FILM REVIEW: Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)

Zac Efron (Left) as Ted Bundy (Right)

Theodore Robert (Ted) Bundy is one of the most infamous serial killers in American history. Although he has confessed to some thirty different crimes committed in the span of four years from 1974 to 1978, it is popularly believed that his real number of victims is much higher and his time-span dating further back. Ted Bundy is also well known as a criminal who had an extraordinary amount of female supporters, who all supposedly claimed to be "in love" with him due to his good looks and charming personality, which is how he gained the trust of all of his victims (all female); he would typically approach them in a public place feigning injury, lead them to a secluded place, then rape and kill them. Due to the popularity surrounding him, there have been multiple documentaries made about Ted Bundy in an attempt to understand the man, and in May of this year, Netflix released a biographical film on Ted Bundy's life titled Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, with Zac Efron as Bundy. The majority of the film was based on Bundy's former girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer's (written under the pseudonym Elizabeth Kendall) memoir, The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy, along with direct recreations (and usages) of multiple video clips of interviews and trials.

The first thing I will be addressing in this review is Zac Efron's performance as Ted Bundy. Having only seen Efron previous in High School Musical and The Greatest Showman, and knowing him mostly as a comedic actor, I honestly wasn't excited to see him take on the role of Ted Bundy, as I didn't think he would be able to capture the psychopathic side of Bundy, and I just didn't really see him in such a serious role. When I did watch the film, however, I did come to thoroughly enjoy Efron's performance as Bundy, seemingly capturing the charismatic side of the man perfectly, and having a striking resemblance to the man (see photo above). The film actually just focuses on the charismatic side of Ted Bundy and doesn't actually show Bundy committing any of his crimes, apart from a short flashback of him luring a girl with an injured arm and knocking her out and this allowed Ted Bundy to become more likable somehow in the eyes of the viewer. Even though you do know that Bundy is actually guilty of all of these crimes, the movie paints him in an oddly sympathetic light, making him seem like a horrible victim of bad timing more then anything. Efron's Bundy is nothing but charismatic and likable from the start and continues to keep that persona throughout the film, and it can even make the viewer question if Bundy actually is guilty, constantly doubting the facts, and that's exactly what the directors were going for.

Ted Bundy was a very public figure, and had many female supporters who claimed to be in love with him, and he was generally well-liked by many due to his good looks and extremely charming personality, and this film really delves into that part of him. After a crime is committed in which the victim was lured by the perpetrator into a false sense of security, there are people who always say "Why couldn't the victim figure out that the other person was dangerous?"or "I would have known they were a psychopath." While there absolutely were signs that Bundy was dangerous in real life (he was known to be abusive to his girlfriend and had even threatened her at one point), when making first impressions, Bundy never showed any hints to his true nature. You can genuinely watch any scene in the film where Bundy interacts with someone and it would be impossible to find any signs of malevolent intentions simply because there aren't any. Ted Bundy created a completely different persona for himself in public, and the directors conveyed that amazingly onto the screen, creating a sympathetic Bundy with the overall message that "Real psychopaths blend in perfectly with society" instead of the overly repeated message of "These are the subtle signs of a psychopath, recognize them", and I really liked this idea because it did humanize Bundy to a point where you do begin to understand why people did end up trusting him and why he had such a large female following. Ted Bundy has even said “We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere. And there will be more of your children dead tomorrow.” and “Society wants to believe it can identify evil people, or bad or harmful people, but it’s not practical. There are no stereotypes.”, which I feel really fits in with the overall message of the film.

As the movie is based on The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy by former girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer, portrayed by Lily Collins (and referred to as Elizabeth Kendall in the film), and so follows Bundy's relationship with her and so is told heavily from her perspective rather then Bundy's. And through that relationship Bundy becomes more sympathetic and likable in the eyes of the viewer. In the first ten minutes of the film, Bundy becomes a surrogate father to Elizabeth's daughter Molly, and he is established as this loving and caring person through his interactions with them. This is why even as Bundy becomes accused of and charged with more and more crimes throughout the course of this film, the viewers continue to doubt his guilt, something that is historical fact, because of his continued devotion to Elizabeth and Molly. This is further enhanced by a recurring object in the book, a French novel by the name of Papillon, which is about a man who is incarcerated wrongfully as he has been framed, plans an escape, and eventually lives a free and happy life. When Bundy gives Elizabeth the novel in the movie, he had already been incarcerated (wrongfully as Elizabeth still seems to believe) and has already escaped custody (only to be captured again). This leads Elizabeth (and the viewers as well) to believe that the film just may end in the same fashion where Bundy is exonerated and lives a happy life, and I think this was another brilliant way by the filmmakers to show off a sympathetic side of Bundy to the audience, fitting the overall concept of humanizing Bundy.

