![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, managed to watch Neverland tonight, after a busy day, and finished reading The Hating Game by Talli Rolland. I can't say I was that thrilled with either or recommend them. Mildly entertaining. But hardly memorable. And oddly? Tepid is a good description for both. Or it's the one that comes to mind at any rate. Tepid. Both suffer from the same problems, way too much telling, not enough showing. And crappy dialogue. Apparently it is really hard to write good or decent dialogue, who knew?
Yes, weird, finding a chick-lit novel and a mini-series on Syfy similiar...but there it is.
There were bits and pieces I liked about Neverland. They did come up with a slightly different take on Hook losing his hand and pocket watch, and who the pocket watch belonged to. Yes, both end up in the Crocodile's belly...but in a slightly different way. Also Rhys Ifans was quite good as Hook - made you actually sort of like him, he's the star - it's an anti-hero tale. Peter's likable but not memorable. Charles Dance has a nice cameo as the Alchemist who brings them all there, albeit unintentionally. And the pixies are a bit different. I also liked Tiger-Lilly, who is incredibly busty for a 14 year old. Looks more like 16 or 17 to me.
The story drug whenever Ifyans Hook wasn't on screen, which was a lot of the time.
And co-worker was right - it was too long. But that's partly because we had at least an hour and a half's worth of commercials crammed in there. I spent a lot of time fast-forwarding through commercials. As a result - very choppy four hour tv movie. Commercials sort of break up the action - whenever you get pulled in? Pop off to some ad about...I don't even remember. Then pop back again. Jarring. Even if you can fast-forward. Oh well, if it weren't for the ads, there wouldn't have been a two hour movie. The movie exists to sell the ads, not the other way around. Wonder how they ad guys would feel if I told them I have no memory of what the ads were? I don't remember advertisements. I block them out as white noise.
At any rate, with or without the ads, still drug. I was bored in places. And it was incredibly silly. But the biggest problem? I didn't really care about anyone, outside of maybe Hook. His feelings for Peter seemed real to me, and I could tell that when he lost Peter, or believed he had, he lost a part of himself. Peter was his redemption for past sins. His lost self. The Peter/Hook relationship reminded me a lot of Fagin/Artful Dodger or Snape/Harry Potter in some respects, as well as Angel/Connor. But was far more tragic. This origin tale - and it is an origin tale not a retelling or reinvisioning, so much as a filling in the gaps...felt a bit like Artful Dodger/Fagin meets Peter Pan/Hook in Hook/Fagin's pov.
Overall rating? C+ (Not a keeper.)
The Hating Game by Tallie Roland had its moments too - unfortunately not romantic ones.
The romantic male lead is barely in the book and when he does appear, he's a stock character, paper-thin, and hard to care one way or the other about.
Except that all the other male characters are such cartoonish satirical oddities, it's hard not to like him just by comparison. My difficulty with this book is I just wanted to slap everyone but the heroine, upside the head. In fact at one point I wanted to launch a rescue attempt for the heroine from this nightmarish story.
Reality Show hell. The writer went out of her way to torture her heroine - in an attempt to depict just how nasty reality shows truly are. (It is reassuring to know that reality shows and tabloids are just as nasty in Europe as they are in the US.
Okay, maybe not reassuring...more, comforting in a misery loves company sort of way.)
This book felt like reading the dating game/chick lit version of The Hunger Games.
It's The Hunger Games light folks...except everyone is adults and they voluntarily get manipulated into this mess.
I think, no, I know - Suzanne Collins did somewhat the same thing far better in The Hunger Games. While a lot more violent (no dies in The Hating Game, someone gets injured - but its just a concussion -- keeping with my vow of only reading books that no one dies in for at least three months, haven't quite managed that feat with tv shows (it's harder to do with tv shows - tv shows are more violent and there aren't many good ones that aren't violent...and no, I don't want to think about what that says about our society, do you?)), Hunger Games handles the reality show bit a lot better, the characters are more likable and more interesting, and oddly, less one-dimensional. Also Collins manages to do more showing and less telling in her novels. Rolland's mistake is the attempt to do third person close multiple point of view...which distances the reader, and results in a lot of summarizing. They did this, and she remembered all this. As opposed to putting the reader in the middle of the action. Makes for a fast read - you don't have to concentrate and can do a lot of scanning.
No, for a good reality show satire - skip this book and just read Collins. Unless you have issues with graphic violence, then I guess you can read this one. It does do a good job of skewering reality shows. But the reality show people are gratingly one-dimensional, and seem to have just one or two traits that the writer hammers on, to the point of redundancy. Sliver Hatchett...chews sausages constantly, chopping them in half. (Metaphor for man-eater or emasculating.) Baz the Spaz...whose hair looks like an Elvis 1970s fondue. The production company is called SiniStar Productions. Lots of puns.
It's suspenseful and I can't say it's overly predictable, I didn't know what they were going to do next, and they rarely did what I thought they would. I also did care about the lead character, a tough yet vulnerable career woman who is manipulated into doing the reality series in order to save her business from bankruptcy. Also the little blurbs about dating statistics were humorous, if downright depressing. Not sure I want to know that Seventy-Five percent of the population is looking for their soul mate but only Five percent finds it, whether or not it is true.
Overall rating? B-
Still liked Wife by Wed better. And no, dear readers, this is not the subversive romance novel you were looking for...although it does try REALLY hard to be one.
Not quite sure you can be subversive when the heroes are a sexy pretty thin gal and a hunky blond. Just doesn't quite work.
Yes, weird, finding a chick-lit novel and a mini-series on Syfy similiar...but there it is.
