The Address (Book Review)

The Address by Fiona Davis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

While The Lions of Fifth Avenue has the better title, The Address may have the better plot. While I definitely appreciated all of the facts about the New York City Public Library in the former, I was often distracted by what I felt were inconsistencies in the historical settings; by contrast, The Address doesn't seem to offer up nearly as many factoids, but the timelines are spot on.

One may consider Davis' novels to be a bit formulaic: two women on two different ends of history, one (real) historic building connecting them, with a mystery across decades/centuries to solve. So far, though, the mysteries are not the same, and The Address provided some extra twists that I did not anticipate. And everyone knows it's the above formula that counts, it's the "how" -- how we get there, how the stories connect, etc. Davis seems to have that aspect well in hand.

As with Lions, The Address has an undercurrent of (much appreciated and respected) feminism throughout, much subtler, actually. And she deals with classism as well.
I also like that her main characters are well-rounded. 

**SPOILER**

When we get to the final reveal, our villain isn't a villain with one huge deep dark secret that drops like a bomb; it's a series of "smaller" items that add up to make him not the person we thought he was. I don't think he's 100% bad in way that would seem cliche or stereotypical; that might feel anticlimactic to readers, but I appreciate the nuance.

This novel doesn't exactly have a happy ending; it's far more tragic than The Lions of Fifth Avenue, in my opinion.

I've borrowed Davis' other novels from my local library, and at least one of them does not deal with two women on opposite ends of the century; it will be interesting to see how Davis deals with the shorter timeline(s).

View all my reviews

The Lions of Fifth Avenue (Book Review)

The Lions of Fifth Avenue by Fiona Davis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If you enjoyed A Gentleman in Moscow , you may well enjoy this book as well, with its strong sense of place, both historically and physically with the main building involved. In many ways, The Lions of Fifth Avenue is what I wanted Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch to be: pieces of historical fiction with an art mystery at the center (and no whiny white boy with mommy issues just making the same mistakes over and over again -- can you tell I did not care for The Goldfinch?).

Fiona Davis does extensive research on the buildings in which she places her research, and it shows. I continue to say it's the mark of a good piece of historical fiction when I want to do more research afterward, to see what's "true" and what isn't, to learn about the subject matter. And Davis has done that here; I know more about the New York Public Library than just that it's featured in Ghostbusters, and now I really want to visit it if I ever get back to New York again.

My quibbles are just that --small and probably trivial, but here are they are nonetheless:

**CONTAINS SPOILERS**

• I nearly wanted it to be longer as I finished it in a day.
• I sometimes questioned the math regarding the ages and relationships of our two main women, Laura Lyons and Sadie Donovan. I would have expected at least one more generation in between them. If Sadie is 43 during the "present day" (1993) pieces, that means she was born in 1950. So why does she wear vintage 1950s things when those are the very fashions she grew up with? That would be like me wearing 1980s stuff now, which doesn't seem far enough removed to be "vintage" or "retro," just odd.
• And her brother Lonnie is roughly 10 years older than she is, making him born in 1940 (and a 53-year-old father of a six-year-old girl, still pretty unusual in the 1990s), making their mother (Pearl, age 7 in 1913) 34 when she had Lonnie and 44 when she had Sadie -- that seems a bit of a stretch, especially for a woman in 1940s America.
• Davis may have been better suited to place Sadie & Lonnie about ten years later in time, inserting another generation between the families. I can see why she chose 1993, though, as she doesn't have to deal with the technology of mobile phones, social media, etc., which can make mystery-writing infinitely more complicated.
• Even though I said I nearly wanted the book itself longer, the ending/wrap-ups seemed too long. We like to have things wrapped up, and yes, we wanted to know the specific connection of Robin to the family, but that entire section seemed too long. It was a lot of exposition, particularly about Harry, and I don't think we needed that much detail. We wanted to know the connection, but why he stayed away, etc. -- we could have easily filled in the blanks ourselves. So much guilt and cowardice at the end didn't really benefit anyone, audience or characters. I also found the sentencing at the trial to be a bit sanctimonious and heavy-handed.

I'm pleased to discover that Davis has other similar historical books with mysteries at the center of them, and I'm looking forward to reading them.

View all my reviews

The Other Bennet Sister (Book Review)

The Other Bennet Sister by Janice Hadlow
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

**DNF**

I could not finish this book; it was an effort to get through the 100 pages (only 22% of the book!) that I did. It was simply too sad, too depressing.

After I got through the issue of reconciling what I knew of Mary's character from Pride & Prejudice with Hadlow's "version," there was the much larger issue of this "new" Mary's existence being utterly awful. Hadlow seems to have forgotten that Austen's original work is a comedy; this book is not a comedy but some terrible drama about a lonely, misunderstood girl surrounded by one-dimensional characters. While many of the original Pride & Prejudice characters are intended to be ridiculous, farcical, and/or satirical, Hadlow has made them simply mean.

Remembering that this book does "catch up" to the events of P&P, I forced myself to at least read that far, for curiosity's sake. And while I believe this book extends past the events of P&P to continue with Mary's life, I simply couldn't punish myself any further. I have no idea how it ends, but I couldn't endure Mary's misery any longer.

View all my reviews

The Southern Book Club's Guide to Slaying Vampires (Book Review)

The Southern Book Club's Guide to Slaying Vampires by Grady Hendrix
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

In all fairness to Mr. Hendrix, I should stipulate that my two-star rating has less to do with his writing quality and more to do with the fact that this book was not what I was expecting.
Based on the title and the synopsis, I was expecting something funnier, cleverer, sassier, possibly even sillier. This book is not those things.

I did not expect but did appreciate the feminism, the blasting of 1980s and 90s patriarchy, the acknowledgement of systemic racism and white privilege.

Hendrix lost me at the gore, I suppose. If you are a fan of horror as a genre, you may well enjoy this book and his gruesome turn of phrase. I did not, and a few times considered putting the book down; another point in Hendrix's favor that I did actually finish the novel.

**SPOILER ALERT**

I would also call this "the book of false endings." 

At several different chapters' ends, I expected the next chapter to be a sort of wrap-up, a "where are they now" with our antagonist firmly put in his place with perhaps a smug thought from Patricia and/or her cohorts. That does not happen. The book keeps going, and when the antagonist does finally meet his doom at the hands of the Southern ladies, it is neither clever nor smart nor neatly tied up with a bow; it is, however,...thorough.

View all my reviews

Lady of Devices (Book Review)

Lady of Devices by Shelley Adina
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

FINALLY! A steampunk novel that isn't utter crap! I am wary not only of popular things, but of incredibly prolific authors; for some reason, I am suspicious of authors that can "crank out" so many novels, feeling that the writing quality can't possibly be good or sustained (if it starts out well enough). Also too many fancy covers and promises of steampunk with strong women characters have left me utterly disappointed.

