Pineapple Recommends 2

Playing By Heart is a movie with a well known cast.  Usually, these all-star, intertwining stories movies fall flat to me.  Maybe my hopes are too high.  In this case, you get a fun cast who were pretty big names at the time (some still are, some not to much) like Gena Rowlands, Sean Connery, Madeleine Stowe, Gillian Anderson, Angelina Jolie, and Ryan Phillipe.  Oh, and let's not forget a truly unforgettable small moment with Alec Mapa.  This is how I ALWAYS see Alec Mapa now 'cause this was the first way I saw him.

 It's got some pretty good music mixed throughout and the story is cute, but the best thing is the dialogue.  These are smart people and you won't hear the humor unless you listen to the dialogue closely.  There are some beautiful thoughts mixed in like "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" and is definitely worth a look.  Just remember to pay attention.

Fingersmith by Sarah Waters is a longer book so I might skip next months recommendation as it could count as two.  The first book I read by this author was Affinity, recommended by a friend, and I really loved that one, too.  I then read this one and tend to recommend it more because it has just a bit more meat on its bones.  It will surprise you, I promise, and you will enjoy every moment of the journey.  Her writing in these two books and Tipping the Velvet is beautiful, descriptive, and lyrical.  Her stories are romantic and entertaining.  I don't know what happened, though, because I will not recommend The Night Watch or The Little Stranger.  It was a chore to get through NW and I didn't feel like it went anywhere worthwhile.  The well-written, interesting tidbits of the past were not enough to save it.  I read just less than half of LS and gave up.  I learned from those cases that her writing is only beautiful in relation to the stories.  Otherwise it seems overly pedantic and occasionally excruciating.  That being said, Fingersmith (and Affinity) are worth taking the time to read.  Parts of it still stick with me and it's been a few years since I read either.

Pineapple Recommends

I saw a commercial for Reelz Recommends and thought 'hey, I can do that'.

We read a lot and watch a lot of movies.  The thing is, while he is a little cliche and likes action and comic book movies (I like them, too, just not as much), I don't often go for the romantic comedy chick flicks.  What we watch commonly are independent, foreign, and other non-blockbuster hopefuls.

Generally, when talking to a friend, I get to know things they like and then make recommendations based on that.  Most of the time I think I do pretty well because they don't often come back and say they hated it.  It has happened, but pretty rare.

Not that anyone is even reading this blog, but I am not going to play it safe.  I don't know you, your threshhold for sex and violence, or your personal tastes, but for the sake of saying "I think these things are really, really cool!"  I'm going to recommend just one book and one movie a month.  Once in a while I'll throw in a show that's easily obtained on Netflix, etc.  Also note, when I refer to something, it's probably going to be the things I think are awesome, not necessarily the thing others would use as reference.  You'll get the hang of it.

Kick off.

Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk.  Sometimes people like a link to something familiar, so I will mention he is the author of Fight Club.  I've read a few of his books, but this one holds as my favorite; perhaps because I read it first.  Seriously, give it a shot if you like a dark, twisted satire.

Velvet Goldmine directed by Todd Haynes.  It gets better every time I see it.  Christian Bale (after Swing Kids, but before Batman), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (The Tudors), Ewan McGregor (Life Less Ordinary, Shallow Grave, Trainspotting) Toni Collette (If you haven't seen her yet, you are crazy.  She's done a million awesome things.  This is after Clockwatchers and Muriel's Wedding, but before Dead Girl and United States of Tara)

And we're live!

For over a year, I've been putting off a silly little task of building our personal webpage.  It's all just a bit of fun, but we have recipes and more.  I only have a few recipes for now, but will be adding more and transferring some from the blogs to make them easier to find.  http://originalninjapineapple.com/

The Hunger Games

Today we review The Hunger Games (book 1 and movie) by Suzanne Collins:

Snowee l says

I think it's about time we review Hunger Games

Or well past the time, but let's do it anyway.

