Book Review: Switch Bitch

Title: Switch Bitch

Author: Roald Dahl
Year Published: 1974
Genre: Short stories, Erotic humour

Dark, funny and always bizarre, Roald Dahl’s short stories usually climax in some sort of terrifying, karmic twist. Switch Bitch is a collection for four such tales, where sex is the word of the day and the word of the day is sex.

In ‘The Visitor’, we are introduced to Uncle Oswald, a pompous, hedonistic womanizer who finds himself stranded in the Sinai Desert. He is rescued by the wealthy Mr Aziz, who takes Oswald to his desert palace where temptation awaits in the form of Aziz’s wife and daughter. The story begins a little slowly, but the atmosphere – the sense of entrapment – and Oswald’s morally dubious character are built to wonderful effect. By the end of it all you’re not sure whether to feel bad for the poor bastard, though you’ll definitely be amused at his expense.

Next comes ‘The Great Switcheroo’, wherein our narrator fancies sleeping with his neighbour’s wife. A plot is hatched: each man learns the other’s “routines” so that they can impersonate one another and swap wives for a night. The ins and outs of this horrible plan are carefully detailed and the tension is built up masterfully. Mr Horrible Husband’s comeuppance proves to be very satisfying. Serves him right.

The third tale, ‘The Last Act’, was my least favourite. It tells the story of Anna as she deals with the loss of her beloved husband. Unlike the protagonists of the other tales, Anna seems like a genuinely sweet person – or at least someone who isn’t an intentional asshole – and her fate just feels depressing. Without the bite of ‘justice’, this story comes across as more dark than darkly funny. Further, it lacks the hook of a high-concept premise and is considerably less exciting, with the story feeling directionless for the most part. For these reasons, ‘The Last Act’ doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the collection and creates a bit of mood whiplash.

In ‘Bitch’, we have another of Uncle Oswald’s adventures. This was perhaps my favourite story. The premise is certainly novel: a scientist invents a perfume that fills men with uncontrollable lust. The development, testing and eventual ‘use’ of this dangerous substance are detailed meticulously, with the scientific jargon adding to the realism and hence the suspense. It’s (relatively) fast-paced, action-filled and light-hearted compared to the other stories. To me, it was also the funniest of the lot.

If you only know Dahl as a children’s author (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, Fantastic Mr Fox and so on), a collection like this might take some adjusting to. If you’re worried about ruining your childhood, know at least that the sex scenes aren’t explicit. The raunchiest of them happens in ‘Bitch’ and that one is full of hyperbole; generally, the sex scenes serve to humour rather than titillate. Know also that sex isn’t exactly the key feature of all these stories, but rather, more of an excuse of a theme to justify bringing these stories together. Both surprisingly and unsurprisingly, these stories were first published in Playboy. So there you go.

Dahl’s trademark wicked, twisted humour are present in all four tales, which are also fun to read for the puzzle-solving aspect of their characters’ conundrums. Tense and tightly plotted, each story is easily read in one sitting. There’s a somewhat ponderous yet comfortable feel to the writing style here – necessarily different from Dahl’s children’s books – which may factor into your enjoyment of these stories. It took me a while to get into ‘The Visitor’, for example, since it started off so slowly.

A further warning: these stories were written in the 60s, and they do feel a little dated (wives are synonymous with housewives, for example). That said, I still found them incredibly readable. Recommended for someone appreciative of dirty jokes and after a quick, clever, twisty read.

Alex’s Rating: 4/5 

Movie Review: Tired of Kissing Frogs (Cansada de Besar Sapos)

Title: Tired of Kissing Frogs (Cansada de Besar Sapos)

Director: Jorge Colón

Year Released: 2006

Running Time: 100 minutes

Classification: R

Genre: Romantic comedy

Generally speaking, you don’t watch romantic comedies for their ability to broaden your worldview. What you want is a fun and wish-fulfilling love story that can make you happy (until you go home alone and realise that you have absolutely no one – no one at all – and that you are so, so lonely and the only thing that can numb your pain for now is a tub of ice-cream, eaten in front of the TV, cat optional). With this in mind, I sat down to Tired of Kissing Frogs with low expectations, curious as to how a Mexican romcom would differ from the usual (English-language) ones. To my surprise, the film 1) adhered to the typical (Western) romcom tropes – including the stupid ones – and 2) was shockingly, painfully dull.

The premise of the movie is your typical silly romcom premise: our heroine Martha (Ana Serradilla or Mexican Natalie Portman) catches her boyfriend cheating on her and dumps his ass. Having been thusly burned, she joins an online dating service called “Cansada de besar sapos” and decides to “act like a man” – that is, become a ~playa. Of course, Martha goes on dates but doesn’t actually sleep around – we can’t have a slut as a heroine after all – and on the side she strikes up a friendship with cute waiter/aspiring actor Xavier (José María de Tavira). And, well, guess what happens. Go on, guess.

In addition to this set-up there are the usual romcom staples: Andi (Ana Leyevska) is Martha’s sassy best friend and colleagues Joaquin (gay and wry) and Daniela (kinky and ditzy) serve as comic relief. Add in a “crazy” scene where Martha and Andi have to dress up as strippers and you have all the ingredients for a romcom. Yet somehow, the recipe doesn’t quite work.

