go-lucky bumbling ensemble, and both play their characters perfectly to the most minute detail.
I feel like Bautista should be praised especially for this performance given that this is his first ‘proper’ acting role as a main character, and he absolutely nails it. Outside of the MCU his boundless enthusiasm is equally as inspiring as his ability to strike fear into the heart of anyone. He even went as far to book 20 seats at his local theatre for his friends and family, and went to see it three times. He manages to give depth to a character who is canonically shallow - I found myself focusing on him more than I did on any other characters in the film, even in-spite of the Chris Pratt hype-train that lead up to the films release. Dave is just getting started, and I’d expect big things from this big man very soon.
I don’t know if it’s worth explaining the plot because in all honesty I don’t think it’s all too important, much alike the plot to most space operas, I watched and thoroughly enjoyed it without being all too aware of what the intentions of the enemies were. I just knew that they were pissed off and the Guardians had to do something about it.
The ambiguity of the plot (especially ambiguous for those who aren’t too read up on their Marvel knowledge) doesn’t retract from the genuine warmth and emotion emanating from the stories epicentre - the journey of the characters, as they find their place in both the story and in the universe. Rocket tries to find self-worth, Gamora tries to become independent from her family, Peter tries to move on from his mothers death, Drax tries to find vengeance for his family and Groot.. well Groot is just trying to have a good time. With only one film to try to establish the entire ensemble, Guardians does not miss a beat in their creation of complicated, multi-faceted individuals in their unique and equally important missions in a galaxy of infinite potential. My only real problem with the characters would be Gamora, who is meant to be the most dangerous being in the universe, but sadly gets dulled down in her on-screen adaptation to someone who can be easily overpowered by a few lowly prisoners, and is criminally underused in the plot itself. There is some redemption for her though, she isn’t shoehorned into an irreverent and incongruous relationship with Quill, or anyone, and actually defies his rogue-like charm, establishing herself as a complex character rather than a trophy-wife.
I say with the utmost conviction that I think this is the best Marvel film to date, and I’d happily give it a 10/10 if I wasn’t worried about the studio getting too ahead of themselves and making a poor sequel. If you haven’t seen this yet, please do. It’s space opera at its absolute height, and borrows heavily from the best aspects of the recent Star Trek films with Parks and Recreation humour, and if you don’t think that’s the best thing in the world, you are an objectively bad person.
Dark Souls II is so much fun. You fall off of cliffs, you get stabbed in the face by giant stone knights, and other players come to your world for the sole purpose of punching you into obscurity. If this all sounds frustrating to you, that’s because it is. Dark Souls II is stupid hard pretty much from start to finish. However, the fun of this game is in discovering the right place to jump over a gap or the best time to hit an enemy after you’ve rolled past its attacks. Perfecting small things like this is incredibly satisfying, and a vital part of the game. The gameplay is all about precision, practice, and quick thinking - button mashing and recklessness will get you nowhere fast.
The story of Dark Souls II is closely linked to the first one: a human, unable to permanently die, sets out on a quest to lift this curse. Pretty straightforward at first glance, but if you take the time to read item descriptions and talk to every NPC and merchant, you’ll slowly learn the history of the rich and well-built world of Drangleic, and discover why you’re doing the things you do. The gorgeous environments are all open for non-linear exploration, so you can complete areas at your own pace and in whatever order you see fit, gradually revealing the backstory as you go along.
Multiplayer is by far one of the best features of Dark Souls. Players can play together in a few different ways, by summoning each other or invading other people’s games. Cooperative play lets you join another player to help them clear out an area of enemies or defeat a boss, and competitive play lets you kill other players for their valuables and contribute to their frustration with this game. Both of these modes, and a few others, are integrated seamlessly with the rest of the game, even if you’re playing in offline mode - there are still NPCs to summon and you’ll still be invaded on occasion.
But interacting with other players is by far the best part of this game. Every player can learn a selection of gestures to use in-game, which can be helpful, frustrating, or absolutely hilarious. For instance, after invading and killing someone, some players bow cordially, some wave their swords in the air, and some just take off their clothes and run in circles before leaving. There’s also an option to leave simple messages to warn other players of danger, trick them into jumping off of tall objects, or just give passing players a good laugh.
All in all, this game is really good, but I know I haven’t said anything bad yet, so here it is: the graphics are sometimes sub-par, some of the animations are a bit weird, and occasionally the voice acting is reminiscent of Tommy Wiseau’s The Room. Those are literally my only gripes with this game and they’re easily ignored. Dark Souls II will infuriate you, but never past the point of it being incredibly enjoyable to play. Any fan of the swords-and-sorcery fantasy genre will have a great time honing their skills and overcoming the myriad dangers of Dark Souls. It’s fantastic. Go play it.