Thanks to Shelley Adina, I can finally put my finger on what was missing from those other novels: the Britishness, the Victorian attitudes and mores and language. It's not enough to simply throw some steam gadgetry at your characters and have them drink tea.
Like Gail Carriger, Adina knows how the classes in Victorian England function, in addition to modes of dress, and how the people sound. Far too often wannabe steampunk novels simply don't sound like Victorian England.

My trepidation when starting this book (this series, really) soon vanished. While the overall story arc was absolutely not what I was expecting, I read the entire novel in one sitting and have already purchased the next three. I hope Adina can maintain this trajectory (and my faith in her writing skills).

View all my reviews

The Jane Austen Society (Book Review)

The Jane Austen Society by Natalie Jenner
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book is a comfortable read. Not necessarily "comforting," but comfortable, like your favorite jeans or sweater. It's the mark of a good historical piece if it makes me wonder, "Is that true?" or "How close is this to the real thing?", driving me to do some research after reading (or watching). I can save you the trouble, though, as Jenner mentions in her afterword that while the places are real, the characters are not. That's not a bad thing, and I think speaks well for Jenner's writing that I assumed these characters were based, at least a little, on real people.

When discussing Austen, the characters bring up a couple of points of view that I hadn't thought of before or hadn't been taught in academia when studying Austen, so it's always enjoyable to have a different light shown on something. Jenner also (via her characters' discussions) touches on why we re-read Austen (or any piece with which we are intimately familiar); and while I rarely reread books, her sentiment does apply to things I'll rewatch for their comfort. I might pick up and reread some more Austen, too, after reading Jenner's book.

Jenner's allusions to Austen's characters and plots in her own are subtle, not precious or too "on the nose." I like being surprised sometimes, so when I did make a connection, I had that "I should have seen that earlier!" moment, which doesn't happen too often.

Please don't think the entire book is literary analysis because it's not; I just appreciate and gravitate towards those aspects.
This is a comfortable read -- not too taxing, enough Austen for fans, not so light as to be saccharine, but also not something that leaves me needing to know more about these particular characters.

View all my reviews

The Girls With No Names (Book Review)

The Girls with No Names by Serena Burdick
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was very well-written, although I'm still not entirely sure what to say about it. The tragedies involved are almost Shakespearean with their miscommunication and misinformation. It is a tragedy, but not hopeless, I don't think. Towards the end, I found myself thinking not quite "How are we going to get out of this?" but "How is this going to end in a way that isn't utterly despairing?" But Burdick found a way that was both (mostly) satisfying and still believable within the context of the story.

I read it in under two days, which means it kept my interest the whole time (and that's saying something). The changing point of views in the chapters is well done and not confusing; the same with the changing time periods in the main story timeline. Even as the original "mystery" gets answered, we still want to see how all the different stories come together. The historical aspects feel accurate; also be sure to check out Burdick's afterword as she touches on some important points, including the use of the word "gypsy."

I guess I'm giving it three stars ("I liked it") rather than 4 because I'm unsure what I was supposed to get from it -- other than feminist anger and hatred for organized religion, both of which I already have in spades. It could also be the tragic nature of the stories being told; that's not my usual preference or genre in what I read.

View all my reviews

Snowspelled (Book Review)

Snowspelled by Stephanie Burgis
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book came recommended from Gail Carriger, whose writing I greatly enjoy, and it was available for free at that particular moment in time.

I enjoyed it for the most part. I particularly like Burgis' feminist take on politics and having a matriarchal society; unfortunately, women are still pigeon-holed, and our brazen protagonist challenges those stereotypes head-on.

My quibbles, I think, mostly have to do with Burgis' writing style. There are several repeated words and phrases (like "cossetted") that could have benefitted from an editor with a thesaurus. "Cossetted" is a good word and definitely appropriate for how it is being used, but it should have been changed up a bit more. Burgis also continually refers to the soft "hiss" sound that the falling snow makes. I grew up in Midwestern winters and have never once heard snow "hiss" -- unless, of course, it was falling on an open flame of some sort. Not only was that bit repetitive, but didn't quite make sense.

Lastly, we continually get reference to whatever traumatic event happened to Cassandra 4 months earlier and she pretty much wanted to commit suicide after. I think that reveal could have come earlier on, as it's a bit anticlimactic where it is; and again, the references to the event (including word choices) grow repetitive to the reader.

I am partially tempted to continue this series as I do enjoy the world Burgis has built, but we shall see.

View all my reviews

The House in the Cerulean Sea (Book Review)

The House in the Cerulean Sea by T.J. Klune
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I loved this book. I really did. I may have been slightly hormonal while reading as I cried (often "happy" tears) throughout the entire thing. I also devoured the book in one sitting. The colorful characters, these poor traumatized children; "found family" is one of my favorite tropes.

I also love that Klune does not pull any punches when it comes to bigotry and prejudices; he makes sure you get the symbolism and allegory right away, unambiguously: "Just because you don’t experience prejudice in your everyday doesn’t stop it from existing for the rest of us.”
For all of those moments (many of which I highlighted in my notes), this is a perfect book for right now in 2020.

I gave it 4 instead of 5 stars for the following reasons:
-despite having queer characters and a lot of nontraditional aspects, the two main (adult) characters are still two white men.
-the Black woman character spends most of her time in the kitchen.
-the Black boy character is a "dog."

I realize that the above are not without nuance when reading the actual story, but I think it's important to also realize how the facts look "on paper," so to speak, without context, when attempting to be diverse and inclusive.

Lastly, Phee seemed to be the least developed character. I would not be surprised if an editor said, "You need more than one girl child character. Put in another one," and this is the result. I say that because in almost any of the given situations, you know the reactions of almost all of the children, where they are, and/or what they are doing (often because they are so unique). Except Phee. There is the one scene with her and Linus and Zoe, but other than that, I feel like she is an afterthought.

View all my reviews

Toy Story 4 and Tarzan Syndrome

Gonna start at the ending and work my way backward.  So SPOILER ALERT!  If you've not yet seen the 4th installment of the Toy Story franchise, stop reading now.

Okay, you were warned.

Preface:  I knew almost nothing about this 4th Toy Story going in, except that Bo Peep was featured prominently, and that's about it.

When we got to the end, the very end (because, as usual, there are about four false endings as we have to wrap up the smaller storylines, too), when Woody decides to (gasp!) leave his child (Bonnie) to join up with Bo and her sheep, I said, "Whoa!  I didn't expect that!"

And the boytoy said, "Seriously, you didn't see that coming?"

And I had to stop and think for a moment because I'm usually very good at anticipating narrative arcs and supposed "plot twists"; it generally takes a lot for a movie's plot to actually surprise me.  I guess that comes from years of studying and teaching narratives and stories, but I digress.