There were bits and pieces I liked about Neverland. They did come up with a slightly different take on Hook losing his hand and pocket watch, and who the pocket watch belonged to. Yes, both end up in the Crocodile's belly...but in a slightly different way. Also Rhys Ifans was quite good as Hook - made you actually sort of like him, he's the star - it's an anti-hero tale. Peter's likable but not memorable. Charles Dance has a nice cameo as the Alchemist who brings them all there, albeit unintentionally. And the pixies are a bit different. I also liked Tiger-Lilly, who is incredibly busty for a 14 year old. Looks more like 16 or 17 to me.
The story drug whenever Ifyans Hook wasn't on screen, which was a lot of the time.
And co-worker was right - it was too long. But that's partly because we had at least an hour and a half's worth of commercials crammed in there. I spent a lot of time fast-forwarding through commercials. As a result - very choppy four hour tv movie. Commercials sort of break up the action - whenever you get pulled in? Pop off to some ad about...I don't even remember. Then pop back again. Jarring. Even if you can fast-forward. Oh well, if it weren't for the ads, there wouldn't have been a two hour movie. The movie exists to sell the ads, not the other way around. Wonder how they ad guys would feel if I told them I have no memory of what the ads were? I don't remember advertisements. I block them out as white noise.
At any rate, with or without the ads, still drug. I was bored in places. And it was incredibly silly. But the biggest problem? I didn't really care about anyone, outside of maybe Hook. His feelings for Peter seemed real to me, and I could tell that when he lost Peter, or believed he had, he lost a part of himself. Peter was his redemption for past sins. His lost self. The Peter/Hook relationship reminded me a lot of Fagin/Artful Dodger or Snape/Harry Potter in some respects, as well as Angel/Connor. But was far more tragic. This origin tale - and it is an origin tale not a retelling or reinvisioning, so much as a filling in the gaps...felt a bit like Artful Dodger/Fagin meets Peter Pan/Hook in Hook/Fagin's pov.
Overall rating? C+ (Not a keeper.)
The Hating Game by Tallie Roland had its moments too - unfortunately not romantic ones.
The romantic male lead is barely in the book and when he does appear, he's a stock character, paper-thin, and hard to care one way or the other about.
Except that all the other male characters are such cartoonish satirical oddities, it's hard not to like him just by comparison. My difficulty with this book is I just wanted to slap everyone but the heroine, upside the head. In fact at one point I wanted to launch a rescue attempt for the heroine from this nightmarish story.
Reality Show hell. The writer went out of her way to torture her heroine - in an attempt to depict just how nasty reality shows truly are. (It is reassuring to know that reality shows and tabloids are just as nasty in Europe as they are in the US.
Okay, maybe not reassuring...more, comforting in a misery loves company sort of way.)
This book felt like reading the dating game/chick lit version of The Hunger Games.
It's The Hunger Games light folks...except everyone is adults and they voluntarily get manipulated into this mess.
I think, no, I know - Suzanne Collins did somewhat the same thing far better in The Hunger Games. While a lot more violent (no dies in The Hating Game, someone gets injured - but its just a concussion -- keeping with my vow of only reading books that no one dies in for at least three months, haven't quite managed that feat with tv shows (it's harder to do with tv shows - tv shows are more violent and there aren't many good ones that aren't violent...and no, I don't want to think about what that says about our society, do you?)), Hunger Games handles the reality show bit a lot better, the characters are more likable and more interesting, and oddly, less one-dimensional. Also Collins manages to do more showing and less telling in her novels. Rolland's mistake is the attempt to do third person close multiple point of view...which distances the reader, and results in a lot of summarizing. They did this, and she remembered all this. As opposed to putting the reader in the middle of the action. Makes for a fast read - you don't have to concentrate and can do a lot of scanning.
No, for a good reality show satire - skip this book and just read Collins. Unless you have issues with graphic violence, then I guess you can read this one. It does do a good job of skewering reality shows. But the reality show people are gratingly one-dimensional, and seem to have just one or two traits that the writer hammers on, to the point of redundancy. Sliver Hatchett...chews sausages constantly, chopping them in half. (Metaphor for man-eater or emasculating.) Baz the Spaz...whose hair looks like an Elvis 1970s fondue. The production company is called SiniStar Productions. Lots of puns.
It's suspenseful and I can't say it's overly predictable, I didn't know what they were going to do next, and they rarely did what I thought they would. I also did care about the lead character, a tough yet vulnerable career woman who is manipulated into doing the reality series in order to save her business from bankruptcy. Also the little blurbs about dating statistics were humorous, if downright depressing. Not sure I want to know that Seventy-Five percent of the population is looking for their soul mate but only Five percent finds it, whether or not it is true.
Overall rating? B-
Still liked Wife by Wed better. And no, dear readers, this is not the subversive romance novel you were looking for...although it does try REALLY hard to be one.
Not quite sure you can be subversive when the heroes are a sexy pretty thin gal and a hunky blond. Just doesn't quite work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-11 09:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-11 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-13 12:42 am (UTC)She was amazing as Pocahontas though.
Neverland was okay, but nothing to rave about. Barrie's novel is incredibly sexist..if you think about it. And it launched a whole school of psychoanalysis - Wendy's looking for Lost Little Boys or the Boy who will never grow up. Peter Pan doesn't appeal to me.
I have no interest in being a mother to a guy that I'm romantically involved with. So...while I loved Peter Pan as a child, as an adult, the appeal isn't entirely there.
Actually found Spielberg's Hook to be more entertaining. And you are correct, Ifyans was hypnotic - he's great. And Ann Bonny was interesting too - but underdeveloped...too one-dimensional.