Bundy's relationship with Kendall also relates to the final scene of the film. While this scene is most definitely created solely for the film and has no basis in real life, it does nicely conclude the movie and also finally shows more of the "hidden psychopath" side of Ted Bundy that the film had been missing. In the scene, Elizabeth visits Bundy after he has been sentenced to death and asks him about what happened to the head in one of the cases. After continuously denying that he committed the crime, Bundy finally writes HACKSAW, after Elizabeth tells him "You need to release me, Ted". After this followed a series of montages compiled from clips throughout the film where Elizabeth begins to realize that the signs actually were all there throughout their relationship that Bundy was a violent psychopath and that she didn't notice any of them, which is the opposite of the concept that the film was trying to show, i.e. "Real psychopaths blend in perfectly with society", and instead showing the signs always being there, just obscured by Kendall's love for Bundy (which is much more closer to real life where Kendall did notice signs of Bundy's violent behaviour). 

The revelation also removes any sense of guilt and doubt she had about this case. She says "I could have helped save some of these girls if only I hadn’t trusted you" and "It’s not my guilt. It’s yours". But despite the guilt she carries about not realizing Bundy was a killer sooner, she also carried just a little bit of doubt that Bundy was guilty and had some hope inside her that the man she allowed to be close to her and her daughter was innocent. However, after she gets that confession from Bundy (his first ever confession of his crimes going by the film's continuity), she gets closure for her years of torment and suffering and tells her loved ones that she's finally fine. The film also uses Bundy's love for Elizabeth as motivation for Bundy's eventual confession to over thirty different crimes, as while they do not outright state this, they do say that Bundy confessed after their meeting (which never happened in real life), implying that Bundy's confessions in the film continuity was due to Elizabeth's visit. And this makes perfect sense as the film is very much about Bundy's continued relationship with Elizabeth Kendall, so I personally thought this was a great way for the filmmakers to use this ongoing plot to not only conclude the movie but also the personal stories of of Ted Bundy and Elizabeth Kendall respectively, using the end of their relationships as sort of a conclusion to their respective character arcs in the story.

The film also had an impressive supporting cast with the two strongest performances coming from Kaya Scodelario (The Maze Runner) as Carole Ann Boone, Bundy's lover and later wife and John Malkovich (Johnny English) as Judge Edward Cowart, the presiding judge at Bundy's final tria.

Carole Ann Boone was Ted Bundy's close acquaintance and eventual lover. She defended him fervently, believing until the end that Bundy was truly innocent. She also eventually became his lover and wife, being legally married in the middle of trial. She also became pregnant with Bundy's daughter during a conjugal visit and has since then gone off radar. The film cut out a large portion of their story, moving their relationship to just encompass his Florida trial and nothing about their prior (then-platonic) relationship, which began in 1974. She also helped Bundy escape in 1977 by smuggling money to him, and visited him every day in Colorado. The film portrays Boone as a stalker-like person who becomes public in her support and love for Bundy during his Florida trials in the 80's. This is most likely to further amplify Bundy's charisma and women's attractions towards him during his trials and portray him again as a likable and attractive figure.

Judge Edward Cowart was the presiding judge at Bundy's last case, and from viewings of the actual trial, John Malkovich portrayal of the judge as a somewhat eccentric man is accurate, as most of his lines a lifted straight out of the actual trial and even lines that were added in by Malkovich himself is quite in-keeping with the judge's actual personality. The title of the film "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile" is a quote from Cowart describing Bundy's crimes, and yet he also says: "Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It's a tragedy for this court to see such a total waste, I think, of humanity that I have experienced in this court. You’re a bright young man. You would have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don’t feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself." This quote once again emphasizes Bundy's extreme charisma and likability as a person as even the judge who sentenced him to DEATH actually likes him, which is a strong indication of the kind of man Ted Bundy was; a manipulative, charismatic psychopath who can win you over without the slightest betrayal of his real self.

Theodore Bundy is one of the most infamous figures in 20th Century American history and a very complex person who created a cult of personality around him with a massive fanbase of adoring teenage girls. The film did an amazing job replicating that cult of personality and Zac Efron did a fantastic job of bringing life to the side of Ted Bundy that made him a sympathetic and liked figured in the public's eyes during his trials. I also really liked that they used this very concept to create a clear character arc for both Bundy and Elizabeth, and how both eventually came to terms with what Bundy did, with Bundy no longer lying about his innocence and Elizabeth realizing that Bundy was never innocent and that she had to forget about him. Efron and Collins both brought their best to the film and had great chemistry on screen, and the rest of the supporting cast did a good job to, with only one miscast that I could think of. My one major complaint with the film is that they didn't make Ted Bundy creepy enough. While I understand this film is more about the cult of personality around him, he still was a dangerous mass-murderer, and Zac Efron's portrayal, while good at capturing the charismatic side, isn't exactly menacing or unsettling. While I liked that they humanized Bundy, they humanized him too much to the point that the film's version of him becomes a little too likable, and you don't really get a sense that he is this dangerous criminal accurately enough, and I think that detracted from the portrayal quite a bit, marring what is otherwise a very good film. Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile gets a rating of 4/5.