I think I finally stumbled upon why Woody's decision came as a surprise to me:  because I was focused on Bo Peep.  I was so focused on her story with my inner monologue saying furiously, "Please don't let her rejoin them!  Please don't let her rejoin them!" that I really wasn't paying as much attention to the very obvious layout of Woody's track, including his need for a "purpose" and/or a kid to take care of (established in the very beginning of the film).

I was watching and waiting, hoping against hope that the writers wouldn't have Bo Peep rejoin the toy-kid-family, thereby negating her own personal journey in that way that happens to so many female characters.  I thought Woody would rejoin his family, leave Bo again in a bittersweet moment that showed that she couldn't just go back to her old life (and that was okay). So his move surprised me; plus, it's pretty out of character for Woody who is rather defined by his loyalty to tradition (hello, the plot to the whole first movie).

But Bo Peep's transformation from sweet love interest shepherdess to badass, staff-wielding adventurer also got me thinking, especially when I commented during the film, "Bo's gone feral!"  I shouldn't have said that; "feral" was definitely not the right word.  Instead I should have said, "Bo became a badass!" or even "Bo learned some survival skills!"  Bo is example of what I've decided to call Tarzan Syndrome.

Some things to note right off the bat:

• This shouldn't be confused with Tarzan syndrome for kittens (and why you should adopt more than one at a time), or really with any other actual psychological condition.  We're just talking literary analysis here, folks.
• I'm using Disney's 1999 animated film Tarzan as my base model.

Even if you've not seen the 1999 Disney movie (with music by Phil Collins!), you are hopefully familiar with Tarzan as a story/literary trope:  male human baby is abandoned in the jungle.  He is found by/adopted by/raised by gorillas in the wild and learns to communicate with them/behave like them.  By the time other humans stumble upon Tarzan, he speaks almost no English or other human language, but can interact with wild animals.  Basically, Tarzan is left alone in the wild, and by the time the outside world catches up with him, he has brand new bag of tricks and survival skills.  He's also an adult and somewhat respected leader in his (animal) community.

Bo Peep's transformation in Toy Story 4 is an example of this:  she was abandoned, left, or "lost."  And by the time we (the world at large) "find" her again, she has a whole new badass skill set, many of which seem alien or foreign (or "feral") to us, and she is also in a respected leadership role in her new community (of other lost and/or "wild" toys).

The main difference, though, between Bo and the actual Tarzan story is that we don't get to see Bo's transformation.  Tarzan's story is just that:  his story.  And the Toy Story franchises are generally Woody's (and sometimes Buzz's) stories.  Even in this movie where Bo is featured prominently, her transformation and journey are relegated to a brief flashback and some exposition.  We don't get to see it; we don't see her "origin story" (if you wanna put it superhero movie terms).

Bo Peep is just one in a list of "strong female characters" in (mostly) film that have Tarzan syndrome (patent pending).  Here's an incomplete/in-progress list that's been playing through my head:

• Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer) in Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
• Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) in Aquaman (2018)
• Princess Leia's transformation to General Organa is almost a contender for her inclusion on this list, but not quite as no one thought she was dead; time just passed, and we were presented with her new self in Episode VII.  She does (very briefly) have her time in "the wild."  It's called Endor, and the Ewoks are like tiny gorillas.
• Rey in Star Wars:  The Force Awakens is almost a Tarzan, except that we do get to witness her part of her story and transformation (which is why it's probably my favorite Star Wars movie, with Episode VIII in 2nd place).

Jodie Foster as Nell, Amy Acker as Fred in Angel, I would contend, are not Tarzans because they do not (initially) come back as bad-asses.  They come back (or are discovered) broken, for lack of a better word.  Fred eventually overcomes most of her trauma and becomes a functioning member of Team Angel (and then Illyria happens, but that's a different piece of analysis entirely).  I haven't watched Nell in I don't know how many years, so I can't comment on her outcome.

An argument could almost be made for Catwoman in 1992's Batman Returns (there's Michelle Pfeiffer again!), except there are too many slight perversions on the list of requirements to put her in the category (she isn't "lost"; she's pushed out a window; she doesn't learn a new skill set so much as get some supernatural cat reflexes and characteristics; we do see her transformation). 

One of the defining Tarzan Syndrome traits (since I've just decided that it's a thing) is that we don't get to see these women's transformations, and that's bad.  Sadly, most of these characters are relegated to the sidelines; their discovery and re-entrance into the world is a secondary (or even tertiary) storyline to the lead (usually cishet white male) character's story and development.  The women attain an almost mythical quality because they were gone (often presumed dead), and simply reappear, years later, as badasses.  When we do get to see their stories (female buildingsroman, anyone?), some of the mythos is lost because we can see it happening.  We get depth and details, and in exchange we lose a bit of mythical hero.  And I'm okay with that.  

We should be telling those stories, with their sweat and grit and hard fucking work (I mean, can you imagine the sheer trauma Janet Van Dyne endured living ALONE in the quantum realm for decades?!?!), and not just because those stories often involve awesome "getting ready" montages (I fucking love a good montage, and even not-so-good ones).  And we still get badasses when we tell the stories and see what went into creating the heroine we see:  please see Captain Marvel (2019), Wonder Woman (2017), Rey in Star Wars, and nearly every woman who has had to recreate herself after being abandoned.

Reticence: A Review

Reticence by Gail Carriger
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Reticence marks the end of an era, as Miss Gail Carriger has already stated that there will be no more books in the Parasol Protectorate/Custard Protocol universe. For that alone it deserves the four stars as creating this universe and such a series of books (3 generations of characters!) is no small feat.

The rest of this review does have spoilers, so click accordingly. 

Was Reticence Carriger's best book in the series? No, it wasn't. She's had others that made me feel more (How to Marry a Werewolf comes to mind; I bawled like a baby at Faith's big reveal); she's had others that made me laugh more at some of the ridiculousness and utterly dry delivery (the lobster line in Poison or Protect, anyone?). And, of course, nothing beats the original; Soulless was the first love for many of us.

Like many sequels, prequels, and other "-els", Reticence sometimes falls into the trap of wrapping up things a little too neatly; Carriger, of course, acknowledges this with the cheeky epilogue, aptly titled "With a Neat Little Bow." Bringing in the characters from the Finishing School series felt a little forced. While we knew that Agatha was sponsored by Lord Akeldama (a.k.a. Goldenrod), the fact that he's been playing this game with these ladies all along was perhaps a little too contrived. Similarly, mentioning that "Miss Imogene" had been around "forever" (with Genevieve LeFoux) felt shoe-horned in, probably because of the writing order; when we're first introduced to adult Quesnel in Prudence (and his mother), Romancing the Inventor (Imogene's introduction to the universe) hadn't been written yet.