Let's begin with the disclaimer; we spoil everything so don't come crying to us if you read something you didn't want to know.

Scottie B says

Yes, agreed it is about time.

So basically we have a story that has a character that is placed in an extreme situation and it tells us how she deals with life.

Book One! Hunger Games: It starts with Katniss Everdeen explaining her story; this book is written from the perspective of the main character. It starts with how the world has become separated into districts, why they were separated, and that each year they hold the Hunger Games. This happens to be a sport where they take two teens from each of the 12 districts and pits them against each other in a battle to the death. Maybe you can see where this is going...

Snowee l says

We noticed immediately that it was a little like taking the short story 'The Lottery' and the reality TV show 'Survivor' rolled up into some pop-culture plot.  The well-written segments were, imo, mediocre and the rest of it was less than that.  What did you think?

Scottie B says

Overall I did enjoy the first book of the series. Agree that the story was definitely reality TV esque, and had similarities to the short story The Most Dangerous Game also. While I enjoyed reading the book I still had some problems with the story though. I also had to keep reminding my self that this is a book written for a younger audience.

Snowee l says

It was numbingly predictable.  We both discussed that.  I'm afraid I've forgotten some of the details of my complaints at the time which is making me reflect that the book might not have been all that bad, but I didn't like it.  I read from such a critical view of writing (where I believe most people can enjoy the plot despite that) it ruins a lot of authors for me.

It felt a bit choppy throughout, like a conglomeration of scenes rather than an examination of cause and effect.

Scottie B says

I agree that it was predictable. The first being that Katniss would survive. It was hard to really think that she was in danger throughout the book/series since they were all from her voice.

The fact also that Peeta was going to survive with her was blatantly foreshadowed as early as the train scene when they were first leaving for the games.

Snowee l says

It doesn't bother me quite as much when a book is written from first person perspective, but in this case, yes, it takes out the question of survival right up front.  It could have been a more intense ending if we could not be sure.

I agree we know Peeta lives then, but I also knew pretty quickly while they were in the city how it would happen.  It wasn't just the predictable outcome, it was being able to see how it would happen so that I kept asking myself why I kept reading.

Scottie B says

You know as well that I am not a fan of the first person story, but have been getting over that hang up recently. This book proved to me why I originally thought first person was a bad idea.

Snowee l says

You read a lot of fantasy which is often heavy on the action/peril storylines so that makes sense.

I've written both and read both so for me, it's a decision of how to tell the story better.  In this case, third narrative might have been better.  I can agree.

Scottie B says

The other problem was the author, imo, trapped herself with this style. I felt that there were several points in the story where I could felt like I could see that she wrote the story in third person and then went "wait" I am in first person here and now I have to make it work.

Snowee l says

Poor choice on her part.  It might have made it more engaging in many sequences.  I tend to focus on the climax which, it turned out, felt brief and anti-climactic because I expected the final battle to be so much more.

Scottie B says

That is true. So basic problems that I had as we discussed already predictability. Here are the others that I had. It wasn't really explained why it was kids that had to fight and seriously after 74 years of this happening no one rebelled sooner? Me as a parent, I would die trying to protect my kid.

Snowee l says

I realize they were supposed to be a sacrifice or punishment for previous uprising, but humans have shown that they do not care about self preservation on this level.  They will rise up in groups and fight a war if they have to.  Humans love a good war.

Scottie B says

No they don't. Heck the news just recently - oooh I am going to make a commercial and I am going to stand up to and I am going to do this and that. All over some guy in Africa making kids into killers. Nope we don't just sit around. We like war and trying to prove our supremacy.

So what I really guess that it is (and I am treading as lightly as I can), but Germany in WWII had the concentration camps and while this is a shadow of a situation comparatively people didn't just stand by and let it happen. Basic humanity just doesn't allow for situations to occur that long.

Snowee l says

Should we just tack the movie bit in here, too?

I mean, I have little to say except the movie was vaguely more enjoyable and J *loved* it.