For my next review, I've decided to go back to Stephen King again, looking at one of his many adaptations. 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: The Giver by Lois Lowry

For some time in my younger years, one of my favourite genre of novels were dystopian novels. I was constantly fascinated by the portrayals of some unknown possible future. Some of my favourites being The City of Ember, The Hunger Games, and The Maze Runner. One of the earliest (if not the first) dystopian novels I read was The Giver by Lois Lowry, which is actually the first in a series of four interconnecting novels (all of which I have read) called The Giver Quartet. Not only was this novel already available at home, but it was also required reading for school. Nevertheless, I really loved it. The world-building was superbly done and each character was unique and interesting in their own way. I really liked the concept of the novel: in a seemingly Utopian society where all pain, along with emotional depth have been removed to "Sameness", there is only one person who is chosen to hold on to the memories of the past, and how that one person, known as the Receiver, has to deal with the emotionless, almost brainwashed society that they live in.

The book really builds up to the reveal that the community Jonas (the protagonist) lives in is completely different from the world that we know. When you first begin reading the book, you don't actually get a sense that there's anything particularly wrong with Jonas' world. There are some obvious differences like the existence of a speaker system to deliver messages through the community, jobs are assigned based on aptitude, and there is something called being "Released". During its first mention, the novel doesn't make any of it clear apart from the fact that it's a horrible punishment of some sort and it being a taboo topic for the most part. But apart from all of the different aspects of society, you don't get a full understanding of how strange everything is until it is mentioned that no one knows what an animal is, apart from it being a descriptive word for an unruly person.

The novel then mentions Release a second time, this time the Release of a baby, along with releasing of the elderly. While the releasing of babies is seen as a somber occasion, releasing the elderly is joyous occasion and a celebration of life. These different aspects of the concept of Release creates much confusion not only in the mind of the reader, but to the characters in the novel as neither can accurately pinpoint what Release actually is, because the government obscures the real truth to the point where all the citizens are told is: "Release is sometimes good, and sometimes bad, but you should never joke about it". The concept of obscuring the truth is a constant theme throughout this novel as the citizens of the Community are indeed kept from the truth, as their perception of reality and emotions have been completely warped, an example of this is the pills to counteract the "Stirrings", feelings of sexual desire, which apparently they haven't managed to suppress fully.

Truth and reality is warped to such a point that the Community becomes essentially an authoritarian society where regard for human life is completely cast aside, as their lack of emotions are unable to comprehend love, remorse, or sadness, and those words have become meaningless, stripping down society to nothing. Family is no longer a concept as children are assigned to parents who are also assigned spouses. Children are brought to life by the Birthmothers, who are impregnated in a lab. Due to this, there is no sentimentality or love between any members of the Community, and due to that, death isn't really a concept in the Community. While they do feel sadness at the Release of a newborn and at the loss of a child due to an accident, it isn't sorrow, and they seem to recover from it dangerously fast and move on with their lives if nothing had happened.

Release, like I've previously stated, is eventually revealed to be murder, and due to the indoctrination of the Community, the people who Release others do not feel any sense of remorse or shame for what they do, and feel that what they do is the right thing as they send the Released to "Elsewhere", making the process seem like a farewell ceremony to a haven of some sort rather then the brutal act it really is. The readers feel the full shock of this reality by showing Jonas' own father, always portrayed as a kind, light-hearted man, releasing the slightly "weaker" of a twin baby.

The book does make it clear however, that although the lack of love, remorse, regard for human life, etc... is indeed a negative thing, it also briefly discusses the disastrous consequences of those emotions, colour, climate, and most importantly, personal autonomy. In the novel, this is all part of a large concept of achieving "Sameness". With Sameness, where there are no colours or emotions, there can never be conflict as everyone will essentially be the same, including individual personalities. They also took away climate as cold or hot weather can cause crop failures, tornadoes destroy, etc. Although the book never actually delves into detail on how they managed to achieve Sameness, they do actually provide reasons for why Sameness is a better alternative, and even Jonas and the Giver do agree that it wouldn't exactly be safe to allow people to choose some aspects of life for themselves.

While it seems ridiculous to the reader, the points do have some validity, and the novel does make you wonder if Sameness isn't as horrible as it seems. While freedom of choice is definitely and integral component of life and it is obviously wrong for that to have been taken away from the people, their point about having no colour, emotions, and climate creating a peaceful and conflict-less world is not completely incorrect. So many of the world's problems in the last 1000 years can be traced back to racism, and one can wonder if removing skin colour and race altogether could actually be beneficial for society. Same goes for climate; natural disasters destroy environments and kill people, and maybe we could be better without it. Again with emotions; violence comes through negative emotions and maybe without any emotions we can live conflict-free.