My other quibble (and it really just a quibble, a matter of style and preference, really) is one that I also noticed in both The 5th Gender and Competence: playing the ending. When our two main characters meet, their romantic involvement is already a foregone conclusion. Granted, we spend the book watching them try to tell each other (which is amusing); however, I seem to prefer it when we spend a good portion of the book watching the characters trying to figure out their feelings. Arsenic and Percy (and Tris and his detective, and to a lesser extent Prim and Tasherit) already know they are attracted to each other. To me, the rest of the novel then feels a bit rushed since we already know the conclusion coming. I much preferred it, to use an example, when Alexia and Connall didn't quite realize their feelings for each other (though nearly everyone else around them did); their dance around each other (and their feelings) was much more interesting to me that way. It could also be due to the narration type in the books; Alexia's books are primarily (though not 100%) from her limited POV; in the others, we get fairly unfettered access to several different characters' minds.

All of that said, do I regret buying this within minutes of it being released and procrastinating at my office over the course of two days to read it? Absolutely not.
It was still full of Carriger style: charming, sweet, flirty (yes, please, to the boot-unlacing bit!) and had my favorite cameo thus far (Lady Manami).

View all my reviews

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (A Review)

I finally saw the 2016 Ghostbusters movie this weekend.  And ya know what?  I liked it.  It was fun; I laughed.

I didn't read much of the criticism (legitimate and otherwise) when it first came out, other than perusing headlines, because

1. I hadn't seen the movie yet
2. I didn't have any immediate plans to see the movie
3. I try not to critique things I haven't actually read/seen/watched/experienced.

It did strike me, even before Leslie Jones' character's entrance in the film, that why does the black woman have to be the non-scientist?  If you have the opportunity to "reboot" or "do over" a film to include women and have more diversity, why go that route?  On the other hand, I realize that when pitching this project, it was probably as "a Ghostbusters film for Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Kirsten Wiig, and Leslie Jones" rather than "a women-led Ghostbusters reboot."  The difference between the two is that when a project already has a star (or stars) in mind, it's written and tailored for them; rather than a project that might have open auditions with at least one goal of having a more diverse cast.

That said, I have met, known, and interacted with many women like Jones' "Patty" in all kinds of professions, everything from public transit like Patty to academia to corporate overlords, and maybe they want the representation, too.  Patty herself was one of my favorite parts of the film and had many of the best lines.

I feel like the film addressed many of its criticisms head-on directly through the script in almost meta-textual fashion, including the race/diversity issue with Jones' character.  Case in point:  the scene at the metal rock concert when Patty goes to crowdsurf like Abby does.  The crowd does not hold her up; she falls flat on her back on the hard floor.  And I winced, both at the physical impact and at the implication.

And then Patty said it for me:  "Okay, I don't know if it was a race thing or a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell."

Exactly, Patty.

And there's more.  When Abby tells Erin to read a specific comment on their first ghost video:  "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts."  Yeah, pretty sure that could have come directly from any one of the press releases when this reboot was announced.

And, of course, when Dr. Martin Heiss shows up to the team's "office" and demands to know, in all of his white male privilege, "Why are you pretending to capture ghosts?"  As if to say, "how dare you attempt to do this thing?" which is what many of the "critics" have said all along.  And Abby and Erin both have the two reactions we tend to have to such a thing:  to prove ourselves imprudently and to attempt to not "lower ourselves" to their level.

For me, the movie as a whole shows what we women have to put up with on a daily basis, no matter our profession:  the constant questioning, how-dare-you-ing, the automatic assumption/requirement that we must prove ourselves, constantly and continually, and even then the majority of people (not just mean, though largely so) still do not believe us, give us credit, respect us in our own fields.  Every. Fucking. Day.  And, again, Abby and Erin display the two major reactions we women to have that continual questioning (neither of which are "right" or "wrong," they're just the most common).

So yeah, I liked it.  I recognized a lot of those experiences -- minus the paranormal part.  Well, mostly minus the paranormal stuff, but that's a different story.

Other things I liked (in usual Leonard bullet point style):

• The cameos!  So much fun, even the building cameos and ghost cameos.  By the way, where was Rick Moranis?
• And how the O.G. firehouse is super expensive rather than looking like a "de-militarized" zone.  
• How many different ways can we not say "Ghostbusters"?  I really enjoyed the little wink and  nudge at the original movie(s) without actually saying it: from the bits with the logo, to the theme music, to managing to say "who you gonna call?" out of context.  That was cheeky and fun.
• Really LOL'd at "Ghost Jumpers" TV show -- mostly because my Unit and I refer to one of our favorite ghost shows (that we used to watch all the time) as "Ghost Humpers."
• In fact, lots of different "points" to the original movie without being too on the nose; example:  if they had gotten the firehouse building right off the bat, that would have been too much.  If they had also said some of the favorite, quotable lines from the first movie (in similar contexts), it wouldn't have worked.
• I liked the fact that 1) it was not an attempt to recreate a shot-for-shot O.G. movie, simply putting in women instead of men as the lead roles.  This is its own film and should be enjoyed as such.
• I especially appreciated the fact that not one of the female characters was attempting to be "the girl version" of Murray's, Aykroyd's, Ramis', and/or Hudson's characters.  Sure, there were nods to them:  Holtzmann's crazy hair is reminiscent not necessarily of Harold Ramis' Egon, but the Egon in the cartoon (remember that thing?), and yeah, both Patty and Zeddmore are black and non-scientists.  But that's kind of where it ends, and I like that.  These women are their own characters and not stuck to the molds the O.G. guys created.

Little Leonard watched this every Saturday morning.

• Chris Hemsworth a.k.a "Kevin" -- that was fun.  And weird and dorky and fun.
• Speaking of weird, some bits with Kevin show that certain type of humor that occasionally devolves into absurdist (you can see it in The Unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt as well, especially the first few episodes of Season 2).  There is no "why" or "reason" for many of his quirks (like the eyeglass thing!).  They simply are and there is no other tie-in to the joke or punchline; it simply is.  Thankfully in this script, they did not get too heavy-handed with that type of humor (I don't usually care for it).

I don't think I had the same visceral reactions many other women had to watching this movie, similar to some of the visceral reactions many women had seeing Wonder Woman on the big screen as well:  those reactions that brings tears to one's eyes seeing a dream made real.  But I think that has less to do with either film (I didn't have that reaction to WW myself) and more to do with the fact that Leonard is dead inside.  I also think my reactions go the route of being able to see something and enjoy it and not have the immediate reaction of "Where are all the women?" or "Why is this all straight white dudes?"  It's more an absence of my reaction/frustration with the patriarchy than a reaction to seeing women on screen.  And that's still a good thing.  (Plus also, dead inside.)

Quotable Quotes:  One of the things many of us enjoy about the first two Ghostbusters films are the things we can quote for them.  So I tried to think of what quotes stuck with me from this movie -- unfortunately, not too many right off the bat, but perhaps more will make themselves apparent on subsequent viewings.  In the meantime:

• The power of Patty compels you!
• Too sexy for academia?
• Room full of nightmares right there.
• Ma'am, can you tell us where you got the world's tiniest bow tie?

