NOVEL & FILM REVIEW: The Outsiders By S.E. Hinton

In this review, I'll be trying something different. One of my favourite novels when I was younger was S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders. After first reading it in Grade 7, I instantly fell in love with this novel, and ended up re-reading it over and over again. I really loved the film adaptation too when I watched it, and I knew I wanted to discuss both versions of the story here. And this is where my new style comes in. The novel and the film (directed by Francis Ford Coppola) The Outsiders are so similar and so well adapted that there's hardly a point in doing a separate adaptation post when my intention is to review the two stories. So for those EXTREMELY faithful adaptations (like The Shawshank Redemption and perhaps even Misery), I will first talk about the overall story and why I liked it so much, and do a small separate section on the novel and the film separately (like I do at the end of my usual adaptation reviews) and talk about my overall thoughts at the end.

Plot Synopsis

Most people probably know the plot of the film and the book pretty well, so I'll be very, VERY brief about it (or as brief as I can be):

Ponyboy Curtis lives with his older brothers Sodapop and Darryl and are best friends with a gang of "Greasers", a group comprised of lower-class boys comprised of Johnny Cade, Dallas Winston, Two-Bit Matthews, and Steve Randle. The greasers are in a constant rivalry with the wealthy Socialites, AKA the "Socs", but the greasers will always lose due to the privileges the Socs have. One night, after going to the movie with Johnny, Two-Bit, and Dally, Ponyboy meets a girl named Sherry Valance (nicknamed Cherry for her red hair), and her friend Marcia, who are part of the wealthy upper class. While walking the two girls home after the movie, Pony, Johnny, and Two-Bit runs into Bob Sheldon and Randy Adderson, Cherry and Marcia's boyfriends, but a fight is avoided when Cherry willingly goes with Bob.

Ponyboy returns home at 2 in the morning, who a worried Sodapop and Darryl. Darryl and Ponyboy starts an argument, leading to Darryl slapping him and Ponyboy deciding run away with Johnny. The two end up in a park, but are ambushed by Bob, Randy, and a few other Socs who beat Johnny up and begins drowning Ponyboy in a fountain, but Johnny stops this from happening by stabbing and killing Bob. Once they realize what they had done, they run to Dallas for help, who gives them a gun and some cash, telling them to hide in an abandoned church at Windrixville.

During their few days' stay, Ponyboy reads Gone With the Wind and Nothing Gold Can Stay by Robert Frost to Johnny, who is very taken to the poem. Dallas comes by a few days later to check on them, telling them that a war has erupted between the greaser and the Socs, with Cherry acting as a spy for the greasers. Johnny wishes to turn himself in, and when they begin to leave, the church catches on fire, leaving some children trapped inside. Ponyboy, Dallas, and Johnny runs in the church to save them, and while Ponyboy and Dallas aren't badly hurt, a piece of the roof has fallen on Johnny's back, breaking it.

Ponyboy learns that there is a rumble (a fight) taking place, which the greasers eventually win. Dallas and Ponyboy goes to visit Johnny in the hospital to tell him about the victory, only for Johnny to die moments later with the final words "Stay gold Ponyboy, stay gold." Dallas, crazed from Johnny's death, runs out of the hospital. Ponboy returns home to learn that Dallas has robbed a store at gun point and is now being chased by the police. The gang meets with Dallas at the park to find Dallas, now suicidal, pointing an unloaded gun at the police, who then shoots and kills him.

Ponyboy goes to the hearing concerning Bob's death, and the judge finds Ponyboy innocent and allows him to stay with Darryl and Sodapop. Ponyboy returns to school, and although he is failing English, his teacher will allow him to pass if he can write a composition on a decent theme. In the copy of Gone With the Wind that Johnny bought for Ponyboy, he finds a letter from Johnny (who asked a nurse to write it in the hospital) that he wants Ponyboy to not only stay gold, but also to help Dallas see the good things in life, and he will die proudly. Ponyboy finally decides on a theme for his composition and begins writing the opening line of the novel, "When I stepped out into the bright sunlight from the darkness of the movie house, I had only two things on my mind; Paul Newman and a ride home..."

On the Story

This is a beautifully written and thought out story. The fact that the author based the premise of the novel on real-life experiences and events that she experienced during her teenage years really adds to the authenticity of the story. All of the characters are very well-written and portrayed, and you can clearly tell from both the novel and the film that Ponyboy's group of friends are almost like brothers in a sense due to their closeness to one another. The film and the novel both share many scenes, and I really think that the overall messages and tones in those scenes were communicated very well (save for a few that I will discuss more in my section on the film below).

Hinton really does write her characters very realistically and she wasn't afraid to shy away from controversial topics like gang violence, underage drinking & smoking, and some strong language (at least strong for that time) some which had led to the novel being banned from school libraries to this date. I think that if she did censor her novels to take out the aforementioned controversial topics, it would have resulted in a less authentic and more mundane novel, since those controversial topics were such a big part of what made the story so much more genuine and its characters and their actions more natural and lifelike, making the novel seem more like a third-person witness account of actual real-life people then a work of fiction. I also really liked that Ponyboy really liked reading and was actually smart, as it deviated from the cliche that "lower class kids are dumb".

A really great quote about class division I found was: “They used to be buddies, I thought. They used to be friends, and now they hate each other because one has to work for a living and the other comes from the West Side.” this describes Darryl and Paul, who were essentially best friends in High School but drifted apart and became almost enemies because Paul could afford to go to college while Darryl had to work. This works really well with two others quotes: “Maybe the two different worlds we lives in weren't so different. We saw the same sunset.” and “Socs were just guys after all. Things were rough all over, but it was better that way. That way you could tell the other guy was human too.” These three quotes not only represent the unfair class divisions between the Greasers and the Socs, but also that if you strip everyone away of their class, then they're all the same human beings underneath, showing that there really isn't a clear cut "antagonist" of the novel. Yes, Bob did incite the incidents, but he was also known as sweet, funny, and a great friend, making you wonder that maybe he even Bob wasn't a terrible human being after all and just a product of his class. So perhaps the true antagonist of the novel (and of society as a whole) is class division?

