The tale itself is rife with moral implications. Should he take revenge, do they deserve it, don't they, should their families also be hurt, what does betrayal mean anyway, etc. It makes you think about all that issue of revenge versus justice. Alternatively, you can skip out on the moral trip and just follow the story, with the Count as the Good Guy and the others are the Bad Guys.
The filming is smooth and unnoticeable. This is both good and bad. It's good because it lets us concentrate on the story, without noticing any fancy camera work, but it's also bad because it's all very banal. The character's all play their parts well. Those that are meant to be silly or unlikable are silly and unlikable, while the other characters play their problems well, moving you to pity.
I personally found the women characters to be flimsy and weak, but that might be in accordance with the novel, which was written in 1844.
Another thing I found to be unlikely and not very realistic, was that no one recognised the Count when in one of his disguises. He disguised himself as a priest, or a lord, to complete certain aspects of his revenge, in addition to the full time disguise of the Count of Monte Cristo. It really boggles me that no one would recognise him while doning a fake nose and wig.
But anyway, intricacies aside, the story is great, and the mini series is enjoyable. Not oscar material, of course, but a good watch, and nice for when looking for a watch to relax to.

Share on Facebook

Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit who greatly enjoys his quiet peaceful life in the Shire, until he gets trained in with thirteen dwarves and a wizard to fetch the dwarves' long lost treasure guarded by a powerful dragon in the dangerous Wild.

I loved this book, in practically all aspects. The details, the era, it is an entirely different world that J.R.R. Tolkien created. There are orcs, goblins, elves, wood elves, dwarves, men, dragons, wizards, hobbits, and of course, whatever Gollum is. But those aren't really talked about, their history and culture and such, in the Hobbit, that is seen more in Lord of the Rings. In the Hobbit, there is actually a lack of descriptions that leaves a lot to the imagination. For example, the thirteen dwarves have no comparative descriptive features. We only know them by name and most are always grouped together, with the exception of Thorin, Balin and Bombur. The few descriptions we have are of the colour of their cloaks and the general appearance of a dwarf. We can only differentiate Bombur by his fatness. The same goes for orcs and elves, only general appearances are given. The only creature that is sufficiently described is probably Gollum.
The same goes for the countrysides. Although they are considerably more detailed than characters, I often found that the map included on the inside cover of the book to be very useful. The other thing that is disappointing in a way, is that once Gandalf leaves the company to attend to his own business, we know practically nothing about what he does, or what the other characters do when not with Bilbo. Judging from the trailer, I know that this will be different in the movie. One interesting thing to note is that although the book is not in first person, but told by a narrator, everytime Bilbo passes out or is on his own, we follow him, and know nothing of the other characters' doings. We are even told Bilbo's feelings while the other characters' secrets remain mysteries.
All the same, The Hobbit is a great read. And from what I've read so far of the entire saga, I can see that the movies aren't interpretations of the books, like so many others, for example, Harry Potter or even Twilight. The Lord of the Rings movies, and soon the Hobbit movies, complement the books, and quite literally put them on film. They almost complete each other. Take for example the songs. Tolkien wrote many songs in the Hobbit, and wrote the lyrics characters sing at various point in time, and a movie with a soundtrack would complete the musical aspect.
All in all, I <3 the LOTR and the Hobbit, and long live Middle Earth! What are you waiting for? Go and enrich your imagination!

Share on Facebook

Spaceballs is one of the funniest movies I've seen to date, which is a lot of movies. Not only are the parodies are funny, but the original humor in it is also funny. Although I just said that it was humorous with only the original content, it does help to really know Star Wars, and to have seen many other movies, as the humour multiplies twofold. But enough about that, now about the plot and characters. Well, what do you what me to say? The plot was funny and the characters were well acted and hilarious. I fear there are no other words for this movie; even the romance in it was funny. So there you have it, Spaceballs is funny, humorous, hilarious, amusing, comical, slapstick, witty, diverting, or if you prefer the one word version: priceless.

I recommend it to anyone, although general culture is preferred for maximal enjoyment.
Below is one of my favorite scenes from Spaceballs, along with "jamming the radar".

Share on Facebook

Again, this story concentrates solely on first loves and a teenager's life, in the 80's, forgot to mention that, but it is an enjoyable movie which I would recommend to anybody, or rather, any girl, not to be too stereotypical.

Share on Facebook

Screen shot of the movie.