In conclusion...

I also want to dress like Holtzmann, particularly the leather jacket, the little leather fingerless gloves, the smoking jacket, and the lady-suit complete with vest.  And I'm fairly certain given enough time and hairspray, I can get my hair to look like that.  Just not blonde.  Leonard does not make a good blonde.

Tangent:  I find it interesting that they approximated the look of an undercut without actually cutting/shaving her hair, which she probably didn't want to do.

Beauty & the Beast: A Review

Well, maybe not so much a review as a collection of bullet points of things I said aloud whilst watching this movie the other night.

• Oh hey, a multiracial cast!  Nice.
• (Although only 2 of the main named characters were POC)
• YAS AUDRA!
• Ooh, I like the dancing.
• In fact, I appreciated the attempt to give a wee bit more (pseudo)historical background in the film, except
• The fabulous opening sequence sets us up for an over-the-top experience, nearly cartoonish without being a cartoon -- and that's not a bad thing.  The attempt to give some historical context is at odds with that; you can do one or the other filmmakers, but you can't really do both (at least not well).
• Nice addition to the Prologue about everyone in town "forgetting" about castle and its servants; it fixes one of the major plot holes of the animated film, namely:  how the fuck do you not notice a giant creepy castle right next door?!?
• Holy fucking Autotuning, Batman!
• I nearly turned the movie off, but a friend said the Autotuning wasn't as bad as the film progressed.  BUT GOOD GODDAMN.
• Oh, Bard.  I'm disappointed in you.
• So now the bookseller is...a priest?  That's an odd choice.
• Upon further reflection, if she's the only one in town who likes to read, then a bookseller wouldn't be able to make a living; having a person who just happens to have a wee library from which she can borrow makes a bit of sense.  But it felt weird to have a sudden injection of religion, never to be addressed.
• And the priest gave her Romeo & Juliet to read??  Odd choice.
• Oh Josh Gad.  You make me laugh.
• Although, his type of dry delivery (and some of the others) also seems to fight against the "over the top" visual presentation/style of the film.  It's not Benedict-Cumberbatch-attempting-an-American-dialect-and-American-delivery-in-Doctor Strange bad, but in a "Was that really that funny?" way you might think five minutes after the joke was delivered.
• Kevin Kline is a national treasure.
• *Belle picks up a stick as a weapon*  Oh, girl, that's not a wand.
• I'm not sure how I feel about Ewan McGregor with a French dialect.
• Oh dear God!  What kind of dialect is that for Mrs. Potts??  It's sounds awful and fake!  Who the fuck did they cast?  *looks it up*  Ohhh, Emma Thompson.  What have you done?  I'm not angry, just very disappointed.
• Wait, so the feather duster is a peacock?  Err, a peacock-shaped feather duster??  Je suis confus.
• So if we're gonna add new songs, why not include "Home" from the Broadway version?  It's very pretty.
• Reflection:  well, if Hermione can't handle the easy notes of the opening number, there's no way she could handle "Home."
• They're all peacock feather dusters/showgirls?  What happened to the dancing napkins?
• *angry sniff as I played a dancing napkin in the stage version*
• They cut our favorite line!!!  *throws movie across the room*
• "You've got a library?"
• "With books!"
• So the prince/Beast was a spoiled brat because his father abused him?
• I found this extra background on the Beast largely unnecessary.  Why can't he just have been a spoiled douche like the 1991 film said?  Why do we have to blame parents we never meet?  It just opens up more questions and doesn't really resolve anything.
• It does attempt to explain why the servants were cursed along with him (because they "did nothing"), but clumsily and unsatisfactorily.
• I don't understand the reason behind changing/adding lyrics to the existing songs, especially in "Gaston."
• Speaking of unnecessary changes/additions:  Bard and Olaf take Kevin Kline out into the woods and tie him to a tree?  And then a "hag" (but not really) saves him and he confronts them about leaving him to die and THEN they try to sentence him to an insane asylum??  Super unnecessary and it robbed Olaf of another bit of song.
• Truly, he was underutilized in this movie.
• I'm not sure how I feel about the Beast just happening to show Belle the library as opposed to presenting it as a gift he (well, the servants, really) know(s) she'll like.
• I guess that's what happens when you CUT MY FAVORITE LINE!
• The "trip to Paris"/childhood home scene also felt unnecessary.
• YAS QUEEN!  You wear that Marie Antoinette drag!
• A friend of mine said they enjoyed Bard's performance as Gaston, that when he needed to be dark, he got dark.
• Disagree.  I mean, he did fine, but the animated Gaston, when he starts mocking the Beast and looks rather crazed, is far scarier, in my opinion.  Bard's Gaston is a little one-note.
• Belle and the Beast's reuniting felt...anticlimactic?  Maybe Hermione and Cousin Matthew just didn't have any real acting chemistry together?
• One change from the animated film that I did appreciate:  when all of the castle's staff slowly began changing to objects permanently.  That was heart-breaking and very well done.
• Olaf and the drag guy from before (I think?) dancing together at the end.  Brief, but I appreciate it.

All in all, I like the original animated version much better.  This had some nice touches, but I feel like this movie wasn't sure what it wanted to be; it ended up trying to be two or three different things, but doing none of them well.

School for Sidekicks: A Review

School for Sidekicks by Kelly McCullough
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book is fun and a fairly easy read. It definitely could be classified as "Young Adult" lit. I liked it just fine, although there's nothing particularly outstanding to write home about. #SPOILER -- STOP READING HERE[leave plenty of room for a sequel or three as there is no real resolution, not to the major issue at hand. That said, there's barely a resolution to many of the smaller issues. That's not necessarily a bad thing; not everything has to be wrapped up neatly in a bow. (hide spoiler)]



McCullough does [eave plenty of room for a sequel or three as there is no real resolution, not to the major issue at hand. That said, there's barely a resolution to many of the smaller issues. That's not necessarily a bad thing; not everything has to be wrapped up neatly in a bow.


If you have a day to spare and like superheroes, give it a try.
A quote I highlighted (and good to know):  "for the record, fresh scabweb tastes like condensed essence of armpit."

View all my reviews

Armada (Book Review)

Armada by Ernest Cline
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

First things first: is it as good as Ready Player One? That's kind of a loaded question. I can answer it by saying this is different from Ready Player One. While still definitely science fiction, Armada is firmly rooted in the present (well, 2015, when it was published), whereas Ready Player One exists in a mythical near-future. If you like your sci-fi farther away than the here and now, then no, you probably won't enjoy Armada as much as you enjoyed Ready Player One.

Putting Armada in the "real world" (so to speak) does allow for some great additional pop culture references that wouldn't have otherwise made it in. Pop culture and geeky stuff is one of the things Ernest Cline excels at, so he's doing us all a favor by adding some more. Where Ready Player One had a heavy 80s nostalgia going on, Armada gives us that, some mid-70s nostalgia like Star Wars, and then some more contemporary stuff like Firefly and Battlestar Galactica, plus some additional genres -- meaning, we're not just dealing with video game-type nostalgia here, we're dealing with science fiction across movies and games, alien invasions like Close Encounters, Contact, and (of course) Independence Day.

