This book reinforced everything I love about Hardy. It is gorgeously written; I loved all of the details about Casterbridge and its range of inhabitants. It is both tragic and sweet (not as dark as some of his later works). I loved how Henchard was never allowed to be simply a doomed man, but a man who suffers because of his own poor judgment and hot temper. He was man who wanted others to respect him, but understood why they lost respect for him and who was endlessly hopeful of the possibility of making up for his mistakes. Loved it!

A sweet little movie about Beatrix Potter, creator of Peter Rabbit. I felt the movie lacked the kind of magical charm that it was clearly striving for with the animated drawings – like it was consciously trying to be another Finding Neverland. The plot was fairly threadbare, so not really for those who need huge developments. I felt Renee Zellweger was really miscast (and not because of her nationality like some critics) – she seemed to be forcing herself to smile almost the entire movie, and she never struck the right chord of eccentricity and charm. But, despite all the criticism, I enjoyed the movie and was moved during some of the better parts (the party especially – from Ewan singing, to spiking the chaperone’s coffee, to Renee’s storytelling). A pleasant little movie overall.

Barnes starts with a first chapter that reads like a wonderful short story about Martha’s childhood and her parent’s divorce. Then, completely changing tones, he moves on to the second part which felt much more like a novel-in-progress – characters in different stages of development, the “idea” being forced on you in ever-more-pretentious ways, and a digression into literal “potty” humor that I guess was supposed to be amusing but actually made me want to vomit. Finally, again changing tone, Barnes goes further into the future and gives an epilogue long on narration that feels like the end of a lecture. The entire thing felt very unfinished, rushed, undeveloped. The idea behind the book isn’t as witty as Barnes wants us to believe, and the long passages of his characters debating the Project of England, England grow more and more tedious and unnecessary. I can’t give it a “Not Worth Consuming” because of the gem of a first chapter and a few sparkles scattered throughout the rest of the book (Dr. Johnson in particular), but not something I would recommend to anyone.

Very, very good. There wasn’t a single weak part of the film – cast, writing, production. Of course Mirren was justly praised and awarded for the role, but I was equally taken by Michael Sheen’s performance as Tony Blair. And who knew the Queen Mother was so funny?

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.