The novel (and the film too) had some very good quotes like: “Stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold.”  “It seemed funny to me that the sunset she saw from her patio and the one I saw from the back steps was the same one. Maybe the two different worlds we lived in weren't so different. We saw the same sunset.” The novel is very much a coming-of-age story where Ponyboy has to face the tough reality and grow as a person, watching two close friends die and have to become more "tough" to survive. While the novel largely focuses on how you can't just be completely naive and survive in the "real world", it also focuses much more on how being innocent, or "staying gold" can be a good thing, and not to late hatred get to you like Dallas did, which I think is a very importance message even (and perhaps especially) today, as most teenagers nowadays don't seem to understand the importance of sentiment and the little things like watching the sunset as much (if at all), which I think is vastly important, because while it is important to mature and grow up, growing up too fast for your age (which seems to be the case nowadays) is not good as you will end up missing and losing appreciation for the little beauties of life.

The Novel

Honestly, much of what I would have talked about here was pretty much all discussed in the "On the Story" section, but there IS one more topic I wanted to discuss here. My favourite character. While all of the greasers (and even some Socs like Sherry or Randy) have great characters and so many things to like about each if them, my favourite character out of all of them was always Dallas Winston. When I first read the book, I liked Dallas because he was a cool character. While he was cold, hardened guy, you could clearly tell he did care about his friends. As I re-read the book however, I realized that Dallas was definitely much more deeper in character.

When I first read the novel, I didn't quite understand why Dallas had done what he did. My first thought was that Dallas was just stressed out by Johnny's death and had to blow off some steam, and ended up getting killed, but after further reading and thought, I noticed that Dallas refused to drop his gun and was almost asking to be killed, and this is confirmed when Ponyboy writes, “...I knew he would be dead, because Dally Winston wanted to be dead and he always got what he wanted.” Then as I read and read more, it became more and more obvious that the only thing keeping him alive and motivated was Johnny, who he seemed to be the closest to out of everyone else, and when Johnny died, his psyche finally broke.

Dallas was a very broken character right from the start of the novel and Ponyboy's descriptions of his makes this even more obvious, describing him as a cold, hardened criminal filled with hate. Furthermore, this quote referring to Johnny's is quite interesting: “Sixteen years on the streets and you can learn a lot. But all the wrong things, not the things you want to learn. Sixteen years on the streets and you see a lot. But all the wrong sights, not the things you want to see.” while Ponyboy is technically describing Johnny, this could be applied to essentially every greaser, but especially Dallas who HAS been through a lot and is sort of a broken shell of a man.

What's interesting is that Dallas says this quote to Ponyboy: “You get tough like me and you don't get hurt. You look out for yourself and nothin' can touch you...” Dallas certainly is a strong person. He's feared even by some of his close friends and is described as being dangerous. Yet even though he might be strong physically, psychologically and emotionally he seems to be weaker then anybody else. He definitely really cared for Johnny and seeing him die (maybe Johnny was the only one that kept Dallas going, gave him hope that there was good in the world) really drove Dallas off the edge.

Dallas Winston was really only one of MANY complex characters in The Outsiders, but for me, he was the most interesting and complex. Although the plot of the novel is definitely great, what REALLY brings the novel together I think are its characters and their interactions and relationships with each other. Hinton's complex, 3 and 4-dimensional characters really bring a lot of depth and a sense of realism to the story, as (like I've praised so many times before) these characters could be real people living out their complicated lives. S.E. Hinton truly is a brilliant author, and her masterpiece of a novel gets an indisputable (at least for me) 5/5.

The Film

While I really liked both the novel and the film, there were some shifts in tone and mood that I actually found rather annoying. A major one that I noticed was the scene before Ponyboy runs away. In then novel, this was an intense scene where Darryl just slaps Ponyboy in anger, and there's a moment of complete silence where Ponyboy is trying to comprehend what just happened (because no one in his family had ever hit him before), Sodapop was undeniably shocked and scared, and Darryl just stared at his hand as if HE couldn't believe what he had done. The moment where Ponyboy runs off is actually very dramatic and emotional. The film, however, strangely goes for an "action-type" scene where Ponyboy just runs off right after being pushed by Darryl and there's some sort of rock music playing in the background, which I thought really detracted from the emotions of the scene.

Another major tonal shift was the rumble, or at least the aftermath of it. The film portrays the rumble victory as a big celebratory scene where they all cheer as if that made them superior to the Socs. While there were happiness in the novel, Darryl just mutters tiredly "We won. We beat the Socs.". I preferred the novel's take on it much more, as even though the greasers won, the victory really didn't matter in the long term. The greasers will be the greasers, and the Socs will be the Socs. Nothing will ever change for the both of them, so even though the greasers won, it meant nothing for them really. Without actually writing it out, Hinton conveyed this to great effect in the novel by describing how every single member of the greasers were injured and tired. Hinton never comes out upfront and says that "nothing will change", but she is somehow able to communicate it very cleverly in her writing.

It seems though that this movie was a starting point for many big-name actors, including Ralph Maccio and Tom Cruise, who are two actors that I particularly like (or at least are much more familiar with then the others). The entire cast was really good, and you could really believe that all of them were best friends, and they were all very good representations of their book characters, and I really think they couldn't have found a better cast. It was also very impressive to see the movie quote lines directly from the novel as well. While I really loved the film, I couldn't help but notice some tonal shifts from the book, and that did disappoint me, but it may just have been because I did read the book first, so that most likely had an impact on my enjoyment of the film. Despite my displeasure with the tonal shift, it is still and OUTSTANDING film and one that you can enjoy over and over again. The Outsiders film gets a 4.5/5, both overall as a film AND as an adaptation.

Summative Thoughts

The Outsiders is a brilliant novel, and a perfectly adapted film. I can't EXACTLY put a finger on why it became so attractive to me, but it's one of those novels and film that you just have to re-read or re-watch it again for nostalgia's sake. Maybe it's become more of a nostalgia thing now, but when I first read it, I just got really attached to the story and all of the characters very quickly. While I assume most of, if not all of my readers have already read this novel, I encourage all of you (whether you have or have not read it) to read the novel and watch the film. It really is a great story and I applaud Ms. Hinton for her immense talent in writing and Mr. Coppola for his amazing directing and casting.

I'm not sure what I want to review next... I think it will be a film review, and I do have a few options to choose from, so I do have a range of options there. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: Needful Things By Stephen King

So it looks like I'll be reviewing another work by (or related to) Stephen King. Needful Things was written in 1991 and takes place in Castle Rock, Maine, a recurring location for many of King's works. This was the first novel King wrote after his rehabilitation from drug and alcohol addiction. While it is not one of King's most well-known works (by my knowledge), it was adapted into a generally poorly-received film in 1993 and actually was parodied in a Rick and Morty episode, "Something Ricked This Way Comes". The general premise of the novel is this: In the town of Castle Rock, Maine, a new store called Needful Things opens, which claims to have something for everyone. The shop's proprietor, Leland Gaunt, does business in a strange way, half of the price being cash, and the other half being a 'deed'. Every deed is a prank played on another citizen, and using these deeds, Mr. Gaunt slowly turns the townspeople against each other. Sheriff Alan Pangborn realizes all the sudden crime and violence is connected to Mr. Gaunt and begins his own investigation into the man, finally stopping him before he can destroy the town from inside.