I thought this movie was excellent for varied reasons. The first is the music. It is so nice to listen, and fits perfectly with the themes of the movie. I am sure you must have heard it somewhere before without realising it, it is quite popular as a cover song for various instruments. The second reason is because of the actors. Both (Paulette and Michel) are very talented, and play their parts well. Paulette is played by Brigitte Fossey, and she is a Parisian on the flee with her parents as well as being somewhat bossy and demanding, but innocent at the same time. Michel, played by Georges Poujouly, is a farmer boy who becomes totally bewitched by Paulette and spends his time trying to please her and make her happy, at the risk of being scolded by his short-tempered father. The third reason why this movie is very worthwhile is the story itself, although it is quite depressing. I won't spoil any plots, but it is not the movie to watch when in want of a good laugh, although there were a few moments that made me smile. To summarize, one word comes to mind when I think of this movie: quirky.

All in all, Les Jeux Interdits is a great, touching movie, and everyone should see it in my opinion. Why aren't you watching it already? Go on! Go!

Share on Facebook

Contents for The Hunger Games Reviews

1. The Hunger Games Review
2. Catching Fire and Mockingjay Review

I don't have too much to say about the second and third installments (Catching Fire, Mockingjay, respectively) in the Hunger Games trilogy. The author is the same therefore the writing is the same. The story itself begins to really complicate itself with political plots, revolutions, and the love triangle gets seriously messed up. More people die, and as there is more death, Katniss becomes more damaged. I won't be giving you a little synopsis, because whatever I say will be a spoiler for the previous novel. In fact, I feel like I have already revealed too much. These books really have twists everywhere, unexpected events are just constantly thrown in your face as you read on. Perhaps this is why The Hunger Games are so well liked, they are perfectly unpredictable. Sometimes, the unpredicatbility is expected, and so it loses the element of surprise, but most of the time you think, "The author wouldn't kill that character off, it wouldn't make sense", or "no way that's going to happen, it just can't!". One thing I noticed, is that, especially in Mockingjay, chapters end in small, dramatic sentences. An example that is not too revealing about the plot is: "My words hang in the air. I look to the screen, hoping to see them recording some wave of reconciliation going through the crowd.
Instead, I watch myself get shot on television." And the next chapter starts with her in the hospital, not knowing what happened. This type of style is quite good, and it helps with the first person present style of writing. We know what Katniss knows. If she faints and wakes up later, we have no idea what happened in between the fainting and waking up. In a way, a lot of little questions are left unanswered like this, but they will never be answered because to know the answer would be to know the inner workings of other characters' minds, and Katniss is not a mind reader.

As with the first installment, both books were well received, by both critics and and readers alike. I myself liked the series as a whole, but there were a few things I didn't like as much. For example, I didn't like that the love plot wasn't explored as much as the violence and deaths and politics. Also, the ending of Mockingjay, that is, the epilogue, is very vague, and tells us nothing really about the state of the world after a big climaxing battle. We only have the very basics to end the story, while a much more than a reader could handle is up to them to decide. It takes a lot of thinking, in fact, just to figure out what happens in the end. And the only character to whom we know what happens long after the battle, is Katniss. In keeping with the first person ideals, it would mean that she never kept in touch with her allies, friends, etc. I find that hard to believe, and yet, not a single word on the fate of the surviving characters, not even some of the most important ones. But disregarding the ending, The Hunger Games trilogy is an exciting tale, and I recommend it to anyone and everyone.

Share on Facebook

Contents for The Hunger Games Reviews

1. The Hunger Games Review
2. Catching Fire and Mockingjay Review

Pressured by the all-round praise for this book, I took it upon myself to read it to see what everyone was going on about, and it turns out I finished it (454 pg.) in half a day. So now, without further ado, here is my review;

The Hunger Games, written by Suzanne Collins, is both the title of the book as well as the name of the series which encompasses three novels in total,The Hunger Games, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay. The Hunger Games (book) tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, in a futuristic world. In this world, there is the main city where everyone with power and money resides, called the Capitol, and branching out around this city are the 12 Districts, each one specialising in a resource, for example fishing, agriculture, electronics etc., each resource given to Capitol, leaving the districts very poor. Following a revolution quite some time ago, a sort of punishment called the Hunger Games happens every year. Each year, one girl and one boy from each district is chosen at random, and all 24 children must compete to the death, the only rule: kill or be killed, while the whole thing is televised. The story starts when Katniss, from district 12 (specialising in coal mining), volunteers to enter the Hunger Games in place of her younger sister. Happy Hunger Games, and may the odds be ever in your favour.