It is obvious that these ideas are very much flawed upon closer observation, but through the casual way they approach it in the novel, along with the negative memories of pains and sufferings, it really does prompt the reader to think that maybe the people who decided to engineer Sameness was onto something, just a little bit, and if you didn't know what you were missing, would it be so bad? Would blissful ignorance be so horrible? And in fact, this is what some dystopian novels are centered around. A major example I can think of is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In Brave New World, most of its citizens live in blissful ignorance through the use of the drug Soma, which they use whenever feel negative emotions, and therefore always live in some sort of hallucinatory trance, allowing for easier control of them by the government. But this once again brings up the question whether or not living in constant physical pleasure would be so bad, as long as you didn't know what you were missing. So while we do know that that kind of control using ignorance is indeed bad, but it could be debated that it may not be as horrible as we'd initially believe if the people didn't know what they were missing.

While I personally don't have a clear stance on the topic of "Is the idea of a society filled with blissfully ignorant people so bad as long as they're content with it?", as both sides could be argued, it is something to think about for the readers. It would be great to hear all of your thoughts in the comment section below!

I was planning to delve into the characters and how effectively they enhanced the story, but I feel that doing that now after I've gone into the society of the novel would detract from the review a bit, but I will say that all of characters were great, and the most interesting one personally was Jonas' father, who is the only person in the Community apart from Jonas and the Giver who seems to be more 'human' then the others, as he is able to portray feelings that seem very much like love to his family and newchildren, but in the end is still the product of his society, and therefore lacks the emotional depth to fully understand love and performs the Releases with nothing but a little regret and sadness, making him one of the most compelling characters in the story.

The Giver is a great example of a dystopian novel done well, in my opinion. While I am not extremely familiar with dystopian novels, Lowry is outstanding in her ability to create and build a society that is, on surface quite similar (and perhaps even an improvement) to our own in terms of structure and everyone having some sort of job and the elderly seemingly very well cared for, but yet fundamentally so different from our society. While the differences at the beginning are very minor things, like the strict organizational structure, as the story goes on, the differences becoming more and more obvious, like animals being fictional and colour being nonexistent, the final truth of Release being murder shown in a very shocking revelation, with the person showing the truth being Jonas' own father, one of the most likable and human characters in the novel.

An issue with the novel I did have was the nature of the memories. Jonas' ultimate plan is to leave the community and therefore returning the memories to the Community. This leaves the question: What is the nature of the memories? I can accept the explanation that as Rosemary dies, the memories left her body and returned to the members of the Community. But the novel fails to explain why the memories would leave Jonas as he leaves the Community. The film adaptation (which was not the greatest, but a decent adaptation of the novel) actually gives a little more explanation to this by creating a border that seems to be the cause of the Sameness, and by crossing that border with all of his memories, Jonas would be releasing them back into the community. While it isn't a great explanation, it is an explanation, something that does lack in the novel.

While I really loved the book for its world building and its characters, the whole unexplained or elaborated concept of the "memories returning to people if Jonas left the Community" feels contrived and engineered specifically to be able to move the plot along and give the novel a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, that concept is a major part of the novel, and therefore does affect what is otherwise a very good plot quite a bit, as it becomes nonsensical, but since the novel is really about the world building and Jonas' discovery of these memories, I don't believe that part should be too relevant in the overall quality of the book. I still do strongly recommend readers of all ages to read the novel, as while it is intended for teenagers, it still has themes mature enough to fascinate adult readers. The Giver by Lois Lowry gets a final rating of 4.5/5. 

My apologies for taking so long to do another review, but I've been slacking off slightly due to it being summer vacation. I will attempt again to resume my weekly posting schedule, and I will try to upload another post by the end of this week, this time a movie review that I've been looking forward to for a while. 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: Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea By Jules Verne

Jules Verne is a 19th Century French novelist who has been dubbed "The Father of Science Fiction" along with H.G. Wells (The Invisible Man and The Time Machine) and Hugo Gernsback (Wonder Stories Magazine). While all of Verne's novels are of the adventure genre, from Around the World in Eighty Days to Journey to the Center of the Earth, they also have a very heavy relationship to science fiction, with a significant portion of them being called Science Fiction Adventure novels. One of his most significant and perhaps most well-known Sci-fi Adventure novel is Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, published in 1870 and adapted numerous times into films and TV movies. 

The premise of the novel is fairly simple: In the year 1866, French marine biologist Professor Pierre Aronnax (also the narrator of the story) partners with the United States navy and accompanied by his Belgian manservant Conseil, a naturalist, to find and destroy a mysterious sea monster (theorized by Aronnax to be giant narwhal) that have been sinking ships around the world. During the navy's confrontation with the monster, Aronnax, Conseil, and Canadian harpooner Ned Land (a worker on the naval vessel) is thrown off the U.S. ship. They are shocked to learn that the mysterious monster is in fact a submarine called the Nautilus, apparently built and piloted by a mysterious man named Captain Nemo and his crew of numerous men of various nationalities who all have a strong hatred for land. They plan to live out the remainder of their lives exploring the ocean, and Captain Nemo holds Aronnax, Conseil, and Ned prisoner to keep the truth from reaching land. For the next ten months, the three captives explore every inch of the ocean from the Antarctic seas to the lost city of the Atlantis, eventually escaping from the Nautilus and making their way the mainland.