The novel is a bit different from a typical King novel. While it still has a clear protagonist and an antagonist in the forms of Alan Pangborn and Leland Gaunt, it also puts the highlight on most of the town residents, delving into the backstory and the inner thoughts of at least 13 or 15 different characters (I'm positive that there are more, but it's been a while since I read the novel and I can't remember everything) very well, allowing each separate character to be unique and human in their own way, making each character very memorable in the eyes of the reader. Stephen King, I think, has always had an ability that allowed you to connect deeply with many of his characters, being very invested in most of them, and that was exactly the case I found with this novel as well. I especially liked the characters of Brian Rusk and Norris Ridgewick, because I found the two of them to just be more compelling then the other two.

Brian is an innocent, corrupted, 11-year-old victim of Leland Gaunt, and the novel focuses a little more on Brian then perhaps other characters, him being the first victim of Gaunt. Brian is all in all, essentially an innocent little kid who falls under Gaunt's spell because of a rare baseball card, and in exchange, he plays a prank that lights the (figurative) flame that burn the whole town down, and throughout the novel, the reader can clearly see Brian's guilt at what he has done and the conclusion of his story was very much shocking. Norris Ridgewick I found to be one of the more humane characters in the novel. He is a regular, decent human being whose actions are motivated essentially by childhood nostalgia. Norris is a very likable character  because I found his character to be very easy to relate to, as he is no different from an ordinary person, pleasant on the outside, but with his own personal flaws, and that just made his character more interesting to follow.

This novel also has one of the most interesting supernatural villains I've read in literature, Leland Gaunt. Whether he is the devil or not is never technically specified, but it is very much obvious that he is demonic creature of some sort. Gaunt is first introduced as a very kindly older gentleman who always seems to have exactly what you need and is willing to give you a "fair" price for it. Despite his kindly exterior, his true evil nature is actually very cleverly hinted by page 24 of the novel where Gaunt says to Brian "Come in my friend. Enter freely, and leave some of the happiness you bring!" Now this line may not have any significance to most people, but to those people that do understand it, it is a HUGE red flag that Gaunt is not who he seems. The line is a paraphrased one from Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the Count himself says to Johnathan Harker (the "protagonist of the novel"), "Enter freely and of your own free will!" and "Welcome to my house! Enter freely. Go safely, and leave something of the happiness you bring!". Furthermore, Gaunt's exact line is used by Gary Oldman's Dracula in the 1992 (a year after this novel was published) film Bram Stoker's Dracula, directed by Francis Ford Coppola. This seemingly innocuous line is a clever hint right from the bat that Gaunt is something more then human. While he was portrayed by Max Von Sydow in the film adaptation, if they ever re-adapted this novel, I'd like to see Lars Mikkelson in the role.

King also builds up to supernatural origins of Gaunt throughout the novel very effectively, using characteristics such as Gaunt's unusually long index finger, his touch somehow feeling revolting, his eye colours that differ to everyone (which is pointed out in such a casual manner such as "His eyes were a nice green" to "His eyes were a stormy gray", so that it's not outright noticeable, but becomes very unnerving). Furthermore, the novel begins with a second-person narration (only for a few short pages) where a towns-person (unnamed and unidentified) introduces the reader to the town of Castle Rock and talks about a soon-to-be-open Needful Things, ending by introducing the reader to Brian Rusk and segues into the first chapter. The novel ends in a similar way, with the second-person narrative and repeating of many of the lines in the prologue. This time, the reader is introduced to Junction City, Iowa (the setting of another one of King's novellas The Library Policeman) in the same manner as the prologue. The epilogue concludes with the statement that a new store called Answered Prayers is about to open, suggesting that Leland Gaunt has moved to Iowa to start his cycle all over again. Interestingly enough, Alan Pangborn also remembers a shop in his hometown (which he never entered) called Just The Ticket. While it may have been run by Gaunt, Alan not knowing Gaunt is interesting, as Alan should have at least found the name familiar if we are to assume that Gaunt tore that town apart as well.

Like most Stephen King novels, Needful Things has many references and connections to other works by King, and while I'm not a King expert by any means here are some that I noticed:

• Castle Rock is the setting of many King novels, including The Body, Cujo, and The Dark Half
• Alan Pangborn is a recurring character from The Dark Half, and mentions the central character of the story Thad Beaumont in passing.
• The events of Cujo are reference at least twice; once when Pangborn (I think) mentions or passes by the Chambers House (the setting of Cujo) and the second time when Polly Chalmers (a central figure in the story) goes to the Chambers House and hears a dog growling, most likely hinting at the ghost of Cujo.
• Ace Merrill is a character from The Body (Adapted into Stand By Me in 1986) and refers to the events of the novel.
• Ace has also apparently spent time in Shawshank Prison, a location famous for Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
• Nettie Cobb (another character from the novel) has spent time at Juniper Hill Asylum, which is where Henry Bowers is sent to in 1957 in IT, but is broken out of it by It in 1987.

It's nice to see that King's still working hard to establish a pretty solid universe and it's always nice to see references to other beloved works by King

Overall, Needful Things was a great read. It had a very enrapturing plot, and a very much 'human' cast of characters. I really liked how the novel jumped around to show the different thoughts of multiple different characters at different moments in the story. This really helped to establish the concept that the story doesn't just revolve around one person, but that Mr. Gaunt's influence stretches over the entire town, and it was really nice seeing how Mr. Gaunt was affecting all the different people. I honestly wouldn't mind if King kept writing sequels to this one just to read about how Leland Gaunt would influence different people in different towns, because I really think that would be interesting to read. Leland Gaunt really is a very creepy villain as he plays a  puppet-master-type character and I find those "behind the scenes mastermind" to be more interesting and creepy then an outright hunter-type villain who actually does all of their dirty work, because with a mastermind villain, while you get a vague sense of their powers, you would never actually see the full extent of it until the end, and the slow buildup to that final confrontation is always so exciting for me. Villains that never get their hands dirty and uses puppets in the background have always had a sense of grace and elegance about them, because their ability to control people to do their bidding just seems to make them more intimidating and godlike in a sense. While I have yet to read Needful Things a second time (due to me having other stuff to read), I am definitely aiming to read it at least once again within the year, and I strongly urge any horror fans to read this one because I'm not sure why but this novel doesn't seem to be particularly well-known to non-King fans, which is a big shame, and I really think this novel deserves more popularity and a better adaptation reboot, most preferably in the form of a Miniseries like IT. Needful Things gets a final review score of 4.5/5.