And the ending seemed better, but they took out the dogs being mutations of the people which was a HUGE point.

One of the few things I liked (from a dramatic point)

Scottie B says

I liked that too, only because it told a point of where humanity can be completely deranged. I did enjoy the movie too, but it explained less of the why and really didn't explain why people had their name in the lottery more than once.

Which was a big thing too.

Snowee l says

As a whole, then, this franchise brought up some distaste in the mouths of (mainly) mothers.  I consistently heard people who didn't like it because it was horrible to think of kids doing this to each other.

That had nothing to do with my complaints seeing as how more adults ready YA fiction than actually young adults, it feels like so maybe it was always for adults under the guise of YA fiction just because the main character is a teen.

That's how they decide where a book fits in, you know.

Scottie B says

true

Snowee l says

And these same people would encourage the same kids to read Lord of the Flies if it was assigned for school.

Without this becoming a Lord of the Flies discussion, I don't see Hunger Games as any more distasteful.

Scottie B says

Neither do I.

There are plenty of other YA fiction that puts kids into horrible circumstances and no one bats and eye. I mean Harry Potter wasn't all roses and jelly beans, but it was wonderful! And, no, this will not be a Harry Potter discussion. Anyone who knows me knows where I stand there.

Snowee l says

I won't even read that, but it's pulling teeth to get me to read YA.  The fact I've read any shows I've come a long way.  The last YA I read before this recent upsurge was when I was 12.  I have little taste for kids their ridiculous problems.

Scottie B says

Where I have been reading more YA fantasy because they move faster than some of the Adult fantasy out there. Maybe because the YA moves you through story and they don't tend to bog you down with extraneous description. Although I think that Hunger Games could have use more thought out descriptions and been told from a third person point of view.

Snowee l says

Yes, definitely.  We need to stop agreeing so much...

Overall recommendation.  Read?  Watch movie? Or you are not missing anything special?

Scottie B says

If you are thinking of reading and enjoy YA fiction then read it, but just stop with the first book. That imo is really the only one worth the read. If you want you could read book two, but book three felt like she was just trying to put something out there (contract?). I do think that you can get the gist of the overall story with the movie, so save yourself time and watch the movie. The sequels have been announced so you could just wait

Snowee l says

My opinion is none of it is worth it.  You're not missing anything.  Jane loved it, though, and getting her to read fiction is sometimes a challenge.

Scottie B says

fair enough, I while I had my issues with the first book and progressively more issues as the trilogy went on, I enjoyed the read.

enough to recommend it to someone who wants a brainless book to read.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - A satire of revisionist history?

No, really, we do have plans to review more books!  Pinning Scott down when he's home is just rough.  We would rather PLAY!  Outdoors, even!

However, I do have a bunch to say about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  I'm not quite finished, but awfully close.  Maybe something else will be said on the subject.

Let me start by briefly explaining the difference (imo) between a Historian and a history buff/enthusiast.  In college, I was taught that truth in history is about studying the sources as well as the information they present.  Who wrote the information you are reading?  When did they write it?  Are they a contemporary?  A witness?  Someone who is writing something that has been passed orally before they put definitive words to it?  Why did they write it?  What's the ulterior motive?

Basically, what is the reliability level of the source and what else is out there to back it up.

People in society tend to hear something and not ask where it came from or why it is said, but they have no trouble believing it is true.  When it comes to historical subjects, this amuses me sometimes because people think they sound so intelligent by what they "know", but in reality, it's fiction.  Especially amusing is when I know where the legend came from, but it has been distorted by oration to be ridiculous.

Additionally, we have my pet peeve for historical fiction (specifically fiction that is creating a story set in history, not the well-researched fiction that is basically non-fiction, but because the author fills in the blanks, it is considered fiction).  Fiction writers who use history as a setting love to throw in famous historical figures.  Not everyone in the 1870s met Billy the Kid and not all gangsters hung out with Al Capone.  It's just ridiculous.  Having the novel BE Abraham Lincoln was one of my biggest reasons for avoiding it at first.