Armada is pretty action-oriented; indeed, most of the major plot events take place over the course of just a few hours, rather days or months. Additionally, if it's hard for you to visualize some things like spaceship cockpits, aerial maneuvers, and fighting techniques (like it is for me), you may start to glaze over (like I did) when Cline's text gets weighed down by his own technical prowess. Even so, I didn't stop reading (finished it in 3 days).

Other possible "cons" -- yes, it is a coming of age story of sorts. So if you don't like reading about teenage white boys attempting to figure out life, you won't like this; thankfully, that aspect is neither forced nor the focus of the story, otherwise my patience would have been spent. And it's definitely a story with some "daddy issues," which Cline's protagonist calls out right away. In fact, he acknowledges a couple of tropes right out of the gate, and some of them even get subverted a bit, which I always appreciate. But "daddy issues" also have their place of honor in most sci-fi canons, so it's not out of place in Armada either.

Last but not least, these are teenage boys, and they speak like teenage boys, most of which I found both realistic and pretty amusing. And possibly indicative that I might also speak like a teenage boy.

View all my reviews

Logan (A Review)

I know, I know.  Leonard is sorely behind the times in that we only just watched Logan two weeks ago.  I think many of my thoughts can be summed up by this Unit conversation:

Me: "Professor Xavier said 'fuck'!"
My Unit: "So? He's a grown man."
Me: "Yeah, but usually he's the one who's all 'we like everybody, let's give you a family,'..."
Her: "That's how you know things are fucked up."
Me: "Exactly."
Her (referring to its R rating): "And then they had sex and smoked cigarettes."
Me: "Professor X and Wolverine did not have sex. In that scene. That I'm aware of. But if they do --"
Her: "You'll let me know."
Me: "Of course! I'll be like, 'What the fuck is this?? Triple-X-Men??!?'"

While I did enjoy the movie, I also felt a little bit lost in the first 10 minutes or so.  Looking at other reviews and commentary after I finished it, it turns out I was not alone. (X-Men:  Days of Future WTF has also seriously screwed up my entire timeline/understanding of this franchise.) It also turns out that was entirely intentional.    For instance, "the Westchester incident."  Even as some of the details were dribbled out to us, I didn't fully understand the weight of what they (and Professor X) were saying.  I immediately recognized "Westchester" as "home base" for Xavier's school, but it didn't dawn on me that the "incident" and Professor X "hurting people" truly meant wiping out mutants.

Reading that SlashFilm.com article filled some holes and brought even more gravity to an already heavy film.  I really feel like Logan is a contemporary Western, and not just because Johnny Cash is featured on the soundtrack.  (Sidenote:  the use of his cover of Nine Inch Nails' "Hurt" in the first trailer was fucking brilliant.)  Perhaps I've not watched enough Westerns (original or contemporary or remakes) but "Old Man Logan," world-weary and still struggling with "doing the right thing" or being left alone, a fiesty young girl character, zero love interest, and yes, of course, all of the desert landscape featured all said "Western" to me, in the same vein as True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma.

Laura's first fight scene (even her name screams "Western!") was insanely cool.  I did gasp"Jesus!" at the screen when her toe-claw first flipped out.  I was trying to explain to my Unit the intensity of the scene, but could only squeak out, "She's practically feral!"

In fact, let's talk about Laura for just a moment.  Well, let's talk about Dafne Keen Fernandez:  she's under 13 and can do more (and better) acting with zero words than some adult actors I know, even with whole monologues at their disposal.  And how awesome is it that she's:

• a girl
• Spanish
• kicks major ass in this film

I don't have much else to say on this topic except representation matters.


"Old Man Logan" is kinda hot.  There.  I said it.  Just as we get used to Hugh Jackman as "Old Man Logan," though, the movie smacks us in the face.  Old Man Logan makes sense: he's older (well, closer to looking his own age, I guess); he's a little more mellow (for Wolverine) with age; he needs reading glasses; he's used to hard work put you don't wanna poke the bear (see:  Munson family scenes).  We don't even realize how accustomed we've grown to him until BAM!  Other Wolverine (X-24) shows up and reminds us what we're really used to seeing.  It's a great visual comparison to show us exactly just how far he's come/how much he's changed.  Plus, how often do you get watch Hugh Jackman fight himself?

I love Patrick Stewart's Xavier in this film because he's quite a bit different from previous Charles Xavier's, even the James McAvoy Xavier's.  Everything from saying "fuck" to the funny (but still sad and pathetic) "I need to pee" -- all of it.  He runs the emotional gamut in this film in ways that we're not used to Professor X (or really Patrick Stewart, for that matter).  Like the Unit conversation above said, it showcases how desperate things have gotten.

As a whole the movie had only one false note for me, and unfortunately, it was a large (loud?) one.  The ending fight scene, as Logan is impaled by the tree branch and Laura is crying over him, she cries "Daddy."  Not "Dad," not "Father," not even the (infinitely more plausible) "Logan," but "Daddy."  And then she repeats it, like, two more times.  Those three words felt entirely forced to me; they did not ring true at all.

Yes, we know Logan's DNA was used, so he is technically her father; chances are she knows that, too.  And even though they formed a fast and strange but slightly paternal relationship, it didn't make sense (to me) that she would cry out "Daddy" while crying over his dying/dead body.  If anything a "Nooo!" (though not Luke Skywalker style dramatic) would make more sense; best would probably just be the crying/ wailing/keening that doesn't require any words at all.  Maybe it's because Leonard is dead inside, but that part struck me as entirely forced; I can't seem to find another word to describe it.

Now that I've purchased, watched, and finished the movie comes the really tough question:  do I file it under "L" for "Logan" or under "X" alongside X-Men, X-Men 2, X3, X-Men:  First Class, and Wolverine?

Review: Marine Biology

Marine Biology by Gail Carriger
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Three stars is rather low for me for a Gail Carriger book. I think much of that stems from it being rather short (yes, I know it's a short story). Nonetheless, it felt a bit rushed, especially toward the end: one sort-of dinner date, and now (Read on Goodreads to view spoiler)[ Alex and Marvin are together forever? Okay, maybe not forever, (hide spoiler)] but it still seemed a little too "wrapped up neatly with a bow" for my taste.

On the other hand, some of the exposition just left me with more questions: like why are two merpeople investigating financial crimes? Is this a twentieth-century, American version of B.U.R. (and maybe I missed that detail?)?

Now that I think about it, "Two merpeople investigating financial crimes" actually sounds like a decent T.V. series -- BRB!