The first thing I would like to say is that this novel was... okay. Personally, it was tolerable at the most for me. The novel spends pages dedicated to describing in extreme detail every single kind of fish Aronnax and his companions saw from their physical appearance to their genus, and as someone who really can't stand biology, these pages were excruciatingly dull to sit through, and I pretty much ended up skipping those parts of the novel, and apart from showing how much (admittedly impressive) knowledge Verne has of marine biology (especially more since he was a lawyer), it adds absolutely nothing to the overall narrative, although it could be argued that they are important in describing the wonders of underwater life to juxtapose the life on land. Furthermore, I didn't really understand the engineering aspects of how any of the machinery worked, apart from the general idea that those were very advanced for their time, but that most likely is due to my lack of familiarity with science, and I'm sure that lovers of marine biology or engineering will be able to appreciate it more then I. 

Even though there are some excruciatingly dull moments, they do sort of make up for it with some genuinely interesting and exciting scenes like Atlantis, their entrapment in the Antarctic, and their attack on an unnamed naval vessel among other genuinely interesting scenes. My two personal favourites were Captain Nemo's fight with the shark, and the battle against the giant squids, because those scenes provided some much-needed action and were written in vivid detail. Verne's skill as a writer is very clear in the pages of this novel as he does describe everything in very vivid detail, so it's quite easy to get a mental image from these descriptions, which does work well in this specific novel as its purpose is to describe to the reader what was (at least during the time this book was written) shrouded in complete mystery, so while I'm not a fan of long descriptions of the location, I can appreciate Verne's prolific ability to describe things in such vivid detail. 

So now in the next few paragraphs, I will be focusing on the four main characters in particular: Prof. Aronnax, Captain Nemo, Conseil, and Ned Land. I'm going to be dedicating most of the blog on the characters for me, the characters were easily the most interesting part of the novel, and the plot isn't anything groundbreaking, as it essentially describes the underwater travels of a group of people, and there really isn't anything I can really write here about the science aspects without sounding really awkward since I'm completely out of my depth here on that specific subject matter.

Professor Pierre Aronnax

Professor Pierre Aronnax, despite being the narrator of the novel, is very dull and unlikable. There's just nothing interesting to him in terms of actual character, and what little character he actually had did nothing to endear him to me. Aronnax is a very arrogant person who deems himself to be above most people. This is evident right at the beginning of the novel when Aronnax confidently claims that the mysterious creature is a giant narwhal, and essentially refuses to accept any other theories, calling the creature a narwhal throughout the rest of the novel. He completely dismisses the idea that it could be a submarine, and his argument against it has a strong jealous undertone to it as if he couldn't believe that an individual could build a submarine like that in secret. He is proven wrong as Captain Nemo was obviously able to build the Nautilus in secret, and while that quote is from earlier in the novel, it really shows that Aronnax is very much of an elitist who doesn't like to consider that someone else could have done something better then him. This wasn't a great start to the character, and Aronnax only got more annoying as the story progressed. 

Aronnax develops some sort of Stockholm Syndrome as the novel progresses, and he definitely doesn't want to leave the Nautilus, and while perhaps his desire to explore the seas for the rest of his life is technically understandable since he is a marine biologist, his main reason for wanting to return to land is a desire motivated by arrogance, as the reason he has to return to land is so that he can get famous off of all the discoveries he made, even though they are technically Captain Nemo's discovery more then anything. Apart from his arrogance, Aronnax is just a dull character. He really doesn't have much personality apart from "Captain Nemo is great!" and "I love fish!". He is also very weak (physically and mentally) and is just very inactive. When the crew is fighting the giant squids, while he describes everyone else fighting heroically, he doesn't describe himself fighting once, meaning that he probably just stood there in fear the entire time, as I doubt he would have had the courage to fight. His arrogance is clear even in the final page as he writes about how only him and Captain Nemo have walked the depths of sea, quoting a biblical passage to emphasize the point. ONLY him and Nemo? He fails to mention any of Nemo's crew OR Conseil, OR Ned, bringing the attention to only himself and Captain Nemo, his "hero". The only vaguely positive thing I can say about Aronnax is that he's kind enough to his friends, but even then, he refuses to run away when they wish to, forcing them to stay behind with him (because they are good people who won't abandon him).

Captain Nemo

Captain Nemo is shrouded in complete mystery, and this is evident from his name Nemo, which literally means No Man in Latin. And true to his name, Captain Nemo really is "no one". We know absolutely nothing of him other then the vaguest hints we get from him throughout the novel. He is very scientifically-minded, as he built the Nautilus himself, very heroic and strong as we see during the shark attack and the battle with the squids, and he is a learned man, keeping many books of different matters and languages in his library, and is apparently able to speak and understand four or five different languages. As for his backstory, all the readers really get from the novel is that he for sure had a wife and two kids who seemed to have been killed by some people, which drove him to hate all men on land (or land in general) and for some reason, the concept of imperialism. Captain Nemo is very reserved and private for the most part, often shutting himself away for days, and barely showing any emotions. However, Nemo also seems to be a rather broken and caring man, as he is noted weeping when his crew members died and in front of a portrait of a young woman and two children (assumed to be his wife and children).