Knowing that, you'll understand my reactions.  When I first heard the title, I thought, "What?  That is some far-fetched crap."  Then the curiosity set in.  Curiosity is what has driven me to read many horrible books (don't stop here.  I'm not saying it's horrible.  More to come on that.)  My brain kept saying "How on earth is he going to make that happen?"  Granted, there are holes in my knowledge about Abe, but much of it is because there are holes in what we as historians CAN know.  Vampire Hunter?  That's obvious insanity.  It would take quite a trick to make that plausible in any world, I thought.  So, of course, I finally bought the book.

As is typical, it's like I have three people in my head reading any book.  There is a part of me that is constantly amused because I feel like Grahame-Smith has taken all these legends we hear about Abraham Lincoln, set aside the question of whether or not it could be true, and found a very creative way to make it work.  I look at it like it's not just revisionist history to the extreme.  It's a satire.  Somewhere in there, he's a make a joke on the fact that legends become larger than life.  I expect it's not his intention, but that's how one part of my brain keeps reading it.

Another segment of my brain notices the ways in which he is breaking the rules of writing (like I do, actually).  I do think one of my biggest hurdles in reading is that I see flaws in the technical aspect of writing whereas most people can look past that and see only the story.  This has made me rough on most best sellers, but I am coming to realize that I am allowed that opinion even though other people try to tell me I'm just not smart enough to understand and that's why I don't like those best sellers.  Technique and mechanics are an important part of writing.  His mechanics are fine and the technique isn't specifically awful, it just breaks the rules of what is "supposed" to work, and still tells the story in an enjoyable way.

Sometimes a great writer tells a horrible story.  Sometimes a great story is saddled with a horrible writer.  In this case, I should dislike the writing, but I don't.  Without spoiling too much, it is a little back and forth and not very smooth, yet it works.

The third part of me is enjoying the story and style separately from that.  With a strong conclusion, the story itself can be great.  His style keeps the story moving and there are a lot of fun events.  Obviously Abe Lincoln really did associate with a lot of the people famous from that period so they have to be mentioned.  I'm torn every time it happens, though, but I think it's because it's clearly fiction using a famous person's name.

I haven't gone through a book this fast for about a year.  Even books I really really enjoy take me 10 days to 2 weeks.  I started this about a week ago and think I may finish it today (6 days).  Yeah, I'm not a "stay up all night" reader.  I feel I absorb more if I give myself a chance to digest every few chapters and come back refreshed.  I rarely re-read a book because when I try, I find I remember pretty much every nuance because of the way I read in the first place so why bother when there are so many more books out there to be found?

Time to finish this one and move on to the next.


Edit to add: I realized a couple of things bothering me about this book, but talk about spoilers.  The vamps never get a fair shake.  Abe rushes in and kills on little more than suspicion most of the time.  Too much True Blood if I'm worried about the vampires?  Probably, but does it really jive with the man freeing slaves?  It almost belittles Abe's reasons for freeing slaves and by the end, I really did feel like the vampires were not given a chance.  A little uneven.  More on this later.  Scott is going to read the book *after* the movie.  Perhaps there will be interesting comparisons to be made...

We promised The Hunger Games weeks ago, but failed.  We do that a lot.  It is our intention to do it by this weekend, though, so stay tuned!

If you want to join us for future spirited reviews (we spoil a lot so perhaps it's best to either read books or watch movies first or decide for sure that you won't be reading/seeing them) when we will review 'Alchemy of Stone' by Ekaterina Sedia and 'How To Save A Life' by Sara Zarr.  The former is waiting for me to read so it could be a few weeks.  The latter is waiting for Scott to read so could happen in a few days...

We have decided we will eventually see the newest 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo', so surely commentary will come.