I think this will be my last Stephen King-related review for a while (although I won't make any promises), and I will be reviewing some other works NOT related to King instead. I already have my next few posts planned out, and my next review will be different from the ones I usually do, and I'll probably be bring back some nostalgia for most (or maybe all) of you, since I'm going with a childhood classic. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: The Mist (2007)

In this review, I will be talking a little bit about the popular TV Series, The Walking Dead. Now, my knowledge of this show is VERY limited, so please correct me if I make any mistakes concerning the show in the comments. The 2007 film The Mist is based on a novella of the same name by none other then Stephen King, who's popping up REALLY frequently in my reviews. The basic premise of the film is that a group of townspeople become trapped inside a grocery store when a mysterious mist that contains monsters engulfs the town. The survivors inside the store have to find a way to fend off the monsters, but the store falls into chaos as people begin to fight amongst each other, each having different ideas. There will be some spoilers in my review, so read at your own caution, but the spoilers won't detract from the movie at all.

The conflicts among the people is the connection to The Walking Dead I will touch on slightly. So in the later seasons of the show, we are presented with different types of survivor colonies that are run in different ways, like the dictatorship run by The Governor. And although the show is about a zombie apocalypse, it can also be said that the zombies are just a medium used to show how different people will act in a life-or-death situation. This sort of psychological thrillers have always interested me quite a bit, and that is essentially what the film is mainly about.

The Mist works to show the viewers different people acting differently and even erratically in a dangerous situation. When the mist first encompasses the town, a group of "rationalists" (for a lack of better word) are the first to speak up. Led by Brent Norton, a lawyer, these people refuse to believe that there is anything supernatural about the mist (despite there being evidence), out of intellectual stubbornness and makes a "rational" (or rational in a normal situation) choice of leaving the store to get help, only to never return, presumably killed by the monsters. Interestingly enough, a woman leaves the store just as the mist begins to envelop the town to rescue her kids, and despite the monsters, she is revealed to have survived with her two kids at the end of the film.

Mrs. Carmody is a constant antagonistic figure in the film. As a religious zealot, she constantly preaches about how this mist is the apocalypse and how there is no survival for the sinners (everyone). Towards the end of the film, almost everyone in the store begins to actually believe in her words, and she essentially takes over as a theocratic dictator, demanding daily sacrifices to keep the monsters at bay "in the name of God". Interestingly enough Mrs. Carmody and all of her followers have definitely survived the monsters by staying inside the store at the end of the film, compared to the "protagonists" of the film (who I will discuss in the next paragraph).

The main cast of characters: David Drayton, Amanda Dumfries, Ollie Weeks, and Dan Miller take control of the store for the majority of the film, working to defend against the creatures that are outside, and eventually venturing outside the store to find supplies and eventually leaves the store altogether. They are considered to be the protagonists of the story as they are the ones that stay strong and are willing to stay optimistic (to a point) and fight against these monsters for survival. Unfortunately, their optimism runs out, and David has to kill the four other people (one of whom is his son Billy) who left the store with him, when they run out of options, leaving David a broken man.

It is interesting to see how different people react to a strange situation. In the film, all three groups of people succeed to a certain extent, and although there are clear protagonist-type figures in the form of David, Amanda, Ollie, and Dan, it seems as though that Mrs. Carmody's religious zealots and the "rationalists" are potentially more successful in surviving the monsters (although we do only see that one woman survive from the rationalist group). I'm still not quite sure myself what the movie was trying to communicate, but it is clear that it was going for a psychological angle where it intended to delve into human psychology and how real-life people would react in this situation, which I think they did represent very accurately, as people will go crazy and fight among each other in a stressful situation (this sort of behaviour is referred to as cabin fever).

It was, overall, a very enjoyable film. The monsters are genuinely creepy, and I do like that the movie (and most likely the book as well) mentioned briefly that the monsters were from an another dimension, making a (possible) connection to King's Dark Tower novels. The characters were all very interesting, making the irritating characters very much so, and keeping the likable "hero" characters very likable as well to contrast against the characters who are clearly meant to be antagonistic. I really did enjoy this film, and from my research, it seems that majority of the people who watched this movie agrees. I genuinely cannot think of a single thing I disliked about this film. The Mist gets a fantastic rating of 5/5.

So that was my review of the 2007 film, The Mist. I think my next post will be a novel review (yes, I'm finally doing one of those), although I still haven't quite decided on a novel yet. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Apt Pupil (1998)

Even though I said that I was going to move away from Stephen King and horror for a while, I guess I was wrong. I have not read the book version of the 1998 film Apt Pupil yet, so I will keep this purely a film review and not compare it to or mention the novella (essentially an extended short story) in any way. I really liked this movie. It was well written, and the cast was all fantastic. As always, I do write the plot synopsis down below, so if you don't want to be spoiled, you can jump to the last paragraph, which doesn't contain anything plot-related. 

The film revolves around Todd Bowden (Brad Renfro), a typical high school honour student who discovers that one of his neighbours, Arthur Denker (Ian McKellen), may in fact be a Nazi war criminal named Kurt Dussander. He blackmails Dussander with this information, telling him that all the proof he has (including fingerprints from "Denker's" mailbox) will be mailed to the police if Todd was to die. Showing his true nature for the first time, Todd tells Dussander that he will not expose him as a criminal if Dussander tells him "Everything they're afraid to show us in school. You were there. You did those things. No one can tell it better than you can." Despite his initial refusal, Dussander gives in, even taking up a semi-friendly relationship with Todd and helping him by pretending to be his grandfather when his grades slip due to the nightmares from the stories. However, through the telling of his stories, Dussander's old Nazi side begins to wake up and he begins to become increasingly dangerous, even attempting to murder. Dussander also ends up blackmailing Todd with the fact that Todd had knowledge of a Nazi war criminal but did nothing, forcing Todd to do whatever Dussander wants for him to do. Dussander's bloodthirstiness eventually leads him to murder a homeless man before he has a heart attack. Todd ends up murdering the homeless man and Dussander is discovered to be a Nazi by a former Holocaust survivor in a hospital. Although no one seems to suspect that Todd was involved with Dussander's Nazi life, his guidance counselor Edward French (David Schwimmer) realizes that the man he met was not Todd's grandfather confronts him, but is forced to stay silent when Todd threatens to spread lies about French being a pedophile. The film ends with Todd graduating and Dussander committing suicide by giving himself an air embolism.