La La Land (Film Review)

I saw La La Land just before New Year's with a friend who lives and works in L.A., and she was able to give me some insight into several properties.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie.  It was fun, visually appealing, and a delightful homage to the golden age of movie musicals.  That being said, there's a fair amount constructive criticism to be typed out.  Let's start with what we liked.

Pros:

• Diverse casting:  No, not in the leads; don't be silly.  Hollywood can't seem to handle that.  But in their "chorus," most notably in the opening number taking place during L.A. rush hour traffic, I was pleased to see people of all kinds of colors, ages, shapes, and sizes -- not just "typical musical theatre types" (y'know, lithe, wholesome-looking dancers in their 20s).  So that was nice.
• So many colors!  The (mostly) primary colors of this film just pop all over the place making it visually appealing and sometimes downright stunning.  The color palette is part of what makes it such an homage to the movie musicals of yesterday (primary Singin' in the Rain, which I'll be referring to a lot during this review).  I was also pleased to see that Emma's four friends were all wearing different (though similarly styled) solid-color dresses -- a theatre standby to make it easy to find the characters on stage.  If we had seen them in any other numbers, I would have fully expected them to stay in their same color tones.  But look at this image and tell me you don't see the same?

"A Face in the Crowd," La La Land (2016)

From "Gotta Dance" Montage, Singin' in the Rain (1952)

• The music -- wait, no, the jazz.  The score and orchestrations were lovely.  My date (who is much more versed in such things than I am) pointed out to me that the director of this film, Damien Chazzelle, is a jazz musician himself; the film Whiplash (2013) is his story.  So naturally he's going to pay special attention to the jazz; however, I think that may also be his blindspot, but we'll save that for the cons in a moment.
• I enjoyed the dialogue and chemistry between Gosling and Stone:  "Can I borrow your outfit?  I have an audition later this week for a serious firefighter."
• I particularly enjoyed all of the contemporary "interruptions."  Just when we'd find ourselves falling into "musical theatre territory," Chazzelle gives a delicious (modern) interruption:  car horns honking, a cell phone ringing, movie film breaking, et cetera.  Those touches keep the movie from becoming too saccharine.
• The homages to older films, specifically movie musicals.  Here is another list/article by Aisha Harris at Slate of all of the tributes to those films of yore; I haven't read it yet because I didn't want it coloring my own initial thoughts, but I recommend it (and will be reading it shortly).  For La La Land, it starts with the "expansion" of the screen to the old "Cinemascope" logo (which only some people in the audience will get) and goes from there, including a swing around a lamp post a la Singin' in the Rain to the drive up to the Planetarium a la Rebel Without a Cause.
• Sidenote:  I have seen some people claim the "dancing in the air" sequence was ridiculous/unbelievable/stupid, etc.  First off, if you are looking for reality in a musical -- any musical -- I'm afraid I have bad news for you.  Secondly, that dance sequence is an homage to many, many predecessors, including (but not limited to):
• The "dream ballet" in Rogers & Hammerstein's Oklahoma! (or almost any R&H musical)
• Part of the "Gotta Dance" montage in Singin' in the Rain -- which has a dream sequence within a montage within a "what if" scenario
• Gene Kelly's dance with Jerry the Mouse in Anchors Aweigh (dancing with an animated mouse -- again, not looking for reality here).
• "A Jolly Holiday" from Mary Poppins wherein they jump INTO a sidewalk chalk painting and dance with animated people...and penguins.
• It even happens in non-musicals:  the dream/dance sequence in Susan Slept Here, starring Debbie Reynolds and Dick Powell (1954).

Those were all things I enjoyed.  Now the things I did not:

• The songs.  While the jazz and the score were both good, not one of those songs was memorable.  Not one of them made me want to run out and buy the soundtrack or (better still) buy the sheet music to learn them.  Not. One.
• The singing.  This is caused in part in how it's recorded (and when it's so very obvious the people on screen are not singing there) and partly the lack of the vocal training of the (non-)singers themselves, but everything sounded the same:  the same volume, the tone, the same wimpy, breathy vocalizations that show lack of confidence and lack of breath support.  Songs shouldn't all sound the same, nor should you sing them all the same.  We should hear things like piano, forte, pianissimo, etc.  Unfortunately, all of these songs were done in that "Gosh, I hope I'm not wrong, so I'm going to sing/speak quietly" piano mode.  Listen to Sarah Michelle Gellar on the Buffy:  The Vampire Slayer musical episode, and you'll hear exactly what I'm talking about.  And this is why I think songs versus orchestrations may be Damien Chazzell's downfall; he may be so focused on the latter that he didn't realize how bland and/or poorly recorded the former were.
• Part of the reason for this style of "singing" is that he didn't hire actual singers.  And while Ryan Gosling spent 3 months studying jazz piano (which is awesome!), at least as much time should have been spent on voice lessons.  Same with Emma Stone and, well, nearly everyone in the cast.
• The dancing.  Again, it wasn't bad; much of it was very cute.  But it wasn't great.  And frankly, it wasn't perfect.  I have much higher standards for films than I do for live theatre because in a film you can take as many takes as you want to get it right.  Theatre's a lot harder because you rehearse, but for each audience, you only have that one moment to be right (which is part of the beauty of live theatre, but I digress).
• Again, they didn't hire dancers (not for the leads).  So they could spend months training these talented actors, or they could, y'know, hire actual dancer/singer/actors!!!  It's a novel concept, I know, but I know those triple threats are out there.  In fact, I know some of them.
  

  

  Exhibit A:  look at their hands -- completely different!  INEXCUSABLE!!!

• Some of the transitions felt a little long; overall, the movie itself felt long.  I was surprised when I got out of the theater to see it was under 2 hours.  That's not necessarily a good marker of a film:  that it feels longer than it is.

Overall, I did enjoy it because I enjoyed the movies it made me think of (and made me want to go watch).  I liked the chemistry and banter between the leads.  Now I would just like them to do it better.

P.S.  I couldn't find a way to work it into this (very late) review, but go watch the 1955 movie version of Guys & Dolls (with Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra).  It's similar in color and style to La La Land as well.

Celluloid to Stage (A Review)

I have long said that most movies don't translate well to the stage.  I've been saying it pretty much ever since I saw/was in the stage version of Victor/Victoria where I discovered right up close that often the things that make the movie the piece of art that it is simply don't work on stage.  Sometimes it's a problem with screenplay to script to songs, but I strongly feel that it's trying to squeeze information from one medium to another.  And I could list several stage musicals that started as movies (musical and non) that are just awful, but I won't.  This post is about the show I saw last night, Finding Neverland.

I knew going in that this stage musical would be a hard sell for me because I absolutely love the film, and I love Johnny Depp in the film.  So I tried very hard to appreciate this stage musical for itself, as its own piece of art, and not judge it solely on "version of the movie."

TL;DR version:  is it a "bad" musical?  No, it is not.  Is it a "great" musical or something I'd want to see staged again?  No, it is not.