Mainly, I think it’s the pacing and the script and the entire logic of it all. Things happen so slowly that you can see all the events – the breakup, the dating montages, the misunderstanding – lined up before you long before they come to pass. It’s no fun when you get to the scenes either; they’re already tired by the time they arrive, having come at you with the speed and subtlety of an approaching street cleaner. Another consequence of this is that you find it really easy to spot all the irrational, nonsensical situations in the story (such as the whole playa thing) without losing track of or being distracted by what’s going on on screen.

I’m pretty tolerant of dumb premises, but in this case, everything is so workman-like and clichéd that it all comes across as bland bland bland. The story and the dialogue are so stock standard that it feels like a checklist for a romcom rather than a romcom itself. During the parts where they needed character or relationship development or whatever, there’d often be some sort of montage with a song. You get the feeling that the writers put in a montage and a song whenever they didn’t know what to write. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of montages and a lot of songs.

Worse, quite a bit of it is poorly edited. I normally don’t notice these sorts of things but by golly I noticed it here. Not only are the montages poorly put together (the music changes can be abrupt) but you also become actively conscious of the different cuts. It’s clumsily done and there are times you notice things like the colours or lighting or “look” being different between shots. The bright side of this I guess is that I have a newfound appreciation the work done by editors and continuity checkers.

Not even the novelty (to me) of its Mexican origins helped alleviate the dullness. Like the cast, the city setting is stylish, pretty and strangely vanilla, with nary a cultural quirk to be found. Had the dialogue been in English I could have easily believed that we were somewhere in the US or Britain.

I mean, I guess they tried. The performances aren’t bad and the actors do what they can with what they’re given. Ana Serradilla brings a liveliness and likeability to Martha and there are some genuinely funny moments throughout. There’s also a realism to the story and romance, particularly towards the end, and this lends a sense of freshness to the movie. As a result, the relationships seem real and relatable.

The flip side of this of course, is that realism is boring. If I wanted to know what ~real life~ is like, I’d just go outside. Sometimes, I wondered if it was the realism that made the movie feel way longer than it was, but then I’d remember the “crazy” shenanigans near the beginning and remember that that was boring too. Just because the characters are doing wild things doesn’t mean the movie itself is wild. The most intriguing thing I found about this film was its lesson in how much technology had changed between 2006 and today. Needless to say, that’s not a good sign.

Alex’s Rating: 1.5/5

TV Series Review: Merlin (2008)

Title: Merlin (TV Series 2008)

Creators: Julian Jones, Jake Michie, Johnny Capps, Julian Murphy

Original broadcast: 2008-2012
Series length: 5 seasons, comprising 13 x ~45 minute episodes per season

Status: Complete

Classification: PG

Genre: Historical fantasy, Family, Action/Adventure, Comedy

Man. Where do I even begin?

This show. This show. I invested five years of my life in this show and what started out for me as light-hearted squee morphed into some sort of rabid hate-watch towards the end. The finale made me so mad that instead of sleeping I spent a night rolling angrily around in bed. When I finally fell asleep, I woke up the next day, still mad.

So yeah. If you’re looking for a rant, you’ve come to the right place.

(Review behind the cut. Warnings for foul language and major spoilers, including the finale. For those who haven’t seen the show but are thinking about it, they’re the sort of spoilers you’d want to know about before you decide to watch. Trust me.) 

Movie Review: Monsters University

Title: Monsters University
Director: Dan Scalon

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 104 mins

Classification: G

Genre: Animation, Family and kids, Comedy

The most anticipated prequel has hit the screens, Monsters University!

Monsters University is the story of how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) meet before Monsters Inc. If you don’t know who Mike and Sulley are and have no idea what Monsters Inc. is, then you must go, now, watch Monster Inc. then come back to this review.

If you have seen Monsters Inc. go re-watch it anyway.

But first, Blue Umbrella, the most recent Pixar short played before the movie is brilliant and is completely new to the design of Pixar. If anyone can make people feel for inanimated objects, Pixar can. 

Back to the review.

Monsters University did not leave me disappointed and is exactly what I thought the movie would be. I wouldn’t say it was the best but definitely is on par with Monsters Inc., if not, then a little less only because it uses the same characters in Monsters Inc. so doesn’t feel original – which it shouldn’t feel, since Monsters University is a prequel to Monsters Inc.  

The start of the movie is just too cute. Little Mike is sooo cute to the point I felt disappointed when older Mike gets off the bus in front of the University. This movie is purely about chasing your dream and not giving up. Mike is inspired to be a Scarer and will do what he can to be one. The storyline is very cliched. It has your usual jocks, cheerleaders, punks and losers. Both Mike and Sulley have to prove their worth by joining forces with the members of the Oozma Kappa fraternity (the losers) to win the Scare Games. The only thing not cliched about this movie is there is no love interest which is a plus. There was no room for it.