My favourite parts of this movie are the lines delivered by Dussander and how they're reflected again in Todd at the end of the film. Lines like "I'm better at this than your are." and "And do you know what such a scandal can do? It never goes away. Not for you, not for your parents." are ones that Dussander uses to threaten Todd during the film, and Todd quotes them almost verbatim (with a few parts changed) to threaten Mr. French at the end. For me, this represented how Nazi propaganda could pull someone in and essentially brainwash them, as by the end of the film, Todd begins to become more and more sadistic and manipulative, as he was being more and more influenced during his times with Dussander.

Dussander was my favourite character in the movie, mainly because of the complexity of his character. Before being contacted by Todd, he lives a pretty quiet life, doing things that a normal old man would do. He is also EXTREMELY charismatic, hiding his darker side perfectly when interacting with other people. However, throughout his meetings with Todd, his old Nazi "personality" begins to come back, and he even attempts to burn a cat in an oven. The most clear example of Dussander's reversion is when Todd forces him to wear a Nazi uniform (Fun Fact: Hugo Boss was a member of the Nazi party and used to supply the Nazis with uniforms.) and march "for fun". At first, Dussander is very reluctant, but as he continues to march, he loses control and begins to ignore Todd completely, marching with what seemed like passion. You can watch the clip of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw_TV4-fpNg. 

Furthermore, Dussander is also portrayed as somewhat sympathetic, as even though he murdered many people and his murderous tendencies return, it seems as though he did it all reluctantly, making one question if he really is a cold-blooded murderer. When Todd asks, "What did it (killing the prisoners) feel like?", Dussander replies, "It was something that had to be done. A door had been opened and couldn't be shut. It was the end... You don't understand.". Despite his ability to be manipulative and even murderous, Dussander also seems to suffer guilt from the killings he carried out, suggesting that he only became the way he is today because he had to murder people, making him a somewhat sympathetic character in my eyes.

I really enjoyed this movie. Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro are great actors who work together very well, and their dynamic is genuinely believable. Ross Geller David Schwimmer portrays Edward French well, and I genuinely didn't expect an actor I knew so well from comedies (Friends, Madagascar) to portray a rather serious character so well. Schwimmer looks like he genuinely cares for Todd (Renfro) and you can also see that he genuinely looks hurt at the end when Todd threatens him.

 Despite how much I enjoyed this movie, Todd Bowden was probably the weakest part of the movie. Don't get me wrong, Renfro is a good actor, and he did portray the sadistic part of Todd's character really well. However, the rest of his character felt a little... weak. We get almost no indication that he is a star student except for his high marks briefly at the beginning, and while his nightmares and hallucinations he has due to Dussander's stories are shown well, his descent into a sadistic character was somewhat lacking. We see that Todd is already a bit unstable right from the start when he blackmails Dussander, but apart from that, his (unwilling) murder of the hobo, and his threat to Edward French, we don't see much of Todd's evil within. I've read that the novella expands much more on Todd's fall into evil and how the ending actually shows how insane Todd's become, but the movie doesn't, and that did ruin the movie for me quite a bit. While they showed Dussander's change quite well, Todd's change seemed to be almost nonexistent, which was a strange choice considering

Overall, this movie is still great. All of the actors are phenomenal and the plot itself is very interesting. The movie also has compelling characters that we can get invested in, and you do see the progression of the characters (for the most part) well throughout the film. I've always preferred horror/thriller movies with a psychological aspect to them compared to the bloody slasher films, so I really did enjoy this movie. However, I can't help but be quite disappointed that Todd's character development came out a bit too suddenly. While it didn't ruin the film for me, it took away from my enjoyment of it, as it disappointed me that the main character wasn't as complex as he definitely could be (judging by what he does in the novella). The Apt Pupil gets a rating of 4/5.

For my next post, I will be doing another film review. Although I won't tell you the title, I WILL tell you that it's based on another Stephen King story (maybe I'm getting out of hand with my King Adaptation Fixation...), so you're free to make all the guesses you want. I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

ADAPTATION REVIEW: Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park (1993)

Jurassic Park is a film beloved by many. It is the 17th highest grossing movie of all time with $841,088,300 in the box office. What most people do NOT know, is that Jurassic Park and its sequel The Lost World (1997) is based on 1990 and 1995 novels of the same name, written my Michael Crichton, with the sequel being such a horrible adaptation that it only has a passing resemblance to the novel with very little (but still existent) similarities. Fortunately, Jurassic Park did not suffer the same fate, being a (generally) much more loyal adaptation and keeping to the general themes and the plot of the novel much more successfully.

The film is groundbreaking in terms of technology as the dinosaurs were brought to life masterfully, and it was so popular that it received two (arguably unnecessary) sequel movies and a (completely pointless) sequel trilogy. I really don't think this movie could have been handled by anyone other then Stephen Spielburg, who was the PERFECT director for this film. Michael Crichton (the author) DID write the screenplay, but in my eyes, that does NOT justify the film being disloyal.

While I may do a separate review on the film itself someday, we do have to ask ourselves if Spielburg's film stayed loyal enough to the book or not. Since most people know the plot of the movie well, I'm just going to provide a VERY brief general summary of both book AND the film:

Plot Synopsis

John Hammond, an old, eccentric billionaire and CEO of InGen, a genetics company, builds a biological reserve on Isla Nubular, an island off Costa Rica. Due to the potential safety concerns with the reserve, lawyer Donald Gennaro calls upon three consultants, paleontologist Alan Grant, paleobotanist Ellie Sattler, and mathematician Ian Malcolm to accompany him to the island to inspect the safety of the park. Upon arriving on the island, they discover that John Hammond has cloned dinosaurs using dinosaur DNA extracted from ember, and has named it "Jurassic Park". Things seem to be going well until Dennis Nedry, a disgruntled employee of the park shuts off the system to steal the dinosaur embryos for a man named Dr. Dodgson. This sets all the dinosaurs loose, and results in a number of people getting killed, including Nedry himself. Eventually, a small group of survivors manage to bring back the power and escape the island, and they all agree that the park was a horrible idea and agree to never tell the public about this.

