Dreamgirls had a lot of good stuff working for it – a great cast, interesting historical look at the development of Motown, and beautiful production – but I really disliked the music, which takes a lot out of your enjoyment of a musical. It seemed like all of the songs were sung at a belting out level, which would be fine in doses, but quickly became really tedious. Silly me, I thought the music would sound a lot like the Motown sound. The writing seemed to go all over the place, without a real sense of whose story we were seeing – was Effi the main character, was Deena, was Curtis? It was like the writers didn’t know either, which led to the movie dragging on and on. Gets a borderline OK, but only barely. Wouldn’t watch it again if you paid me.

I usually try to critique a movie based on a book that I have read without resorting to the usual, “the book was so much better” route, but it is hard not to go there with this movie. I was a little excited when I first started watching the film because the first ten minutes sticks to the book very well, before the screenwriters decided to careen off in a different direction. I was okay with some of the changes that they made (the ending, leaving out the monkey, cutting out several characters) because you expect that when you adapt a long book into a movie. There is simply not enough time. And I was even okay with changing a few other things (like having Madras around a lot more while taking Carlos’s story almost entirely out of the picture) to give the movie a better flow. But all the little changes in the end, added up to a movie very, very different in tone from the book. The book is a tragic love story that shows the horror of war as a horror, something people had to survive. The movie, in true Hollywood fashion, instead glamorized the war, the heroism, etc. The pieces are all still there (Madras is guilty of being very brutal to his own people if they are believed to be traitors; Gunter has to make the moral decision between orders and friends), but they lack the impact of the book because the entire movie has a glossy finish. When you make so many small changes, they really add up to a movie that is not anywhere near as good as the book. It is a shame too, because I think the book could be made into a brilliant movie. Let’s hope for a remake somewhere down the line.

I would like to add, though, that when I first read the book, I thought Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz were incredibly miscast, but when I watched it I actually enjoyed their performances. And why, oh why, couldn’t they have shown Madras go through his transformation from a man who wants to be a hero into a man who has become consumed with hatred and politics? Christian Bale could have shown that so well. Instead, we get to see him grow a scruffy beard (wow, what a character arc!).

I credit Jude the Obscure as being the book that put me on my current reading path. Before, I read loads, but nothing of substance unless it was assigned in school. Then, I believe it was in the summer before my junior year in high school, I went to a bookstore in search of a something new. I have always been a horrible cover snob (and still am – I don’t judge a book by its cover, but I don’t buy it if I don’t like the art) and was drawn to a simple, blurry drawing of a man working in a wheat field. I think I decided to buy it because it mentioned the movie version starring Eccleston and Winslet who I loved (still do). Anyway, I bought it and read it and loved it. I was shocked by it, which is saying something for a book written over a century before. Afterwards, I started being much more strict about what I allowed myself to read. Thank you, Thomas Hardy, for saving me from a life of reading Stephen King and Chic Lit.

Although I found the love triangle (or square, really) a bit melodramatic, overall I really liked this book. I’m not religious and definitely not Catholic, but I was intrigued by Scobie’s conflict over being true to the women he felt responsible for or being true to his soul. I can see why Greene was labeled as a “Catholic writer” after the success of this novel. Very well-crafted.

This book was so much better than I ever could have anticipated. Carey created an entire world, and it was very easy to get lost in the story. It gave me such a feeling of realism I had to remind myself that it was not a true story based on real people. I can see why Carey is often compared to Dickens; he is like an artist who can, with a few carefully placed brushstrokes, create a drawing of a person that seems ready to step off of the page. Although he obviously knew where the story was going, he never let the characters in on it (much like real life), letting them feel their way to their destinies and never letting it feel preordained.

I liked this book, but I didn’t really enjoy it, if you know what I mean. I thought the insights into relationships between women were very well done. I think I was put off by Edith’s character and how she never let anyone in, including in many ways the reader. It was fine storytelling, but something is missing for me if I can’t embrace the hero/heoine.

LOVED this book. It reminded me of what it was like to be a kid – all the unspoken rules that exist between children while they play, and the desire to understand the unspoken rules that exist between adults. It also gave me quite a scare about the prospect of raising my own son, who will one day be 10 and into all kinds of self-destructive behavior.

I can’t recommend this book enough. The writing is beautiful and stays true to its historical setting. Where other writers would have started and finished the story around the voyage itself, Barrett wisely shows the effects of the voyage on the characters, but avoids the pitfall of making the second half anticlimatic. I would suggest this to most serious readers, especially those who enjoy seafaring stories like the Patrick O’Brien books, as well as naturalist-focused books like Angels & Insects.

I disliked the first part of this novel, feeling it was disjointed and overpopulated with characters I didn’t understand or wish to understand. However, I was pleasantly surprised to read the second two acts. The writing felt much more organic, which makes sense after I read the short biography at the end that told of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s own alcoholism and Zelda’s sanitorium stays. For anyone reading this and thinking of giving up, keep going – you might actually find yourself caring about the outcome of Nicole and Dick’s relationship.

I’m surprised so many people recommended this book. I thought the writing was clunky at best. The one thing enjoyable I got out of the book was the plot, which wasn’t the author’s creation, so I’m not sure she should get many points for that one. The characters were incredibly one-dimensional. I am sure that the author did her research, but it wasn’t evident from the details – never once was I transported into the setting.