Character wise, he's more likable then Aronnax. While he can't be said to be the villain of the novel, he certainly is no saint. He does capture Aronnax, Ned, and Conseil and refuses to let them go out of what is essentially paranoia that his secret will be known to other people. He is also rather temperamental, refusing to discuss the topic further just because he doesn't like it. He is also bit of an megalomaniac, and is very prideful, much like Aronnax. But on the other side of the coin, there is a very emotional, courageous man and a surprisingly kind heart. He puts his own life on the line to defend a random fisherman from a shark, leads the group in fighting the giant squids, and is generally composed. However, Captain Nemo's kind, soft-hearted nature is also evident on multiple occasions. The first sign that Nemo was not a completely cruel tyrant was the fact that he saved Aronnax, Ned, and Conseil from drowning in the sea, even if it was to keep them prisoner on board. But even as prisoners, the three were basically given the license to do whatever they wanted, as long as they didn't ask to or attempted to escape he Nautilus, and were treated like guests of honour. Furthermore, the captain shows great care for his crew members. He weeps like a father who has lost his son when one of his crew members die. This shows that he really does care for these people like family, despite his stone-cold exterior. There is also further evidence to show his soft-hearted nature towards the conclusion of the novel. Captain Nemo's true self as a very broken man who buries himself in the depths of the sea to try and forget his tragic past. So while Captain Nemo is a rather antagonistic character, he somehow manages to be MUCH more likable then Aronnax, as what little backstory he does get enables us to understand his actions and motives and perhaps even sympathize with him, while his positive, heroic traits also balances out the negative portions quite nicely.

Ned Land

Ned is easily my favourite character in the entire novel, even though he clearly isn't the central character and doesn't feature in the story as much as you'd think. His name essentially characterizes this man quite nicely. His last name "Land" is an obvious representation of his constant hatred of being on the Nautilus and his desire to return home. Out of the three "protagonists" (Aronnax, Ned, and Conseil), Ned, I feel, is the most realistic character out of them all, but that may be simply because I can relate with him so easily. Ned is a very down-to-earth man and the only one out of the three castaways who sees their situation as something other then a wondrous opportunity. While the other two are fawning over the sea life, Ned constantly thinks only of escaping the submarine and returning to land, and he is the only one who seems to actually see the situation for what it is in its entirety: Captain Nemo is a cruel tyrant that has held them captive indefinitely in a prison. While Aronnax and Conseil eventually do entertain this notion, Aronnax, at least, is never fully on board with the idea, it seems, making Ned probably the most clear-headed person out of the three, and he is more or less solely responsible for organizing the escape.

Furthermore, Ned is also the most fun character to read about. He is the most basic character in the novel (distinguishing fish by their taste and his desires to be on land and to hunt more or less), is actually quite funny, and also is an extremely strong, brave person who would put his life on the line for others. But you can also seriously sympathize with and feel for the character. Towards the end of the novel, Ned falls into a serious state of depression as he feels such a strong attachment to land and he feels no sense of purpose in the Nautilus, a vessel designed for scientific exploration, and therefore Ned, a born hunter, feels lost and out of place. This causes Ned to become deeply suicidal, and despite his characterization as a head-strong fighter, this shows that Ned is actually too sensitive of a person to enjoy the life under the sea, and it was his act of daring escape that allows him to break free from this pit of depression. Ned Land was a brave fighter until the very end of the novel, and you do feel a sense of happiness that he finally managed to return to land. Ned really was my favourite character in the entire novel, as he was the only one I found to be rather realistic and very much relatable.

Conseil

Conseil is a very bland character on the surface. He seems to exist in the novel largely only to make Aronnax more likable then he actually is. The name "Conseil" is French for "Counsel". Making this connection at the start of the novel, I began to wonder if Conseil, who was essentially Aronnax's manservant, would be advisory figure like Alfred to Bruce Wayne. However, it became soon apparent that Conseil's name was very ironic to his actual character. Conseil is literally just a yes-man. He's a LOYAL yes-man, but he's a yes-man nonetheless. Throughout the novel, whenever Aronnax asks for Conseil's second opinion, Conseil always answers with "I will do as the master wishes", making him seem like a sycophant who's desperately sucking up to his boss for some reason. He is also strangely dedicated to Aronnax for some reason, jumping into the sea after him after Aronnax is knocked overboard and risking his own life to keep Aronnax alive (during which Aronnax did nothing but complain). He also acts very robotic, as he has a very weird obsession with (to a concerning amount) classifying EVERY SINGLE CREATURE HE SEES, which is supposed to show off his abilities as a naturalist but came off to me as the author trying to boast his own intelligence (which, I must admit, is actually very impressive). However, he does strike up an interesting bromance-type relationship with Ned, and the two seems to become close friends.