Honestly, now that I actually think about it, the movie deviates from the book quite a bit. But what they stuck to the book comes up next:

The Loyal Factors

The movie manages to get most of the cast fairly accurate: Ellie Sattler is the paleobotanist who takes an active role is stopping the dinosaur while also  Ian Malcolm in both cases was a Chaotician with a tendency to ramble on about Chaos Theory, and he was indeed the only person with enough foresight to predict that the park would fail. Ray Arnolds (John Arnolds in the novel) is a chain-smoking, chief engineer of Jurassic Park who is killed by the raptors. Robert Muldoon is still the game warden of the park who is constantly distrustful of the raptors, but his role is mostly cut out. Dennis Nedry is the overweight, unorganized, arrogant computer programmer of the park who cuts off the power to steal dinosaur embryos, but is killed by a dilophosaurus later on. Henry Wu is still the Chief Geneticist of the park who fills in missing strands of the DNA with amphibian DNA, but like Muldoon, his role is largely cut out. John Hammond is the eccentric and childlike billionaire and owner of JP & InGen, but his story is heavily changed as well. Although Alan Grant, Tim & Lex Murphy, Donald Gennaro, and Lewis Dodgson are original book characters, their characters were changed so much that I will discuss them more in the next section.

Apart from the characters and the plot summary I mentioned above, the movie really doesn't bare much similarity to the book otherwise. I will discuss my thoughts on this more later on, since I do have an opinion of my own on some adaptation related things. Now on to the next section, where I will talk for a while about what the movie changed or left out all together:

The Disloyal Factors

The movie DID deviate heavily from the book most times, so I will only cover the MAJOR points that actually mattered to the overall plot of the book.

Foremost, the tone (and the subject) of the book and movie are a bit different. The movie was a thriller with a side message about not messing with nature and science. The movie was definitely a thriller first, and a cautionary tale later. The book however, is the opposite. The first few pages of the book are actually dedicated to the increasing genetic experimentation, and it becomes more and more transparent as you read that the book's really a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked genetic experiments and trying to play God, told through a thriller story. It makes sense that the movie decided to cut down most of the cautionary stuff because it probably wouldn't have worked well in the movie if they kept rambling on about why playing God is wrong, and Jeff Goldblum got the message across well without being too boring.

The movie fails include some book scenes that actually had some HORRIFYING implications. A major plot point in the book was that there were dinosaurs that had actually escaped from the park and was going around the mainland eating babies. Not only that, the group also discovers that the raptors (and pretty much all the other dinosaurs) were breeding, and a few of them had gotten on a boat to mainland (which was actually mentioned briefly the movie), but they do manage to stop the boat on time. Because of the escaped dinosaurs, the Costa Rican government held the survivors so they could help combat these dinosaurs. The movie also mentions The Lysine Contingency, which essentially makes it so that the dinosaurs can't survive without the lysine provided by the park workers, but the book later points out the dinosaurs have survived by eating lysine-rich foods, which made that a completely pointless measure. 

The fates of most of the people on the island is actually changed, so I will summarize all the changed fates: Ian Malcolm, John Hammond, and Henry Wu die on the island while Donald Gennaro and Robert Muldoon survive, which are actually opposite in the movie. There are also other character changes and omissions that I will talk about as well.

Ian Malcolm's death is quite interesting, as he does feature heavily in the next book and movie. Crichton originally had no intentions to write a sequel, but after the popularity of the first film, AND the popularity of Malcolm (portrayed by Jeff Goldblum) pressured him to write a sequel and revive Malcolm by writing "he was only mostly dead and was saved due to surgery", when in the book he was pretty dead. Hammond's death was one I liked because of how unlikable his character was. He was still generally a jovial, eccentric showman, but at the same time, he was an egotistical prick who took more concern in the safety dinosaurs then the people, REFUSED to hear Malcolm at all (while the movie version was more open-minded), and even when everything was going to hell, he kept talking about "reopening the park". So needless to say, it brought (mostly) everyone no sadness ]when he was killed by the procompsognathus. Wu actually sticks around in the book to help the group stop the dinosaurs, and he actually has an argument with Hammond about making the dinosaurs more domesticated, while Hammond refused to even consider it, and interestingly enough, this part is somewhat (I'm not sure if intentionally) paid homage to in Jurassic World when Wu discusses the I-Rex with Simon Masarani. Alas, the book Wu, despite being a more likable character, is ripped apart by raptors in his heroic attempts.

Donald Gennaro is also largely changed. Gennaro seemed to have been given all the unlikable character traits from the other characters. While Gennaro WAS excited at the prospect of making money from the Park, he was also very concerned about the safety of it and was genuinely there to investigate the park further, getting furious with Hammond when he brought his grandchildren (who I'll discuss more later), because Hammond was attempting to turn this into a weekend excursion. He also didn't run away when the t-rex got loose (Which was something that Ed Regis, a character entirely omitted from the movie did), and spent the rest of the book attempting to own up and actually hunt these creatures down, eventually surviving. While he still isn't the most likable character, he was still MUCH better then his movie counterpart. Now Muldoon, actually lives up to his credentials as a Kenyan hunter and actually did stuff. In the book, he owned a military- degree LAW Rocket Launcher (rather then just that one shotgun), which he demanded to have as a safety measure, and he ran around with it blowing the legs off of raptors. That actually made Muldoon one of my favourite book characters, cause he pretty much took out a lot of the raptors with those, and he made more contributions in the book.

Grant liked kids in the book because they had the same fascination with dinosaurs that Grant had. I'm not sure what was the point of them giving him a story-line of not liking kids. Lewis Dodgson actually works for a rival company of InGen's called Biosyne, which has a whole history behind it concerning botched up genetic experiments that had some serious consequences. Dodgson is technically the main antagonist of the books, as he returns in the sequel to cause more issues. Tim & Lex are switched in age, and the computer skills are given to Lex instead, who is actually SIGNIFICANTLY more annoying in the book, constantly complaining. Nedry's backstory in the movie is: "Hammond got cheap on me." In the book, Hammond hired Nedry, but constantly added tasks that wasn't in the contract. When Nedry threatened to quit, Hammond threatened him with lawsuits and wrote to Nedry's other clients telling them that Nedry was unreliable, forcing Nedry to continue without extra pay. And you know what, I sympathized with Nedry, who's supposed to be an ANTAGONIST. Crichton really did an amazing job developing his characters more that was lacking in the movie.