Millennium: The Movies [Subtitled]

Scottie B says

Brrrrrrr

Snowee l says

I know.  I don't want to shower because it means removing my jacket.

I think it's time to discuss the Millennium movies

Scottie B says

ok

Where do you want to star?

or start?

first movie?

Snowee l says

This is where we say SPOILERS so don't read if you care.  This is also the part where I specify that we are talking about the three Swedish films that make up the Millennium series called (in US) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked A Hornet's Nest, respectively.

I think we may end up jumping around a bit, but let's start with this.  The movies were much better than the books.  They took a lot of the extemporaneous information and threw it out of the window, plus they took a lot of the contrived plot points and revamped them to give better motivations.  Overall, worth your time, unlike the books

Scottie B says

I totally agree, I am also one who isn't overly fond of subtitles, but for some reason it worked for these films.

Back to the movies. It is correct most of the contrived plot points have been removed from the films.

Snowee l says

One of the best ones is that instead of Blomqvist's daughter appearing out of nowhere - only to disappear completely even from underlying subtext - in order to tell him that the clues were scriptural, they had Salander hacking his computer to find them and have that be the catalyst to bring them together.

 Now, I didn't have a particular problem with the way they came together in the book, but having them come together over that clue was definitely more interesting.

Scottie B says

More interested and bridged the gap of why Salander would even show up in the first place. It also provided a more realistic approach to start their relationship. Lizbeth was able to prove what she could do and Blomquist was able to professionally appreciate her talents. Even if he didn't agree to her methods.

It set the stage for the relationship to be more normal other than the way it was presented in the books.

Snowee l says

Definitely.  They left out almost every word of the Wennestrom affair and didn't try to explain the business aspect any more than an intelligent person would already know.

Scottie B says

Agreed. It was a starting point to briefly explain why he would go on a sabbatical and accept a research job away from people. They also moved his stay in prison to the end of the movie instead of in the middle of the story. Which made more sense in the grander scheme of the stories.

That made the movie move a long more smoothly without abruptly interrupting the story and have a short prison stay. Just another way the movie makers were able to gloss over the whole trial part without giving it too much attention as in the books.

Snowee l says

Imprisonment for journalists in Sweden is quite pleasant, yes?

Scottie B says

Yes, I want a prison stay at club med'

Ooh and they don't go into all of the detail about the lost girl in the movie. Blomquist finds her, goes to her, and then brings her home. There isn't the huge network of hackers that have to help locate her, her history on why she doesn't want to go back, and her over protective son at the sheep farms. Just got to the point and moved on.

Snowee l says

Which allowed them to make the story about why she ran away instead of about the fact that she had gone missing.  It was a different focus, but I didn't mind taking time on the whole "finding" thing in the book... although the part about him tracking down and finding clues in the photos was tedious in the book and in the movie, they portrayed it more effectively.

Scottie B says

The flow of the movies were better overall. It stayed true to the general feeling of the books, but allowed to move some of the story around to make more sense or removed things that didn't make sense. Unfortunately they failed in the second movie. Like the book the showed Lizbeth traveling and acting out of character. I wish that the script writers could have come up with a way to correct

that issue for me also. Alas they didn't.

Snowee l says

No, they didn't.  It was slightly better.  I don't recall them suddenly having her care so much about her appearance, but her behaviour still felt untrue.  Maybe they were going for "erratic" but a person's core belief doesn't change and that will always affect their overall decision-making.

Scottie B says

Its true, a person behaves in a way that stays true to their base personality.

The biggest thing that I liked about the movie was they took out Blomquists partner at the magazine's leaving and going to another paper. They also took out where she was being stalked by an old highschool person that had a grudge towards her.

Instead the stalker was the society of cover-up people that we trying to kill the story. It made more sense this way. Instead of a complete side story that didn't have an effect on the overall story arcs what so ever.