While Conseil seems to be a one-dimensional character, he actually displays a few odd moments of personal autonomy where he acts out of character. At one point, after a fish stings him, he decides eat the thing out of spite even though it tastes horrible. At another point, he cannot believe that cod doesn't look like the filleted version he sees at the market. These are very out-of-character moments for the usually collected, logical, and intelligent Conseil, but his little quirks managed to endear me to the character quite a bit. Furthermore, he is shown to be quite forward-thinking for his times. When Aronnax states the island natives must be bad because they're cannibals, Conseil intelligently replies: "One can be a cannibal and a good man…just as one can be a glutton and honest. The one does not exclude the other.", which I really liked as it showed a fresh perspective to Conseil's character as someone who doesn't agree with his mater's every thoughts and is an independent human being. Even though Conseil definitely exists largely to be a loyal servant to Aronnax's biddings, his little moments of eccentricities show that Conseil is definitely not a one-dimensional character, and there is much to like about him.

Concluding Thoughts

Overall, while I personally would not look to read Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea a second time, it's obvious that I am DEFINITELY not who the book is written for. I am not in any way interested in engineering or marine biology, so I would definitely be unable to fully appreciate the immense skill and intelligence that Verne shows in this novel. I do still understand however, that Verne really is an immensely talented writer, and some parts of the book really had me invested in the storyline. While I didn't find the book to be a masterpiece, I can definitely why other people would. Verne clearly either had a vast amount of knowledge in the fields of marine biology and engineering or did an equally impressive amount of research to be able to know the specific genus and family of all of the creatures in the novel. It's extremely clear just from reading the first ten pages or so of the novel that Verne was an extremely talented man, and I can really understand why people proclaim him as one of the Fathers of Science Fiction. If you have any interest in marine biology or engineering, I STRONGLY suggest that you check this novel out. Even if you aren't interested in the sciences, like me, Twenty Thousand Leagues is still a decently entertaining novel to read, the strongest part of the novel (that I found) being its diverse cast of characters and extremely well-written action scenes, so I would encourage those who are Sci-fi or Adventure fans to read it. Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne gets a final rating of 3.5/5. 

Despite my rating, this is not a reflection of the quality of the novel in ANY WAY. As someone who is not the intended audience of this novel, I wasn't a big fan of it, but I'm sure that other people who are more interested in science and such would rate it much higher. 
I'm bringing focus onto this point because I wanted to make it clear that since the topics revolving around this book aren't in my field of interest, my review of this book is inevitably going to be less credible, so I would like all of my readers to take that into account before you make any judgments.

For my next post, I'm going to be doing a novel review of a dystopian novel many of you might remember from your school days. 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: Memoir of a Murderer (살인자의 기억법)

*** A note here that in Korea, one's surname (family name) comes before the given name. I will be naming the characters as they are named in the film (in Korean style) in this review.

Memoir of a Murderer, or 살인자의 기억법 (Pronounced Salinjaui Gieokbeob) in Korean, is a 2017 South Korean film based on a novel by novelist Kim Young-ha. It revolves around a serial killer (Kim Byeong-soo) who sees his murders as "cleaning trash". Byeong-soo develops Alzheimer's Disease at the same time as serial murders of young women, and begins to fear that HE is the one committing all the murderers but forgetting them. One day, he meets a young man named Min Tae-joo through a car accident. Byeong-soo becomes convinced that Tae-joo is the serial killer, but is shocked to learn that Tae-joo is a police officer and is dating his daughter Eun-hee at the same time. Byeong-soo also is beginning to labeled a madman by Byeong-man, a close friend and a police officer who begins to suspect himself that Byeong-soo is the serial killer. Byeong-soo begins to mentally fall apart, having memory lapses that can go on for days and even weeks at a time and begins to genuinely feel terrified that he IS the serial killer, not Tae-joo. As the film, ends everything unravels as Byeong-soo begins to see the truth about everything around him and who the TRUE serial killer is: Tae-joo or Byeong-soo?

I would like to add here that I won't be talking about the ending AT ALL (unlike my usual reviews) since this film relies very heavily on plot twists and a constant psychological manipulation (which I will talk more about), and knowing the ending and the identity of the killer effectively ruins the villain (although I can still re-watch it 2-3 times and still get shocked by the twists).

The first thing I want to point out is the amazing acting by Sol Kyung-gu, who plays Byeong-soo in the film. Sol really sells his character here, and his non-verbal acting specifically is phenomenal. Whenever Byeong-soo has a memory lapse, one side of his face begins to twitch, and then he changes emotions like a snap of the finger. Sol portrays this masterfully, his character's actions and emotions changing fluidly as if he actually IS experiencing these conditions. Furthermore, his character also has a disorder that makes him react to emotional scenes and show these emotions later then most people. For example, if there is a funny scene in a movie, he will laugh much later after the scene has passed. Sol manages to do this perfectly as well, having an eerily emotionless expression (which you can see in the poster above) and then bursting out into unusually extremes bouts of emotion, during which he even almost looks like a completely different person, and soon after which he returns to his emotionless state, and Sol really does convey that side of Byeong-soo fantastically well.

