The Imperfectionists, by author Tom Rachman is a New York Times best seller. The book features eleven chapters from the viewpoints of eleven different characters, all contributing to one major story arch. It reads like a short story and takes the reader a chapter or two to figure out exactly what all these characters have in common.
The story revolves around a newspaper in Rome. The correspondents are largely American, all having found their way to the paper in one form or another. There's a lot of cubicle mentality happening in the book, so if you're a fan of shows like The Office, this might appeal to you. It's written in the third person point of view, with narration happening between every chapter, stingily giving up details as to how we got to the present.
They say to never judge a book by it's cover, but I'll admit to being intrigued. Words like "Spectacular", "Magnificent", and "Beguiling" appear next to the publications giving this novel such high reviews. It has the New York Times sticker of approval on the lower right hand corner and a smaller Random House Reader's Circle on the upper right. By all accounts, this should be a great book.
We begin with a character named Lloyd Burko, an aging and defunct Paris correspondent, who's on his way out. His money has gone the way of his charm, fleeting and currently in the back pocket of much younger lover, whom he allows to get sexual satisfaction from another in light of his now diminished libido.
The next notable story line features Arthur Gopal. He's probably the most likable character in the book and naturally, the one highlights of reading the novel. If Rachman had stuck to writing the story from Arthur's point of view, I probably would have had a more enjoyable reading experience.
There are nine more chapters in this book and only two of them are really worth reading. It really felt like the author had a bunch of short stories and slapped them together to make a book. I don't know if the book got so many rave reviews because the publications giving them were all newspapers or if I'm missing something. It felt like one of those dour first novels that writers create because they want to be taken seriously. Avant- Garde or something. There wasn't much depth to the book nor was it one of those light and simply entertaining books that we all indulge in from time to time. The writing wasn't bad but it lacked substance. I didn't learn anything from this book, nor was I entertained in any way. It didn't transport me to anyplace I wanted to be. It was absolutely dreary.
Unfortunately, I bought this book. I thought I would give it away like I did with Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. I can't hardly give a badly reviewed book out so I'll probably donate it to the library. If you'd like to read it, I suggest you get it there.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Books Made Into Movies- One for the Money
Last night I watched One for the Money, starring Katherine Heigl. The movie is based on the series of books by author, Janet Evanovich. If you've never read One for the Money, please close this post and go to your local library.
There are millions of mystery novels but the reason why Evanvich is so successful is her style of using irreverence and humor, while threading together a love triangle that is pieced tantalizingly slow throughout the series of (currently published) eighteen books. Stephanie Plum is a lovable, crazy, down to earth sort of character that women can relate to and the public can root for. Evanovich writes the love interests for Plum's character with a dash of Prince Charming, a pinch of Rascal, and heaping tablespoons of Handsome. You just can't help but to cheer for the Jersey Girl during every novel.
The first thing that struck me about this movie was that it.wasn't.funny. I counted the number of times people laughed in the theater. Not one guffaw until we were halfway through. Total laugh count=5 and only twice was it really funny. This is the hallmark of the series! The major part of the book's success was humor and the script writer totally missed it. Devastating.
When I saw Katherine Heigl as Stephanie Plum, I'll admit to already being skeptical about casting. Stephanie Plum wears spandex and scrunchies. She has this traditional Jersey Girl look, maybe slightly downplayed but she's definitely not hip. Plum's pretty in that every girl sort of way but with an inherited amount of Jersey flash. In the movie, we see no spandex or anything resembling Jersey. Heigl got the brown curly hair right but she looks a bit like she just stepped out of a Tomb Raider game. Wardrobe just took it down a notch by using banana clip and jeans. Heigl's acting isn't bad but the writers didn't give her any of Stephanie Plum's trademark bitchiness or straight on humor.
Morelli was a bad casting choice, too. He looked too old for the part. Jason O'Mara isn't unattractive by any means but he and Heigl just didn't match up well. He has that rugged look of a 40 year old and she's got that bum college look going on. It all looks a little jail-baitey to me, when you consider that she sold him her cannoli in high school. This could have been overlooked, though, had the writing been better.