Musically, my date for the evening hit the nail on the head:  most of the songs sounded the same.  Some sounded so similar that I couldn't tell if it was a reprise of an earlier song or a new song entirely.  And it wasn't like there was a recurring musical theme woven in and out pieces as happens in some other musicals (Hamilton, Evita to name a couple); they just sounded alike.

She and I also agreed that there were some really compelling visuals happening during the show -- interesting choreography and just a lot of really awesome ensemble work so that no matter where you looked, something fascinating was going on, but it wasn't so predictable that we "knew" hey, people are going to pop out again!  The show made heavy use of projections (some animated/moving) during the performance.  Projections can be an interesting and also compelling visual aid -- the key word being "aid."  They should add to the performance but never take center stage.  At one point, during "Circus of Your Mind," I think, the projections were too forceful, too attention-grabbing, a bit like hitting the audience over the head with the merry-go-round theme of the music and lyrics rather than letting us figure it out (which wasn't hard to do given the above mentioned music and lyrics).

More importantly, all of the characters were....flattened...from their original selves in the film.  I wish I could say they had been distilled instead.  Distillation would mean the purest version of their selves; like cologne instead of eau de cologne, so strong that it can only come in small doses.  Flattened means they were simply made one-dimensional, reduced to the lowest common denominator.  Examples:

• I could tell from her first appearance during the opening number that Barrie's wife, Mary, was a flattened, one-dimensional version of herself.  She's been made into a grasping, materialistic caricature of a villain rather than an early twentieth-century woman struggling to do what society has instructed her to do:  to be a good and proper wife with all of the good and proper trappings of that position.
• She is accompanied by 3 foppish caricatures of servants; more on them later.
• Barrie's producer, Charles Frohman, has also been turned into a blustering, yelling "villain" type, shouting at Barrie about budgets and costs and schedules.  Dustin Hoffman's Frohman had the same worries, but he never lost faith in Barrie (and he certainly didn't yell).  While they did finally allow Frohman to say one of my favorite lines in the film¹, it was far too late for any type of character redemption.
• Speaking of Frohman,....while having him double as Captain Hook (a bit that looks like it may have been taken from the movie's first concept) seems like an ingenious bit of casting, Captain Hook is now Barrie's alter-ego?!?  Wow.  I find that,...let's say "problematic" for a couple of reasons:
• In the film (yes, I know I'm doing it again), the inspiration for Captain Hook comes not from Frohman but from Mrs. Emma du Marier (the Sylvia Llewelyn Davies' mother).  The bit of tech in the stage show that shows the inspiration coming from Frohman is fun visual pun -- don't get me wrong -- but making this change takes away from Mrs. du Marier's agency as a female character.
• It also changes the trajectory/arc of Barrie's character.  In a lot of ways.  He is no longer given inspiration for a children's "villain," but instead is battling his own id/ego/super-ego for recognition as, what?  A man (Hook is certainly masculine in this manifestation, also reinforced by his appearance during the "romantic" scene/love song between Barrie and Sylvia)?  A free agent (now that we've taken it away from Mrs. du Marier)?  In the stage show itself, this number is the Act I finale, and it is something to be seen, indeed.  I'm just don't agree with the character and story line changes it necessitates.
• Barrie himself is a lesser version than he is in the film.  Again, while they did include one of my favorite lines/scenes², its emotional impact was completely lost.  And speaking of his relationship with Sylvia Davies (mentioned above), they made the mistake of making them an overt romance.  One of the things the film does (and however much of it is true, I couldn't say) is that the two of them are never explicitly romantic; that's part of what makes their situation so complicated -- it has no name or definition.

Things we liked:  besides the movement/choreography, there was some gasping during the end sequence.  My date gave a small gasp when the handful of glitter was thrown in the air, and I may  have gobbed (that's a gasp plus a small sob) when they added Mrs. Davies' wrap to the swirling air.
....and then, because my brain is crazy, I immediately start thinking How long do they have to wait?  How long is it supposed to swirl?  Is it supposed to be carried away and disappear entirely?  How long do they wait if that doesn't happen?

Conclusion:  I think the overarching issue with this movie to stage translation is that they attempted to turn Finding Neverland into a musical comedy.  One need to look no further than the caricarature of the servants -- fairly unnecessary characters to be added, let alone to be stealing focus by the continual scenery-chewing.  Even Mrs. Barrie's later intended (Mr. Cannan) is turned into a cheap joke of a character.  Finding Neverland (the film) is not a comedy; it's a drama with some funny (and touching, endearing) moments, and that's what got lost in translation.

¹Frohman: "You know what happened, James, they changed it."
Barrie: "They changed what?"
Frohman: "The critics, they made it important... hm, what's it called? What's it called?"
Barrie: "Play."
Charles Frohman: "Play."

² "What a horrible, candle-snuffing word -- 'just.'"

Review: The Paper Magician

The Paper Magician by Charlie N. Holmberg
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Well, like many books, this one started out well. My first thoughts within the first couple of chapters were that it was hitting the Daddy Long-Legs-meets-Jane-Eyre genre fairly hard. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it was just very obvious. Just as that bit was nearly played out, EXPLOSIONS!

And then the majority of the book was spent traveling through Magician Thane's literal and metaphorical heart(s). At the same time. Don't ask me how that's possible because I don't know. Once Ceony survived that, the ending was predictable as the above mentioned books would have it, if a little "twee" (and less adult) in its presentation.

My issues with this book can be listed as follows:
No subtlety: in addition to the obvious ploys listed above, there was little subtlety anywhere to be found. Our villainess Lira had blood-red lips, dark eyes, a large bosom, and if that wasn't enough, she actually threw blood from her dripping fingertips. Nothing delicate or subtle there.

Time period anachronisms: if you're going to insist that the book is set in late eighteenth-early twentietch century London, then you best be sure to not use contemporary words such as "make-up," "barrettes," "catering," and the like. How could a man slip his "ungloved hand" up Ceony's skirt if she was standing and he was seated? The skirt would have been down to her ankles, not to mention the layers of petticoats and undergarments. A lady, even an evil lady like Lira, never would have worn pants. A schoolgirl like Ceony would have been shocked to seem them. And they wouldn't have been called "pants" (see below).

Lack of Britishisms: I haven't looked up if Holmberg is British, but for a book set in England, it was nearly devoid of Englishness, including but not limited to: tea (serving and making of), saying "trousers" instead of "pants," etc.

It's entirely fine to have an English-like universe set it an unnamed time where one can mix and match their verbiage as they see fit. However, by giving concrete times and places, a writer is best to stick within those conventions. If you don't know the conventions, do the research. If you don't want to do the research, don't give concrete details to which your story is tied.

Pros:
To quote the book, "I like the dog."

While Book #2 promises to continue Ceony and Thane's story, I doubt I'll be reading it.

View all my reviews