Furthermore, Byeong-soo becomes such a sympathetic character because of everything that he goes through. He considers the people he murders to be "the scum of the earth", but because everything we see is in his point of view we can't really determine if this statement has any merit to it, aside from him killing his abusive father, since the movie establishes that Byeong-soo is a very unreliable narrator. Not only that, but his murder of his father is brought back multiple times throughout the film to haunt him or affect him in some way, and I really liked that they connected it all at the end (more on this later). I also really liked that we, as an audience gets to hear some of the inside thoughts of Byeong-soo's mind, as if we were reading a novel written in first-person POV of Byeong-soo. While this doesn't always necessarily work in a movie, because the film is showing everything from Byeong-soo's POV and since the concept of memory is so crucial in this film, the narration presents itself like a note to self or a side note of sorts that Byeong-soo is adding as he writes everything in his diary in real time. This also gives us further insight into Byeong-soo mind, so it adds much more character depth to the story.

While Sol Kyung-gu was definitely the greatest actor in this film, it is also impossible to forget Kim Nam-gil's performance as Min Tae-joo. Tae-joo is suspected by Byeong-soo to be the serial killer that have been murdering young women recently early in the film. While I won't confirm whether this is true or not (due to obvious spoiler reasons), I still really loved how mysterious they kept Tae-joo overall. Overall, Tae-joo is very composed and charismatic, which is very clear in every scene he is in. While he can definitely pull off the charming and trustworthy police officer, he also manages to give off a very unsettling vibe in those same scenes. He always has this small grin (smirk?) on his face, and while that can seem nice and friendly, it can also be extremely creepy, especially after you learn that Byeong-soo suspects him to be serial killer. But the brilliance enters here: for every scene you get of Tae-joo being creepy and suspicious, you also get a similar amount of scenes where he seems to be acting with everyone else's best intentions at heart (or at least acting like a regular person would), and due to the additional fact that Byeong-soo is a very unreliable narrator (with his memory lapses), it actually becomes rather difficult to accurately pinpoint the actual antagonist at some points, as you constantly question yourself as to whether Byeong-soo's crazed mind is projecting his own serial killer persona onto Tae-joo or if Tae-joo is manipulating Byeong-soo into becoming a scapegoat for his crimes (using his status as a cop to his advantage).

The film had very good plot twists that I genuinely didn't expect coming. The film also builds up and up all the way up to the final scene, constantly revealing new secrets and actually crucial plot points and character backstories almost at the last minute, which really shows the way Byeong-soo's Alzheimer-riddled brain operates well, with his mind turning on and off (metaphorically speaking) unpredictably. There was one character backstory in particular that I found a bit lacking in actual development, but that could be explained by the final scene of the film, which sort of connects to that specific scene (if you've seen the movie and would like to know exactly what I'm referring to, feel free to contact me directly). I really can't go into more detail without spoiling the end of the film (which I REALLY don't want to in this case, since knowing the ending could really ruin the film on your first viewing). I liked the last scenes of the movie as they actually connected back to a (seemingly) offhand comment that related his murder of his father and his memory loss (again feel free to contact me directly about this). The final scene of the film was... interesting. While I traditionally like endings that wrap up everything neatly and give me a clear explanations for everything, this movie definitely benefited from a vague, inconclusive ending. It fit in well with the overarching theme of the hazy truth and reality, as no one, throughout the entirety of the film, seemed to have a completely clear grasp on the truth or reality. And this ending scene allows us to make our own interpretations as to what the ending meant, which I personally like since the concept of an unreliable narrator forced us to make our own theories and interpretations throughout the film anyways (again feel free to contact me directly if you'd like to know my interpretation or if you'd like to share your thoughts).

Overall, Memoir of a Murderer is a stunning film. It has a very riveting premise; i.e. a former serial killer with Alzheimers being caught in the middle of another serial murders, an extremely talented cast, and really great writing throughout filled with unexpected but welcome surprises. While personally, I'd really like to discuss my personal thoughts on the ending of this film, I don't want to include it here and potentially spoil it for people who haven't watched it yet. If anything, I'll probably do a separate post on my own thoughts at a later date. While it is based on a novel, I have not read it yet up to this point, but I do plan on reading it in the upcoming months, so after I read it, I'll most likely do a book review and an adaptation review as well. I really couldn't find anything I didn't like about this movie, and it still managed to be enrapturing during my third viewing of the film. Memoir of a Murderer gets a rating of 5/5.

I regret to write that this will most likely be my last post for probably a month or so. I'll be on vacation for most of the summer, and I do have exams coming up so I will not be able to post new stuff. I will, however, try to do at least one or maybe two posts during that time, but I can't guarantee anything. 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 & 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