Ranger was decently cast, but not enough attention was paid to him. Grandma wasn't nearly as kooky and fun as I remembered her being in the books and the major scene involving her and Stephanie's gun just didn't play out as well on the Big Screen as I felt it should. Again, the writing sucked. The character of Lulu was really the only shining casting choice.
The books are funny but One for the Money also has a dark side. They had potential in this movie to display a well rounded story line. Instead, we were shorted. The major scene with Lulu was written off in about two seconds. Ramirez was scary in only one scene and we were left confused as to why he was such a threat. The ending of the movie just appeared. There wasn't this major build up of detail, no big climactic scene. It just kind of happened to you which is the worst kind of ending.
If another Stephanie Plum movie is made, I'll probably go see it. If the writing is improved, the casting deviations become minor. However, you have to maintain the spirit and style that the book was written in order to make a successful movie based on the book. If I had watched this movie before reading the book, I never would have been tempted to pick it up. As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn't have bothered reading any of the books, which is a real shame and discredit to a wonderfully talented author.
In short, if you'd like to see another Stephanie Plum movie then you should purchase a ticket. That's literally the only reason I can find to bother yourself to get to the theater. Otherwise, stick to the books. Your imagination will tell a better story.
There are millions of mystery novels but the reason why Evanvich is so successful is her style of using irreverence and humor, while threading together a love triangle that is pieced tantalizingly slow throughout the series of (currently published) eighteen books. Stephanie Plum is a lovable, crazy, down to earth sort of character that women can relate to and the public can root for. Evanovich writes the love interests for Plum's character with a dash of Prince Charming, a pinch of Rascal, and heaping tablespoons of Handsome. You just can't help but to cheer for the Jersey Girl during every novel.
The first thing that struck me about this movie was that it.wasn't.funny. I counted the number of times people laughed in the theater. Not one guffaw until we were halfway through. Total laugh count=5 and only twice was it really funny. This is the hallmark of the series! The major part of the book's success was humor and the script writer totally missed it. Devastating.
When I saw Katherine Heigl as Stephanie Plum, I'll admit to already being skeptical about casting. Stephanie Plum wears spandex and scrunchies. She has this traditional Jersey Girl look, maybe slightly downplayed but she's definitely not hip. Plum's pretty in that every girl sort of way but with an inherited amount of Jersey flash. In the movie, we see no spandex or anything resembling Jersey. Heigl got the brown curly hair right but she looks a bit like she just stepped out of a Tomb Raider game. Wardrobe just took it down a notch by using banana clip and jeans. Heigl's acting isn't bad but the writers didn't give her any of Stephanie Plum's trademark bitchiness or straight on humor.
Morelli was a bad casting choice, too. He looked too old for the part. Jason O'Mara isn't unattractive by any means but he and Heigl just didn't match up well. He has that rugged look of a 40 year old and she's got that bum college look going on. It all looks a little jail-baitey to me, when you consider that she sold him her cannoli in high school. This could have been overlooked, though, had the writing been better.
Ranger was decently cast, but not enough attention was paid to him. Grandma wasn't nearly as kooky and fun as I remembered her being in the books and the major scene involving her and Stephanie's gun just didn't play out as well on the Big Screen as I felt it should. Again, the writing sucked. The character of Lulu was really the only shining casting choice.
The books are funny but One for the Money also has a dark side. They had potential in this movie to display a well rounded story line. Instead, we were shorted. The major scene with Lulu was written off in about two seconds. Ramirez was scary in only one scene and we were left confused as to why he was such a threat. The ending of the movie just appeared. There wasn't this major build up of detail, no big climactic scene. It just kind of happened to you which is the worst kind of ending.
If another Stephanie Plum movie is made, I'll probably go see it. If the writing is improved, the casting deviations become minor. However, you have to maintain the spirit and style that the book was written in order to make a successful movie based on the book. If I had watched this movie before reading the book, I never would have been tempted to pick it up. As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn't have bothered reading any of the books, which is a real shame and discredit to a wonderfully talented author.
In short, if you'd like to see another Stephanie Plum movie then you should purchase a ticket. That's literally the only reason I can find to bother yourself to get to the theater. Otherwise, stick to the books. Your imagination will tell a better story.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Friday Give-Away!
This week's book, Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet goes to cupsbykim! Thanks to all that entered and I hope you enjoy the read, Kim!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)