I understand why this book is liked everywhere. It has everything, the fuzzy love-triangle, the action, the deaths, the subtle political themes, and even from time to time the humour. Written in first person from Katniss' perspective, I do sometimes find her overly hot-headed and unable to handle some situations, but a perfect heroine makes for a boring story. The writing style is not very common, consisting mainly of short simple sentences, reflecting the way Katniss would actually think in her mind. There are very little details, that is, most of the environments and what they look like are completely left up to the reader. For example, the Capitol has a seal that is constantly shown during the Games, but no description of it is ever given, only that it is a seal. The writing style is also divided into conversations, Katniss' feelings, her inner monologues, but there are also long paragraphs from time to time that seem to be written for the sole purpose of explaining a particular aspect of the future. Since the book is written in first person present, it is not some sort of diary, but a live account of the events, so to speak, and so, the explanatory paragraphs seem to be written by the author herself instead of Katniss explaining it to the reader. It may sound strange as I am explaining the writing style, but it all fits and reads perfectly.
In a nut shell, I really like this book, and although the story has a few discrepancies, and leaves you wondering a few things, I can understand why everyone is crazy over this book. Even other already successful authors have acclaimed it. Among them, Stephen King and Anthony Horowitz (author of the Alex Rider series, which I love!!). Stephen King, in a very funny review, explained what was good with it and what wasn't. He gave The Hunger Games an overall B grade. His most prominent problems with the novel are the standard love-triangle and Katniss Everdeen's name, as well as the fact that the fight-for-life-while-everything-is-televised idea isn't exactly news. Most people will immediately think of Battle Royal, which shares the theme of random selection for the contestants, weapons given in the 'arena', as well as the theme that involves punishing people for previous revolutions/bad behaviour (in Battle Royal, teenagers against adults, while in Hunger Games, districts against the Capitol).

Even if the novel has striking similarities to other works, it doesn't change the fact that it is an enjoyable read and it is almost impossible to set down. I definitely recommend it.

Share on Facebook

As with any Stephen King book, it is extremely well written. But it's not just the style, or the word choice, it has more to do with the fact that everything happens so fast, yet the book only contains five days. The novel is 877 pages long, and anybody would be scared to start such a huge thing, but the actual events in the story happen extremely fast, you are never once bored. That is really something, especially considering the fact that an entire chapter could explain what happened in a span of five minutes. Another factor adds to the great length of the book. It has as many characters as Chester's Mills has inhabitants (the town under the Dome). Although most of them have no character development, only names mentioned once or twice, there are 48 major characters. As with any story, some characters are more developed than others, but these 48 have quite extensive personalities, including Horace, a yellow Corgi. While one character is doing something on one side of town, another could be doing something else elsewhere. Although the story has extra-terrestrials (I doubt that's much of a spoiler), we are never really explained the origin of the Dome. The novel isn't about that. It's about how people react to sudden isolation. I love this type of story, I especially like to marvel at all the scared people who become sheep and follow the one crazy religious person who self-proclaims themselves as leaders, or shepherds, as they would say. Under the Dome touches some important political, psychological, and environmental issues.

The book cover of my copy of the novel

The political aspect encounters incompetency. Big Jim Rennie is the power-crazed small-town politician who snaps in his lust for power once the Dome comes down. He starts to plan a dictatorship, and uses the occasion to start destroying his meth lab, which was the biggest supplier of meth in the United States, until the Dome came down. Big Jim knows how to control the town, and the many incompetent idiots that also have powerful roles in the town's society. Stephen King said, during an interview with Time Magasine concerning his book, "Sometimes the sublimely wrong people can be in power at a time when you really need the right people".
The psychological aspect centers around how people become completely different in a matter of minutes, once survival instincts kick in. It also shows how people are zombies, following the first command they hear, because they need someone to tell them what to do. But there are also, of course, those who keep a relative amount of common sense and independence.
The environment issue is simple enough. The Dome is invisible at first, but after the first day, it has become visible because of smog, fire smoke, exhaust from cars, etc. Air passes through the Dome, but just barely, and the people under it never experience wind, nor do they quite care really. Their main objectives are food and propane (which will cause more pollution). Only in the end do people start to realise how precious air is, and even one man who is seen smoking a cigarette is looked on with horror. There are several fires inside the Dome, as well as a few outside, when planes crash into the huge invisible barrier, and after a while, the Dome itself becomes dirty with soot, and is no longer qualified to be deemed invisible.
Overall, I loved Under the Dome. I seem to have a penchant for isolation stories, I love trying to figure out which will become which before the isolation actually occurs. For example, who will be the first to be killed by a fellow human, who will be the religion fanatic, the self-proclaimed leader, the 'sensible ones' who resist the self-proclaimed leader, the first to suicide, etc. Sometimes, the most unexpected people change for the worst. I was a bit disappointed that the Dome's background wasn't clarified much, but the Dome is only the MacGuffin for the novel. As always, Stephen King has produced a masterpiece, and I recommend it to anyone and everyone. For those who 'aren't into the whole readin' thing', a mini-series based on the novel is planned, but as with everything in this world, the book is, and always will be, infinitely better.

Share on Facebook