Monsters University has all the ‘Pixar’ needed to make it a funny family film. If you have seen Monsters Inc. you will love the guest appearances in this movie. As for the new characters, I found Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) terrifying and I use the word terrifying because I don’t like anything that has more than 4 legs. Eeuuggghhh……

The character designs of the Dean and Art (Charlie Day), a member of the Oozma Kappa fraternity was the most interesting. I may not like insects, but for the role of the Dean, an insect was the most appropriate. As for Art, he is just all furry with tree trunk legs and tiny arms. A little bit awkward appearance-wise but the most mysterious and funny of them all. As for the other Oozma Kappas, they were ordinary. I understand that’s the point but their unique abilities were awkward. It made the last competition unconvincing even though Pixar did its best to illustrate Oozma Kappas' weaker potentials. I felt more towards the Oozma Kappas as a group rather than them as individuals.

There is some character development in this movie, mostly focusing on Sulley… and Randall has some screen time. It’s not a very successful development when most people know how Sulley and Randall will be in the future. The focus of this movie is on Mike and I loved it. In Monsters Inc. I favoured Sulley over Mike. I found Mike bossy and a little selfish. In Monsters University, he’s still a little selfish but it was driven by his dream. He might be bossy towards the Oozma Kappas, but he never gave up on them and did his best to help. This is typical of the main character in college films but having believed Mike was bossy and selfish, it was nice to see it wasn't the 'true Mike’.

My favourite part is the end of the film and how they become Scarers. It’s not what one might think it would be, but it proves hard work does pay off. There are funny scenes but I preferred the story itself. The funny bits were a bonus.

I’ll definitely be re-watching Monsters University again and may even follow that with Monsters Inc. True to a Pixar film, I’m sure there are a lot of Easter egg surprises in the film I have missed. I enjoyed Monsters University and recommend everyone to go watch it, just remember: relax and enjoy. Mike and Sulley will always be the lovable monsters they are.

  

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Note: There was one fault I found. I may be wrong but in Monsters Inc. as Mike and Sulley walk to work, I’m quite sure Mike mentions he met Sulley.

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

Title: Despicable Me 2

Directors: Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 98 minutes

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation, Action/Adventure

(Note: this review contains spoilers for Despicable Me (the prequel))

2010’s Despicable Me stands out as one of the more original kids’ films of the last five years. In that movie, evil genius Gru (Steve Carell) attempts to steal the moon. Because of plot reasons, Gru adopts three little girls. Because it’s a kids’ movie, Gru relinquishes his villainous ways to become a good father. All in all, it’s a pretty cute film, full of laughs and “awww”.

Understandably then, you had to wonder where they’d go with Despicable Me 2. It necessarily lacks the villainous glee of the first movie, which is both good and bad: good, because it means there’s character development; and bad, because it’s not as original. In the sequel, Gru has his hands full being a parent and intends to start a business making jams and jellies. All seems well until he is suddenly kidnapped by Lucy (Kristen Wiig), an agent from the Anti-Villain League. Apparently, someone has created a chemical that turns its victims into mutant purple killing machines. The AVL “recruits” Gru in the hope that his expertise in villainy will enable him to uncover the identity of the villain responsible. Personally, I liked that they made Gru an “ex-villain” rather than a sudden, all-out hero.

Like the first movie, there are plenty of laughs to go around, whatever your age. The humour ranges from slapstick, mostly played out by Gru’s adorable Minions, to send-ups of stereotypes, like the improbably tough Mexican wrestler villain El Macho and the fitness freak blonde girl with whom Gru goes on a date. I actually laughed out loud a lot during this movie, which is more than I can say for most comedies.

From the promotional materials and from the moment she shows up on screen, you know that Lucy is Gru’s designated love interest. Gru’s daughter Margo (Miranda Cosgrove) also gets a love interest in the form of the dashing Antonio (Moisés Arias). Sadly, the romantic plot developments in the film felt exactly like that: they were moments I felt I had to endure in order to get to the rest of the story and were only palatable when intertwined with comedy, like when Gru goes all overprotective dad over Margo’s new boyfriend.

The animation is cute and colourful and I found myself admiring Gru’s home décor more than once. The 3D is used effectively: I liked that I was able to look into the sets, rather than at them, particularly in big, busy locations such as the mall. If you want to get the “most” out of the 3D, then you may want to stay for the credits as you’ll get to see some Minions shoving stuff at you through the screen.

Conceptually, Despicable Me 2 is “less” than its predecessor: the villain protagonist angle is gone, a predictable romance plot has been added and there’s less interaction between Gru and his kids. That said, I think I liked this film more. While Gru’s relationship with his daughters is more static, there are still plenty of heart-warming “family” moments of the kind that made the first movie so memorable. There’s also a greater sense of chaos compared to the very plot-driven prequel and I’m pretty sure it’s funnier as well. The cute little Minions also get to play a bigger part, which, admittedly, may or may not be a good thing, depending largely on whether you’re a parent who’ll now have to fork out on Minion toys (now available at a store near you).

Despicable Me 2 is a fun, funny, fluffy family movie and a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. It’s no masterpiece of cinema, but with the current crop of movies out right now you could easily do worse.