Snowee l says

I won't say it made more sense that way, but it added to the suspense of the storyline and made it necessary.  As a side story with no connection whatsoever, I feel it is a waste of time to put into a story, but woven in as they did in the movies, it became important.  Thank heavens someone in the process of the conversion understood that!

Scottie B says

Welcome back

Snowee l says

I won't say it made more sense that way, but it added to the suspense of the storyline and made it necessary.  As a side story with no connection whatsoever, I feel it is a waste of time to put into a story, but woven in as they did in the movies, it became important.  Thank heavens someone in the process of the conversion understood that!

Scottie B says

It made more sense in the continuity of the film to remove the change of jobs and focus on the actual overall story arc which was the bad guys and the guys that are tying to cover for the bad guys.

Snowee l says

Yes, exactly.  A story can have subplots, but his subplots were a little too "important"

Scottie B says

The last main thing that I think the movie did well was they removed a lot of the information about Lizbeths sister. Who was mention several times in the book, but it didn't add to the story at all. The lack of focus on this mythical sister was a good move.

Snowee l says

Oh, right.  Another good point.  See?  They deftly removed everything that didn't need to be there.

Scottie B says

This is why I would suggest the films over reading the book. I cringe to see what our American film makers decide to do with the films. It could go either way. Mostly because the average American fan seems to respect the movie more - the more that it stays true to the book. Every agonizing detail.

On the plus side if you really enjoyed the character of Lizbeth the actress that played the part did exceptionally well. It was as if the character from the book stepped out of it and entered the film itself. Great acting and directing on that respect.

Snowee l says

I felt she was very true to the part.  Small frame, dainty features, but decorates herself in a way that most people would miss the attractiveness.  That's how I felt she was in the books.  Actually, the part in the movies was a little different, but in a good way.  She brought life to a character who was a little flat and one dimensional.

The scenes at the end of the second movie were far more intense than in the book because she actually made me care and her expressions were more vivid than had been described.

I know it's a lame hang-up, but I still have issue with her being buried alive.  In the book it describes an air pocket created by her hand that made it almost plausible.  In the movie, her arms were in the wrong place for that and the time seemed to leave her under dirt longer.  She's not a superhero or alien creature who doesn't require air!

Scottie B says

I have the same issue with her being buried alive also. And yes the movie made it seem less plausible that she would have been able to dig herself out.

eyes

Snowee l says

Third movie has the now-iconic mohawk.  I dig that.

Scottie B says

Me too

The main issue that I had with the third movie was some of it was too closely related to the book.

The court room scenes and how they win the whole trial was just as terribly portrayed in the movies as it was in the books. Too contrived and convenient so that are superhero wins in the end even though she was guilty of some of the crimes that she committed.

But I did like that they spent less time on her half brother in the movies than they did in the books. He was there just enough and didn't get entire chapters dedicated to him. Again they stuck with the parts with the tall blond guy that mattered the most.

Snowee l says

They remembered that if it does not move the story along, it does not belong.  I agree about the trial.  Courtroom scenes bore me, though, and at least those were at least a bit less tedious than they often are in movies.

Yet there is no accountability for the part where she was guilty.

Was there much to the third movie other than her recovery and the trial?

Anything about her recovery worth mentioning?  They got through it much more quickly and efficiently.

Scottie B says

No not much on the third. I still think that book 2 and 3 could have been one book and if they had a removed enough of the crap they could have made movie 2 and 3 into one movie also and got the point across just as well.

Snowee l says

Agreed.

Scottie B says

Hour one - she is framed, hunts her dad, then almost dies. Hour two - she recovers, found innocent, and lives happily ever after with her stolen money, her family all dead, and well the end.

Snowee l says

Perfect.  Done.  Finis.

Next up, The Hunger Games.  I am going to finish it tomorrow, I swear!

But only book one because I have no desire to read 2 and 3.  Perhaps that will change when I've reached the very last page, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it

Scottie B says

Yay, that will be fun since you are reading Hunger Games now and it has been a few months since I have.

Let us see how much I have forgotten.