I thought that this was a fairly well-written book, but it’s not Ishiguro. The reasons I love Ishiguro’s writing: poetic prose, almost ephemeral storylines of self-realization, cultural revelations…. none of these are present. It’s almost like a 360 in terms of approach- very concrete, science-fiction-ey type story line, in very straight-forward language.

It was quite disconcerting.

Also, having just watched The Island the night before, it felt madly redundant. Bad timing on my part.

The acting was good and the tale was well-told, but there were just no redeeming qualities to any of the characters. I lost interest quite quickly despite the fact that I think, cinematographically, it was a pretty decent film.

I must say that I preferred her short stories… a lot more impact in a lot fewer words… this was a loverly read, though.

Personally, I find Jeanette Winterson to be a quite self-centered and philisophically winded writer, counterbalanced only by her intensely powerful infusions of dry wit, which make the whole book worthwhile.

This one is a bit of a slow start (not necessarily a good thing for a short novel) but once you get to the repartee between Atlas and Heracles, the rest of the book is worth the read, barring a few discontinuous chapters interjecting aspects of the narrator which I find completely inconsequential to the enjoyment of whole of the novel, though, symbolically, I’m sure they mean all sorts of fancy things about the re-invention of self. I just don’t care much for any of the incarnations of Jeanette Winterson’s “self”.

Personally, I felt that the first one was dull and took ages to wade through which, for a short story, is not a good sign. The second story wasn’t very interesting, but it was short enough that I could swallow it in one go and move one.

The third story is what makes this three stars rather than one. Though ended rather cheesily, the narrative tone made the story a worthwhile read.

If you want my advice, start with Occidentals. If you don’t like it, don’t even bother going back and reading the first two.

I wanted to see this movie because a friend of mine saw it and, for years (literally) obsessed about having a “monsoon wedding” of her own.

Personally, the whole event just looks like the most stressful thing one can go through. I vote elopement…

It’s worth consuming because the kids are cute and Wilson can shake his little boo-tay. But, overall, I don’t think it was a very well done documentary. There was a lot that wasn’t explained and the segments didn’t always fit together. While this can be a useful cinematic technique, it just didn’t seem like that kind of documentary. It ought to have been a bit more straight forward with a clear timeline.

This is an interesting book for its take on Aid Agencies (within a slightly futuristic context), but I found the prose less than gripping.

Based on Wilde’s Lady Windemere’s Fan, so the dialogue is quite good and has many of Wilde’s more recognizable quotes. Perhaps Helen Hunt wasn’t the best choice for the role of Mrs. Erling, though her likeness to Scarlett Johansen in this film is quite spooky.

If you like Wilde, you’ll prolly like this movie, but then, you’ll probably be just as happy reading the play…

This book read like a Master’s Dissertation. It was a series of badly transcribed/translated interviews about a number of topics with randomly chosen subjects (probably the only people that were willing to do the interviews) and no true underlying theme. The subjects were so haphazard and badly organizaed that it was disconcerting.

I did, however, learn a great deal about the open drug scene in Zurich.