While the movie showed that the Park was ready to go, the book's Park wasn't even close to opening, with multiple sections of the park being closed due to issues they encountered along the way. One of these sections was the Pteratops Lodge, which was a treetop hotel in the aviary, but was closed because the Cearadactylus in the aviary were extremely territorial and were attacking people. This wasn't included in the movie (most likely due to technological restraints) but were paid homage to in JP3 and Jurassic World. The difference between the book's and movie's endings is also an interesting topic to discuss. In the book, the Costa Rican Air Force came in and dropped NAPALMS all over the place, destroying everything. The movie has a much... calmer ending, with the survivors just escaping the island and just deciding to leave the dinosaurs alone. I'm not sure why this change happened, but I suspect it was so they could set up sequels, while Crichton realized that since the book's whole point was that the dinosaurs didn't belong there, them all dying would be the only logical option.

Now that I got through that really long section explaining what the writers ignored from the book (strange since the author helped write the screenplay), I will be talking briefly (as possible) about my personal opinions on both the book and the movie and move on to my final conclusions, rating the book, the movie, and the adaptation out of five.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

I really enjoyed the book. It was well written, and it had a nice mix of likable and unlikable characters. It also toes the line slightly concerning the main antagonists of the movie. While you see that Dodgson and Nedry (who's a very sympathetic character) cause most of the problems, you also have the raptors as ruthless killing machines, but you ALSO have John Hammond, who essentially caused Nedry to turn against him and became greedy for money. Throughout the novel, I felt like I had to root for the humans to survive, but was also kind of hoping that Hammond wouldn't survive. However, Malcolm's rants do go on for a long time and gets rather dull and annoying very quickly. Not only that, Crichton doesn't write some of the scenes very well. He merely describes what's happening, but fails to convey the emotions of any of the characters, which did make the scenes a little dull sometimes, but it is still a great novel. I like the message that Crichton delivered in this book, and although it did seem extremely preachy, they may just have been because of my annoyance with Malcolm in the novel, but still, it is a good message considering the increasing leaps science has been taking these last few decades. Overall, the Jurassic Park novel gets a 4/5.

The Film: 

The film is one of my all-time favourites. It has great actors, great directors, and AMAZING special effects. While I didn't like that they decided to take the concept and make rather unnecessary sequels, as a standalone movie, it's still fantastic. I've always loved dinosaurs, so seeing them brought to life so well on the big screen was a great experience for me. What more can I say? I loved this movie from start to finish, and I loved everything about it. It's obvious to be that the Jurassic Park (1993) film gets a 5/5, no question.

Overall Assessment

Despite being a disloyal adaptation, I honestly don't think it matters because the movie was made so well that it being a disloyal adaptation doesn't matter. It stands on its own perfectly well, and by taking out much of Malcolm's rambles, it was overall more enjoyable to me. Although I prefer my adaptations to be very loyal, I also tend to give it a pass if the adaptation itself is an outstanding film on its own and it did not need to rely on the book much to do so. Jurassic Park is a great example of this, as even though I really enjoyed the novel, I loved the movie even more. Although it would have been cool to see some of the scenes from the novel into the film (like the rocket launcher scene), I still love the movie for what it did, as it remained faithful enough to Crichton's original work, but they managed to also make an original movie out of it. Not only that, they did get the main point of "don't play God" across, without needing Malcolm lecturing the other characters every five minutes. Even though Crichton's novel was good, I understand that it would not have translated well into a movie since it wasn't quite written to be purely a thriller, but more to be a cautionary tale on the dangers of uncontrolled genetic testing, so I completely understand and support their decisions to change the plot.

As an ADAPTATION ONLY, Jurassic Park gets a 2/5, but keep in mind that it being a bad adaptation does not mean it's a bad movie. I do genuinely think that it being a bad adaptation actually made it a better movie, and while it doesn't win any awards for book accuracy, it still followed the book well enough so that I have no major complaints about the movie, and it also got across the author's original message as well, which I think is really important for an adaptation. Even though the movie got the general stuff, it still wasn't very accurate to the book at all, which is why I gave it a low score. Despite that, I still heavily recommend you to read the book if you are a fan of the movie, and vice-versa. I read the book after watching the movie, and I still really enjoyed it, and it remains one of my favourite books.

Now that I'm done this adaptation review, I will be going back to novel & film reviews for a while. I do have an idea of what I'm going to review next (because I've been watching a lot of movies recently). I may also do a short (DEFINITELY SPOILER-FREE) review of AVENGERS: Endgame. I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Nosferatu (1922)

The story of Dracula is one that has been told and told again countless times over the last century. Based on the novel by Irish author Bram Stoker in 1897, Dracula has been adapted into films countless times, the Count himself being portrayed by notable actors such as Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee, and Gary Oldman among many others. In this one, I will be discussing a lesser-known adaptation of Dracula known as Nosferatu, a silent German film made in 1922, technically making it the first film featuring "Dracula". The reason I say 'technically' will be explained more later. And I understand that most of you probably won't be quite as willing to watch this or expect a positive review out of me because this is an ancient silent film, but please, just sit through this review.

Most people are probably familiar with Nosferatu from an episode of SpongeBob Squarepants. Graveyard Shift, where the infamous creature appeared it in at the end briefly. Now, the history of how this film got made is actually a very fascinating one. The filmmakers did not have the rights to portray Dracula on screen, so they ended up making a vampire ("Nosferatu" meaning "Vampire" in Romanian) film based heavily on Bram Stoker's novel. In order to avoid heavy lawsuits, they changed many of the character's names, most prominently Count Dracula to Count Orlok. Despite their 'precautions', Stoker's family sued the film company, and the court ordered for all copies of Nosferatu to be destroyed. Somehow, a couple of them survived, allowing us to watch this film today.

So what did I think of Nosferatu? I certainly found it an enjoyable watch. I wouldn't call the film exactly 'terrifying', but it was certainly quite off-putting. Big kudos goes to Max Schreck (Count Orlok) for being a brilliant actor the whole way through. Although the Count's introduction and death is rather underwhelming to say the least, Schreck definitely made it believable that he was an undead monster. A major factor attributed to this is definitely the makeup, which was done very well on Schreck, transforming him into a very creepy monster. Max Schreck also brought to the role a certain style of walking that was very disconcerting. I don't quite have the words to describe the walking style accurately, but it was sort of robotic/zombie-like, and Schreck didn't move his upper body at all, so you get a very strong impression that Schreck is portraying this undead creature that doesn't belong in this world, and that really was one of the most creepy parts of the movie for me, especially the infamous scene where Count Orlok unstintingly stalks up the stairs.