Alex’s Rating: 3.5/5

Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Title: Wreck-It Ralph

Director: Rich Moore

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 108 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Family and Kids

Being a long-time fan of Pixar, I was quite sceptical with Wreck-It Ralph. No one can possible do better than Pixar. I was wrong. Wreck-It Ralph may not be my favourite animation movie but it’s definitely one of the best.

Basically, this movie is about Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), a video game villain who is sick of being the villain and decides to go fulfil his dream of being a hero. While on his quest, he causes chaos in the arcade world.

This movie ticks all the boxes of a good kids’ animation. It is enjoyable to boys and girls, adults and children, has great animation, a tender touching story with the perfect amount of comedy. If you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend it. It may not top Toy Story 3 (which is a personal favourite) but Disney is definitely heading in the right direction with Wreck-It Ralph.

One of my favourite parts of this movie is its reference to old video games. If you ever played video games as a kid, you’ll be delighted to see some appearances of characters from your childhood memories. There is also a joke about High Definition games.

The story is unique and was well thought out. Rather than having the ‘games central’ in cyber space, Wreck-It Ralph’s ‘game central’ looks like a train station with platforms leading to different games. This idea allows the ‘game central’ to look more solid and realistic.

The characters are all likable and surprisingly, relatable. Everyone can sympathise with Ralph. There is a bit of everything for everyone in this film. Comedy, likable main character, little treasures to be found and a twist (which I did not see coming). There is nothing poor I can say about this movie.

Just go watch it already.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Adaptations of Jane Austen's 'Emma'

Jane Austen's works are the subject of many a film adaptation and today, I'm focussing on Emma. Our titular heroine is a rich, handsome and clever young woman who plays matchmaker in her little Regency England social circle. Romantic misunderstandings ensue. Like Austen's other works, there is a Happy Ever After for the heroine, in which she ends up with a man. But unlike some of Austen's other works, it is not immediately apparent who that lucky man will be. So if you'd like to keep the suspense going, then I suggest you look away. On the other hand, if you want to know whether you'll like the romance in this story, read on. This piece is intended to help you find an adaptation you'll like. To date, I have only seen four film adaptations of the work. Here they are in no particular order.

But first, a quick rant on the book...

Austen predicted that she had created in Emma a heroine whom no one would like but herself. I'll admit: the one (and only) time I read the book, I disliked Emma. As clever and as lively as she was, I could not forgive Emma's superior manner and selfishness. She treats her “friend” Harriet like a toy – to be picked up and discarded at whim – and I with my 21st century values found Emma's snobbishness to be very off-putting, despite how “appropriate” such behaviour might have been two centuries ago.

Even so, I thought she could have done better in her choice of romantic partner. I mean, Mr Knightley is perhaps the only decent fellow of the lot, but I did not feel their romance at all. Their pairing seemed too convenient, almost but not quite as bad as Marianne and You-Know-Who at the end of Sense and Sensibility (but that's a different rant). Mr Knightley was also old (can you tell I read this when I was young?) and felt more like a relative. When he talks about having known her since she was a baby and starting to love her since she was thirteen – he, at the time, being almost thirty – then yeah... not sexy. At least, not for me with my prudish 21st century Western sensibilities.

Still, it's Austen, so I don't think I need to say that it's a good book, my dislike of the heroine aside. As you might expect, the characterisation is deft and there's a lot of comedy in this comedy of manners. Further, if you're watching a Regency drama then you at least know (in an Austen story) that the plot and character arcs will come together in a largely satisfying way.

1. Emma (1996)

This version, starring Kate Beckinsale as Emma, was the first adaptation I watched. I don't remember much of this other than thinking, at the time, that it was a faithful adaptation of the book. It has a similar look to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries and there's a muted darkness to the colours. Beckinsale is appropriately girlish and haughty as Emma while Mark Strong is decidedly avuncular as Mr Knightley (also, I have no idea why he mentions holding her as a baby during his freaking marriage proposal and it haunts my mind to this very day). His hair is also distractingly bad. The Knightley/Emma relationship feels like an adult/child relationship (I got the feeling he'd be the sort to constantly scold her while she'd maybe sulk and cry), but hey, you might like that. Alternatively, you might interpret it differently. I enjoyed the film but liked neither of the main characters. I liked even less that they got together. Otherwise, I remember it being pleasant to watch.

2. Emma (1996)

The Gwyneth Paltrow movie is a lighter take on the story, with the comedic aspects of the tale being played up. There are more active, outdoors-y scenes in this one and there's a warm, 90s sort of feel to the aesthetic, not unlike the 1992 version of Little Women. The beginning feels rushed – a lot of information is dumped on the viewer – and for the first half hour or so it feels like everyone is Acting (I also spent way too much time pondering Paltrow's accent than I should have). It took me a while to get into the film, but when I did, I was surprised to find I rather liked it. Emma seems kinder and more of a goody-two-shoes in this version and I liked her the better for it. Jeremy Northam's Mr Knightley exudes a sort of off-duty sexy professor vibe, and as he's much less imposing than Mark Strong, I much preferred this Emma/Knightley pairing to the one in the other 1996 Emma. However, the performances in general are nothing to write home about and I didn't much care for the side characters (though Mrs Weston was distractingly gorgeous). Still, it's good if you want a sweet, romantic film.

3. Emma (2009)

This 2009 adaptation really benefits from being a miniseries, as the increased length gives it the opportunity to flesh out both the novel's story-lines and characters. In some ways, everything about the atmosphere of this series feels like a revenge against those criticisms of “stuffiness” as regards Regency costume dramas: there are plenty of bright colours and exterior shots and there is a much greater sense of familiarity (perhaps to the point of excess) between the characters. Romola Garai's Emma is lively and energetic; she's snobby but she seems so eager to do well that it's easier to like her. While largely faithful to the book, there is a major departure from the source in terms of Emma's own romantic arc. The series places more of a focus on this and there is no slow-build “reveal” of Mr Knightley as her One True Love: from the very moment you see Mr Knightley, here played by Jonny Lee Miller, you know he's the Designated Love Interest. Here, Mr Knightley comes across as reasonable and kind, and his relationship with Emma feels like one of equals, so that gets a thumbs up from me. The Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax business seems to drag on towards the end, but overall I think this version is one of the more cohesive ones and has one of the better casts. Michael Gambon is a hoot as the hypochondriac Mr Woodhouse.

4. Clueless (1995)

The fact it's a very loose adaptation set in a modern American high school might scare some of you off, but really, it's great fun. Emma is reincarnated as Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone), a rich white girl who along with her black best friend Dionne (Stacey Dash) takes it upon herself to “rescue” new student Tai (Brittany Murphy) from the horrors of unpopularity and loser-dom. What I love about this movie is how it plays with all the movie/high school tropes and how funny and quotable it is. Cher is snobby and silly but she's so well-meaning that you root for her nonetheless. She's taken down a peg or two in this film too, and I appreciated seeing more of her personal growth. I don't have much to say about the Mr Knightley character in this one, other than that he's there, he seems alright and he does what he needs to. I also liked how the Emma/Harriet storyline takes centre-stage over the romance. Worth watching, regardless of whether you like Emma. Probably my favourite adaptation and undoubtedly one of the best American High School films out there.

So there you have it. All these adaptations are different and all have their pros and cons. I don't think any of them are “definitive” adaptations but I do think they cater to different tastes. If you have recommendations or favourites, let me know; I'd be interested to see what else is out there!

(A/N: As you can see, I'm trying something a bit different from the usual reviews. Let me know what you think :))

Book Review: Good Omens

Title: Good Omens
Author: Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
Year Published: 1990
Genre: Urban fantasy, Comedy

Good Omens is about the Apocalypse – the actual biblical, Judgement Day, end-of-the-world sort, as opposed to the prelude-to-a-distopia variety. Angels and demons have been fighting to influence the fate of mankind for centuries, and this now this is all set to culminate in the Great Battle, set to take place on Saturday.

There are some, however, who don't want the world to end. The angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley have formed an alliance of sorts, each half-arse-ing their jobs so as to make their own lives easier. Neither wants things to change. Meanwhile, Adam, an eleven year old boy, is simply enjoying the summer with his friends in Lower Tadfield, England. Unbeknownst to Adam, he is the Antichrist, and therefore key to the whole Armageddon thing. At this crucial time in the world's fate, Aziraphale, Crowley, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, a witch and a witchfinder all find themselves drawn to Lower Tadfield.

This is undoubtedly one of the funniest and most inventive books I have ever read, and perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, given who the authors are. It's littered with random footnotes, wordplay and satire on pretty much everything. I'd recommend it based on the lulz alone – there's at least one on every page. Some knowledge about the biblical End of Days would probably bolster you enjoyment of the book. If you're religious, you should know by now whether this sort of thing is your cup of tea, though I'll just add that the book doesn't go out of its way to either insult or promote Christianity or religion in general.

My favourite parts were the bits about Agnes Nutter and the Four Horsemen – they were quirky and funny, a fresh take on an old concept. Crowley and Aziraphale also make a great odd couple. My least favourite part were the bits involving the Them, since I wasn't particularly enamoured of their cute kid discussions and found them somewhat repetitive. Further, even though the book is a pleasure to read, by the time I got to the middle I was impatient for the world to end already since the book is essentially build-up to that event.

I also have a not-quite-criticism of the way women are handled in this book. They're generally portrayed as independent and (more) capable (than men), which I guess is great and all, but at times it felt like the authors were actively pushing some sort of pro-female agenda. My impression wasn't so much that women are fantastic, but rather that the authors want us to know that they're not sexist, in which case, mission accomplished, I think? I'm probably being cynical and over-sensitive here, and I know this is unlikely to be the authors' intention, and you can call me ridiculous, but I couldn't help that this was my impression. I doubt that many others would have the same reaction – if anything, I reckon most people would be pleased that there are strong female characters at all... Another bit of side-eye I'll throw the authors' way regards how apparently, all Tibetans are Buddhist monks... but I digress.

The book loses a bit of steam towards the end, as if the authors weren't sure where to take things but had to end it somehow. Given the interesting premise, I suppose this was something bound to happen. Still, the writing is so charming that the outcome doesn't really matter and I can see why Good Omens is beloved by so many. It's held up very well for a contemporary book and its critique on pollution and body image is still relevant today. Most importantly, it's very funny, and that's the main basis on which I'd recommend it to others.

Alex's Rating: 4/5

Book Review: Cloud Atlas

Title: Cloud Atlas
Author: David Mitchell
Year Published: 2004
Genre: General and literary fiction, Historical fiction, Science fiction, Comedy, Drama, Thriller

After reading Virgin with Butterflies, I really needed to read something that was not shite. Cloud Atlas, being recommended by a friend and coming with a movie and accolades and prize-contender-y-ness, seemed the perfect candidate. It was also the opposite of shite.

It's a book that's hard to categorise or describe in one sentence, so I won't even try. What I found most novel about this novel is its chiastic form: it's comprised of six sort-of nested stories in an ABCDEFEDCBA sort of structure. Bar the middle story, all the stories are split into halves. So, for example, the book begins and ends with each half of “The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing”. I must say that I was very glad to see that the stories were completed as I would have been very dissatisfied if they were just cut off mid-way, never to be seen again, because I need closure in my life, yes I do.

The stories in Cloud Atlas cover a variety of genres and time periods. They are:

• “The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing”: an American faces the effects of colonisation in the Chatham Islands in the 19th century;
• “Letters from Zedelghem”: a destitute English musician finds work as an amanuensis to a blind composer in 1931;
• “Half-Lives – The First Luisa Rey Mystery”: a reporter in 1975 investigates suspicious goings-on at a new nuclear plant;
• “The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish”: a present-day man becomes an unlikely prisoner;
• “An Orison of Sonmi~451”: in the future, a Korean “fabricant” ascends to human intelligence; and
• “Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After”: a post-apocalyptic story about a boy who deals with both a strange visitor and attacks on his village.

The writing is strong across all stories. David Mitchell uses very different styles across all six – for example, Adam Ewing is meant to be reminiscent of Herman Melville, Luisa Rey like an airport thriller. Now, given the stylistic acrobatics and fancy novel structure, I can almost picture the author being all like “La! See how impressive and clever I am!”. But the the thing is, I can't even be mad, because I am impressed and I do think he's very clever. The Luisa Rey story definitely works as a thriller and the Sonmi story is a solid sci-fi tale. I even found “Sloosha's Crossin'”, with its pidgin-like English, to be very readable. I enjoyed all the tales despite having to reach for the dictionary a lot in the first two stories (because wtf is an amanuensis?? answer: a secretary who takes dictation – you're welcome, similarly vocab-challenged people out there). The only story I wasn't too keen on was Timothy Cavendish's – but that, I suspect, is because what happens to him is realistic enough to terrify me. All in all, there is great variety in the stories and it was almost like a mix-bag of lollies in that monotony was never a problem.

The six individual stories are explicitly interlinked – the Luisa Rey story for example features as a fictional manuscript in the Timothy Cavendish story. While the tales are separated in time and space, we have recurring themes and a recurring soul (the one with the comet-shaped birthmark) who reincarnates into the different stories. Those who have seen the movie or its trailer might be misled – I had assumed, given the use of the same actors in different roles, that the book featured a group of souls who kept meeting up across time. However, only one soul is clearly reincarnated in the book, and even then, the personalities of the reincarnations and other characters are all different. Further, from watching the trailer, it also seems that more interconnections have been added in the movie. I just thought I'd mention this to dispel any false expectations if you decide to read/watch both versions.

Depending on how you interpret things, you can link the tales in different ways. I personally am not too sure whether I liked this; it felt kind of like the author was trying too actively to make it ~deep~ and ~ambiguous~. Together, the tales cover a broad scope of human experience and a commentary on humanity emerges from the collection; it's definitely a case where the sum is greater than its parts. But thematic links aside, the actual literal and character links between stories don't seem to add too much to the tales other than a “spot-the-connection” game for the reader, which can be fun or infuriating, depending on your tastes. I personally thought this the weakest aspect of the book, as the lack of “proper” connections made me wish for more. To me, the hints were tantalising but ultimately unsatisfying.

The tales are thoughtful and work well as individual pieces; together, they are something else entirely. The ambiguity of the connections between them and the multitude of themes (the nature of the human race, oppression, free will, etc) make it a good book for discussing with others. It's epic and glorious and a wee bit frustrating. Cloud Atlas is clever and well-written but don't strain yourself too hard looking for connections and just enjoy it for what it is.

Alex's Rating: 4/5

Book Review: The Last Dragonslayer

Title: The Last Dragonslayer
Author: Jasper Fforde
Year Published: 2010
Genre: Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Comedy, Young Adult

Jennifer Strange is the fifteen-year-old acting manager of Kazam, an employment agency for magicians. Though once a noble calling, magic has gradually been fading from the Ununited Kingdoms and its practitioners are now reduced to delivering pizza and unblocking drains. Life is not easy for Jennifer: the use of magic is heavily regulated, sorcerers are a volatile lot and work is hard to come by. But it's only when a sudden resurgence of magic coincides with a prophecy of the death of the last dragon that the trouble really starts.

The Last Dragonslayer is a delightful read; it's fun, fast and doesn't take itself too seriously. There is a generous dose of humour throughout the book and I found myself rereading sentences at times out of pure glee. Literary and scientific allusions fly thick and fast and modern life is satirised, including big business and the cult of celebrity. For this reason, adults can find much to enjoy in this book, despite it being written to a younger audience. Fforde's brand of funny may be a bit “cute” for some, but I found it right up my alley.

The world is like an alternative version of ours and its history and magic system are quite detailed and interesting. Unfortunately, this results in a few info-dump/talking heads scenarios, in which things that you might have guessed are explained quite thoroughly and the action is slowed right down (hopefully, this means that sequels The Song of the Quarkbeast and The Return of Shandar will reap the benefits of past exposition). And yet despite this extensive world-building, I found that there were sometimes gaps in the descriptions – for example, in one scene, I had assumed the only people present were Jennifer and the King's men until a lady suddenly faints; in another I spent most of the time wondering where the Quarkbeast had got to. These are very minor complaints though, quite possibly caused by my own lack of imagination.

Given how early the dragon stuff is mentioned, I was impatient for the plot to progress more quickly than it did. Can't say I really minded though, since I enjoyed it the whole way through. For some reason, I had expected something a bit more epic, which this really isn't. It's more of a light-hearted adventure, best read for its prose and its quirks, rather than the plot as such.

Needless to say, I really liked this book; the world and its magic were peculiar in a clever yet mundane way and I thought it was really quite funny (though of course, humour is subjective and Fforde's may just be the sort to set your teeth on edge). It's easy to read and accessible to anyone. Recommended for fans of Harry Potter and Terry Pratchett and anyone looking for a light and witty read.

Alex's Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: Holiday in Handcuffs

Title: Holiday in Handcuffs
Director: Ron Underwood
Year Released: 2007
Running Time: 86 minutes
Classification: Unrated
Genre: Romance, Comedy, Drama, Family (?)


Though its title is suggestive of a buddy crime caper (or kinky sexytimes, if you will), Holiday in Handcuffs is actually a romcom produced for TV by ABC Family. Now, while I am quite tolerant of happy crappy Christmas movies (and indeed enjoy them much more than I should), this film has the distinction of being the silliest Christmas movie I have ever seen. Ever. It's utterly ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense. And yet, if you can manage to bring yourself down to its level, you'll find that it does quite nicely as a brainless fluffy diversion.

The plot is basically this: waitress Trudie (Melissa Joan Hart) gets dumped by her boyfriend on the eve of a family Christmas trip, so she kidnaps David (Mario Lopez), a random handsome customer, so that she can present him to her family as her boyfriend. Just let that sink in. The premise is so dumb and so unbelievable that you have to wonder how it got past the development stage. I mean, they try to insert some level of realism, having David protest his kidnapping and all, but the reasons for his failure to escape are very contrived: Trudie's family believes his “help me I've been kidnapped!” thing is all a joke and (spoiler alert!) when he somehow manages to get a phone, he calls his horrible snobby girlfriend (of course) instead of the police. Further, unlike a real person, David accepts his predicament all too easily – it would not have been hard for him to overpower his petite female captor, take her car, whatever. His objections are token at best. It's almost like he wants to be kidnapped or is otherwise unusually dim. So yes, the whole basis of the movie made no sense whatsoever.

Even so, it's possible to enjoy the movie even while raging at its stupidity. This can be mostly attributed to Sabrina Melissa Joan Hart as a very 90s-styled Trudie. She's the unglamorous loser of the family and it's easy to identify with and root for her. Add to this her painterly aspirations and I was totally on her side. She's such a hot mess that you can almost buy the the fact that she'd kidnap David in the throes of a nervous breakdown, so props to her for that. David, on the other hand, is a bland and smiley sort of fellow who's just there to do whatever the plot requires of him, and since the plot requires him to be a dumbass, he's not particularly believable as a successful human being.

Still, Hart and Lopez look cute together, and since this is a “family” movie (there's a bit of sexual innuendo, albeit decipherable only to corrupted adult minds), the troubling nature of their relationship is blatantly ignored in favour of a “bickering couple” dynamic. Further, Trudie is so harmless and likeable that David's continued imprisonment becomes more and more implausible as time goes on. Normally, one might assume that the film is trying to do something clever here, like explore the nature of Stockholm syndrome and so on, but no. The movie doesn't deserve the credit of your analysis, so don't waste your time (and yes, I realise the irony of saying that as I type my review).

The latter half of the movie treads more familiar romcom territory, with the leads bonding and Trudie's “perfect” family revealing how dysfunctional they really are. Sure it's a bit cliched, but I was always entertained (...perhaps in no small part because I often thought about what I would do if I were in David's place). Overall, the film is funny and highly watchable, ultimately delivering on the happy ending that you watched it for in the first place.

Long story short, if you're looking for a pleasant and brainless Christmas movie, you can do far worse than Holiday in Handcuffs. Despite its absurd premise, it has that warm, comfy quality that you get from hot chocolate and a soft blanket. I can see myself rewatching this when I get into a Christmas mood. Make no mistake though: Holiday in Handcuffs is too silly and too stupid to be a “good” movie, but also too charming to be written off completely.


Alex's Rating: 3/5

Movie Review: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

Title: Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax

Director: Chris Renaud, Kyle Balda

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 86 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation

Before watching this movie I had no idea what it was about. I knew it had to do with a boy, a small orange creature that I assume was The Lorax, and trees that have fairy floss like tops. And because it was taken from Dr. Seuss’, I expected a lot of rhyming. 

Quick overview of the movie.

The Lorax is a animation released by Illumination Entertainment, who also did Despicable Me.

It is about a boy name Ted who, to impress a girl, seeks out to find a living tree. He meets The Once-Ler who tells Ted the story of what happened to the trees. 

I’m a huge fan of kids’ movies that have morals. The Lorax has an obvious moral and it is enjoyable. The storyline is simple and the ‘teaching’ of the moral made simple for anyone to understand. The rhyming is made minimal but without losing Dr. Seuss’ ness (I know it’s not a word) of the film. 

I have never read Dr. Seuss before so I do not know if this movie was true to the book. What the movie did do was place this particular book in a future world that resembles a lot like ours. IE. Cars, streets, fake grass. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same and we will end up buying fresh air, but it’s enough to make kids imagination come alive and see the path we might be on. 

The animation was unique enough to the movie without it looking like an extension of a previous movie made by Illumination Entertainment. Although I just want to note down that Mr. O’Hare, the villain in the movie, looks a lot like a certain ‘superhero outfit designer’ in another kids’ animation.

I love the deep contrast between the town behind the wall, and the dead land surrounding it. The colours were bright, attention grabbing. The voice actors did well considering a lot were first timers and the songs (yes they sang in this movie) were relevant and easy on the ears.  

I really like this movie. It is not the funniest of kids’ films but enjoyable. Adults I believe would enjoy this movie too. If you are not into kids' movies at least rent it for your kids. They will love it and stay out of your way for an hour and a bit.

Terri’s Rating: 3.5/5

Movie Review: Mirror Mirror

Title: Mirror Mirror

Director: Tarsem Singh

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 106 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy, Romance

This new adaption to snow white stars Julia Roberts as the evil queen and Lily Collins as Snow White. It might be one of the latest adaptions but definitely not the best.

The storyline is pretty much the same with some minor changes from the Disney version of Snow White. The 7 dwarves are thieves that wear stilts, a dragon creature lives in the dark forest, and the kingdom is set in a land of snow.

Let’s start.

I like Julia Roberts. I think she’s a respectable actress but her portrayal of the Evil Queen was … poor. Instead of an Evil Queen, Julia Roberts came across as a pathetic Queen. 

Generally I would blame this on the writer or directer, but this Evil Queen was all Julia Roberts. 

I understand this movie is a comedy, but the point of an EVIL Queen is for her to be EVIL. She can be funny but at least have some aspects where the audience can believe she is ruthless. All I saw was a pathetic Queen obsessed with her looks who happens to have a magic mirror.

Snow White is meant to be innocent, sweet and altogether wholesome. I get it. This Snow White was also timid. I honestly did not believe she could do everything she did. The transition was poorly done. She went from an innocent girl to a woman able to stand up to the Evil Queen unconvincingly.

The part I hate the most is the end. The Queen is defeated. Everyone’s happy. Snow White turns evil? (Okay, she does not turn evil). But her facial expression, rather than a triumphant look, was a sly “I beat you Queen, now face the consequences and die”. So much for innocent, sweet and wholesome. (Unconvincing transition).

But the worse bit is the song. I'm not a fan of happy la la songs at the end of a movie when it's not a musical. After the Queen dies, Snow White breaks into a song. Not any song. A Bollywood style song. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Bollywood but if you're going to put a song in the end, put something more relevant to the genre of movie. 

However I did like the twist behind the King's disappearance. Visually, the costumes are definitely unique, not in a bad way, except for the large bow on Snow White’s dress at the end of the film. The costumes and stage set gives the movie a fairy tale quality which is perfect for this film.

I really liked the animation at the start of the film. I think I would have preferred the whole movie as the animation.

If you are looking for a good fairy tale, don’t bother with this movie. It is definitely a kids' film and to be enjoyed by kids, not by anyone over the age of 8. Make sure the kid likes princess films too. 

Terri's Rating: 1/5


**Extra mini-review by Alex** Oh my. I enjoyed this film! It was a big ham-fest all the way and it was fun, if a little predictable. I actually prefer this to Snow White and the Huntsman - the dwarves at least were distinguishable from one another and the romance here is more convincing, even though the Prince (Armie Hammer) is just beefcake (though this says more about SWatH, really). I agree about the costumes (only King Sean Bean looks uncomfortable) and I also liked how things looked in general. Tarsem Singh is known for stunning visuals, and here there is a fantastical hyper-saturated look which really works for the movie. I also agree that Snow White's character seemed a bit inconsistent, but this is more of a problem if you think about it. My solution: don't think. I'd leave my brain at home and just enjoy the pretty. Rating: 3/5