The acting by the rest of the cast was very good. Although they couldn't speak, their non-verbal acting was very good for the majority of the cast. Being black & white and having technological restraints and such, the film couldn't quite carry the tone it needed for parts of the movie. For example, the scene where Count Orlok feeds on the boat crew takes place in the middle of the night, but due to the technical restraints, it looks like it takes place in the day, which can seem strange because later in the movie, the Count dies from the sunlight. Apart from the technical errors, the movie seem to suffer from a few pacing issues, with some scenes dragging out longer then perhaps necessary, but there were scenes that were very well filmed and certainly added to the creepy aspects of the film. I know it doesn't matter to this review, but I'd also like to add that the movie was surprisingly rather faithful to the novel... up to a certain point, and then it removes the final portion of the novel.

Overall, Nosferatu certainly wasn't unwatchable. I definitely didn't HATE it, but I don't think it's a movie I'll watch again... It did a good job being off-putting, but it wasn't particularly horrifying for me, but that's probably because of the 100-year difference in the audience, considering that the movie apparently gave nightmares to many people when it first came out. The movie is also supposed to be watched with a live orchestra, so that may have played a factor in adding to the terror as well. I'm not telling you to go out of your way and make this movie a number 1 priority for you to watch or anything, but if you are a fan of horror movies and especially if you are fan of vampires and specifically Dracula, this is a movie that I don't think you'll regret watching. Personally, I haven't seen too many horror movies, and I'm not particularly a big Dracula or vampire fan, so this movie was okay for me. It wasn't horrible, but it wouldn't be something I would watch again anytime soon. Still, despite my personal feelings, it still doesn't change the fact that it's still a well-made and decently watchable movie in today's time. My final score for this movie is: 3/5.

So THAT was my review of the horror classic Nosferatu (1922). I'm currently not sure on what I'll do for my next post, but I think it will be an adaptation review, and departing from my recent horror-related posts, I have the perfect book & movie in mind. I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Outsider (2018) By Stephen King

Recently, I've been on a Stephen King reading spree, and while I'm currently reading Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption (Something that I will be reviewing), the last book I read was King's 2018 work, The Outsider. The Outsider is the most recent book by King and general plot wise, it's actually VERY similar to IT, because the main antagonist is a creature very similar to It. I will attempt to keep this review spoiler-free, but I will be mentioning some of the major plot points. However, I did read the book with a lot of the plot revealed, and it didn't take away from the experience by any amount. However, if you do not want to be spoiled, I suggest you skip to the last paragraph, which is just my overall thoughts. Without further ado, here is the plot: 

In a fictional town of Flint City, Oklahoma, English teacher and Little League Baseball coach Terry Maitland is arrested by Det. Ralph Anderson for the horrendous rape, murder, and mutilation of 11-year old Frank Peterson. Despite multiple eyewitnesses and DNA evidence against him, Maitland continues to protest his innocence because he has an ironclad alibi placing him at another city miles away at the time of crime, and he is even caught speaking on a news video. Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Det. Anderson finds Maitland's case suspicious enough and launches an investigation into it, Hiring Private Eye Holly Gibney (From Mr. Merecedes & the Bill Hodges Series) to investigate. Slowly, Det. Anderson and Holly begin to uncover a malevolent creature of supernatural origins from ancient Mexican legend known as El Cuco, which seems to be the cause of all this. Holly and Det. Anderson, along with few other determined individuals, set out to hunt down the monster, the cause of all this trouble...

I really enjoyed this novel overall because of how much it reminded of IT, just generally in terms of the main antagonist. El Cuco was very well built up and I liked that King used a real-life folklore as the inspiration for his villain. All of the characters were very well developed, and throughout the course of the novel, I genuinely began to care about the fate of some of the characters and became very much invested in others. The plot was full of suspense and it worked well as a thriller-mystery novel. I'm not sure if this was meant to be horror or not, but other then the rather graphic descriptions of the crimes, the book wasn't particularly scary to me, but the suspenseful way King wrote the novel was still very interesting. I also really loved that King brought in Holly Gibney, and how her introduction into the story wasn't forced and it really felt natural and normal. The book was very, VERY good, except for one MAJOR complaint: the ending was very disappointing. The book did an amazing job building up the suspense all the way up to the climax, but the final confrontation with the antagonist was very anticlimactic. The antagonist (AKA the outsider) is set up as this deadly, cunning, mastermind, but doesn't really do much other then just talk a lot. I liked the idea of the characters having to follow the antagonist's trail, so having the outsider not appear directly much was, I think, a very good choice. However, when the outsider DID show up, it was very disappointing. It doesn't do much, and although it left a bloody trail behind, it actually doesn't do much throughout the actual novel. All of its actions took place BEFORE the events of the novel took place so the readers don't actually get much of the outsider the entire book. What we DO get of the outsider however, is still reasonably good. Like I said, the confrontation between the outsider and the protagonists were rather disappointing, but apart from all that the outsider is written very well as this terrifying, vile creature, which I really liked, and I hope to see more characters like the outsider in future King novels.

In conclusion, The Outsider is a very well-written Stephen King Thriller-Mystery with very compelling characters and an engrossing plot. Despite the major flaw I discussed earlier that I found with this book, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and I found this to be one of the most interesting Stephen King novels I read. The characters were again, very likable, and even in terms of the antagonists, they were so well-written that you were constantly invested in their actions, and I don't think there was a single character in the entire novel I found boring. Even the most minor of side characters who were in it for only a couple of pages managed to be very distinct in my mind thanks to King's fantastic writing, and I like that all of the major characters do get some sort of closure. While being very similar to IT and Mr. Mercedes, The Outsider wasn't as overly descriptive as IT, being only 560 pages, and had a fairly simple but still interesting plot like Mr. Mercedes. Although I am by no means an expert on King (considering I haven't read most of his works), I found this novel to be one the best that I've read so far. Normally, a novel this good would warrant either a 5/5 or a 4.5/5, but unfortunately, the flaw I discussed earlier did throw me off of the book quite a bit. So my final score for The Outsider will be 4/5, but don't let that stop you from reading the book. It's still an amazing novel and it's always amazing to see that Stephen King is pumping out masterpieces at his age!

So I guess that was my second post... This will be more or less the general length of future film and movie reviews. Be on the lookout for my next review, which will be coming shortly in the company of Count Orlock! I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur