'Guardians of the Galaxy' looks like lots of fun

So, admission time - I know next to nothing about the Guardians of the Galaxy.

But, the trailer for the new Guardians of the Galaxy movie, set to come out August 1, makes me want to get to know them better.

Seriously, check out this trailer and tell me that it doesn't look like it's going to be an incredibly, hilariously fun movie.

I KNOW, RIGHT?

Goodreads Review: "The Fault in Our Stars"

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

"The Fault in Our Stars" really is a remarkable book - a book about a person with cancer that manages to be almost completely down-to-earth and actively avoids being obnoxiously sappy. (It's pretty much the antithesis of the Nicholas Sparks book I read recently.)

Just for that, John Green deserves major accolades. The fact that it's also compelling, entertaining, and funny, and features some really genuinely interesting characters, means that "The Fault in Our Stars" is really one of the most fantastic books I've read in a while.

"The Fault in Our Stars" follows Hazel, a 16-year-old girl living with terminal cancer. She is happy - or as happy as she can be - watching "America's Next Top Model" with her parents and rereading her favorite book over and over again, until she meets Augustus Waters, a 17-year-old boy whose cancer is in remission. Hazel and Augustus strike up a friendship that soon becomes a full-blown, deep, intense romance.

Hazel is a wonderfully likeable main character. Her cancer doesn't change the fact that she's a snarky 16-year-old girl - she's just a snarky 16-year-old girl with cancer. Green did a wonderful job crafting her, and it's easy to completely dive into Hazel's life and instantly fall in love with her. I absolutely love her spunk and the fact that she's snotty and annoyed a lot. She can also be very loving and is very conscious of the feelings of the people she loves - her parents and Augustus - but she really feels like a real person, not a noble caricature of a person with cancer. Just because someone has cancer doesn't mean that they lose their personality, and Hazel has a personality outside of being a Girl with Cancer. It's wonderful and, really, shockingly rare in books.

Augustus is, to be honest, kind of a douche, but I really mean that in the most loving way, too. He's one of those hilariously pretentious, "deep" teenagers, just a little bit more pretentious and "deep" because he had cancer. (I feel like he was probably pretentious before he had cancer, too.) I rolled my eyes at him a lot, but Augustus had just enough moments of warmth and genuine emotion that his douchiness really just ended up being endearing teenager stuff. I kind of wanted to not like him, but I really did. And his deep love for Hazel always came through the facade.

"The Fault in Our Stars" is not a perfect book, so why did I give it five stars? Because despite the fact that I knocked off a star for being a little bit pretentious at times, it gets at least one star, if not more, tacked back on for being such a superb, different, enjoyable, wonderful book about cancer and dying. Normally if a character has terminal cancer in a book, my eyeballs are rolling out of my head at the sappiness of it all (horrible, perhaps, but true!), but "The Fault in Our Stars" is down-to-earth and straightforward about what happens. Cancer sucks and dying of it is horrible, and "The Fault in Our Stars" doesn't shy away from showing that. There are some really, really sad moments, and some really, really horrible, gross moments in this book, and I'm glad that John Green wrote honestly about it. But also, in the midst of such a horrible situation as cancer, whether it's terminal or not, there are moments of light and moments of humor, and John Green wrote so well about those, too. People with cancer are still the people they were before they had cancer and I'm glad that John Green understands that. It's a wonderfully balanced, realistic, honest and entertaining book.

Seriously, though, grab the tissues - this book is a tearjerker if ever I read one.

View all my reviews

'I, Frankenstein' continues tradition of January stinkers

This review was originally published on the KPC Media Group website. Read the original review here. 

It's so nice that movie studios let audiences stay home during the cold winter months.

That has to be the reason that they released "I, Frankenstein" during January, right? Anybody who ventures out in the cold and snow to see this stinker is crazy. You'd be better off staying home and watching Netflix. Or a DVD. Or the snow fall, or melt, depending on the weather report. It's not worth getting up off the couch to see this movie.

"I, Frankenstein" follows Victor Frankenstein's monster (Aaron Eckhart). After killing his master, he is attacked by demons. But before the demons can get him, he's saved by a group of gargoyles, led by the queen gargoyle, Leonore (Miranda Otto). The gargoyles, who can switch from flying stone beasts to a human appearance with a swish of a cape, try to get the monster, who Leonore names Adam, to help them kill demons, but he refuses. Fast-forward 200 years, and a big, bad demon (Bill Nighy) is trying to figure out the secret of reanimating corpses - just like Frankenstein did to Adam.

No, I am not making any of this up, despite the fact it sounds like a goth kid's fever dream, right down to the part where the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's sad that such a bad movie came from a relatively cool concept. Frankenstein's monster in the modern world, fighting demons alongside gargoyles sent from heaven by the archangel Michael. Yes, it's still a goofy concept, but in the hands of an excellent writer and director it could be a super hip supernatural thriller.

Sadly, "I, Frankenstein" just plods along with about as much life as Frankenstein's monster before it was zapped with electricity. The plot is nearly incoherent, with characters' motivations changing every 10 minutes. The city where the movie takes place (it's never explained where it's supposed to be) doesn't have a strong vision and just feels bland.

Aaron Eckhart is a dull leading man for "I, Frankenstein," too. The most exciting thing in his boring performance is when he pulls off his shirt, revealing an artfully scarred, totally ripped chest. But, it isn't worth the price of admission. Other than that brief interlude, Eckhart delivers his lines in a completely wooden fashion, without a hint of irony or enjoyment or even interest in what's going on. Bill Nighy, at least, is more fun to watch. He chews the scenery as the bad guy, complete with delightful dramatic pauses. I think he's at least trying.

There are a few laughs to be had when watching "I, Frankenstein." I certainly enjoyed whispering snide comments to my husband when the plot took yet another inexplicable turn, but that's also no reason to bother with seeing a movie like this in the theaters.

Despite a concept that could have worked, nearly everybody involved with "I, Frankenstein" just seemed to phone it in. The result is a big, sloppy mess, otherwise known as "just another January at the movies."

Jenny's Take: See it on DVD.
(Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense fantasy action and violence throughout. Runs 92 minutes.)

Goodreads Review: "The Last Song" by Nicholas Sparks

The Last Song by Nicholas Sparks
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

I absolutely hated "The Last Song." There are ways that this general plotline could have worked, but in the hands of Nicholas Sparks, it was an overwrought, contrived, schlocky mess.

"The Last Song" follows 17-year-old Ronnie, forced to spend the summer away from her home in New York City with her estranged father and her little brother, Jonah, in a small North Carolina town. On the surface, Ronnie is a troubled teen, not only because she occasionally shoplifts, but also because she *gasp* has a streak of purple in her hair and wears black, which Sparks is clear to point out about a dozen times or more in the course of the book.

Anyway, Ronnie's father, Steve, is a pianist, and Ronnie is a great piano player, too, but she has refused to play since her dad left. But soon she begins to soften, as she watches her dad and brother work on the stained glass window for the church up the beach that had burned down; as she guards a sea-turtle nest near the house; and as she slowly but surely falls in love with hot rich-guy Will. However, Ronnie has issues with some of the "bad kids" in town - the first friend she makes, Blaze, is dating a complete psychopath named Marcus, who takes a liking to Ronnie almost immediately.

I have a lot of issues with "The Last Song."

First of all, the main characters, Ronnie and Will, are bland. Ronnie is supposed to be this super troubled teen, which, as a concept, is both interesting and understandable in the context of her life, but Sparks cannot just let her be a bratty, bad kid who slowly learns a valuable lesson about life and love. Almost immediately, he has to let the audience know that she's not really such a bad person. She doesn't drink or take drugs like her friends back in New York, she's a vegetarian, and she loves puppies. Will, meanwhile, is obnoxiously perfect. His biggest fault in the whole book is that he cares too much about his friend, Scott. Gag.

The rest of the characters are complete caricatures. There is no shading, no quirks and nothing remotely interesting about them. They're just stock characters, and I felt absolutely no emotional attachment to them, nor was I remotely surprised by anything they did.

I also really resented the way that "The Last Song" seemed absolutely contrived to make the reader cry. I love to cry at good books, but reading a Nicholas Sparks book is like being beat over the head with a 2x4 while Sparks screeches, "CRY! You WILL cry! CRY AT THE TRAGEDY OF IT ALL!" It's disgusting.

The "big twists" at the end of the book were all atrociously transparent and easy to guess, and I'm terrible at guessing what a "twist" is going to be. The big tragedy was contrived and totally obvious, and the way that the characters in the book handled it was criminal.

(Spoiler Alert) The fact that Steve never told his children that he had terminal cancer for the three months they were staying with him, even though he had known his diagnosis for four months before they came, is just irresponsible, and no amount of explaining that he "wanted to get to know his children" makes that better. I didn't find it endearing - I couldn't help but think that it would be horrific to do that to someone, especially to your children. I had assumed through the book that he didn't know that he was terminally ill, and that he would find out when his children did, leading to some soul-searching together. Keeping that information from his children until he was hospitalized for it is selfish and cruel. I almost threw the book across the room at that point, and I had to stop reading it until the next day. If I hadn't been committed to finishing the book (I was reading it on what boiled down to a dare from my sister), I would have stopped right there and refused to pick it up again. (End Spoiler Alert)

I also didn't like the way that the religious references were shoehorned into the book in the most schlocky and awkward way ever. I like the idea of tackling the religious and spiritual implications of the things that happened in the book, but they were crammed in the book in the absolute most corny way possible. Gag.

"The Last Song" is a schlocky, corny, annoying mess that is insulting to the reader and incredibly annoying and infuriating to read. The story is contrived and it was obviously callously calculated to wrench the most tears from the readers. It's just plain gross. This book is absolutely terrible.

View all my reviews

"Hunger Games" vs. "Divergent" - A YA Dystopian Faceoff

I just finished reading the "Divergent" series, and since it's basically trying to be the next "Hunger Games," I thought I'd compare and contrast the two series.

"Divergent," by Veronica Roth, is a series about a girl in dystopian future Chicago who discovers that she may be in danger because she's divergent, which means that she has an aptitude for more than one trait in a strict faction-based society. "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins is about a girl in dystopian future America who is sent into an arena in an annual contest where teenagers fight to the death.

(Mild spoilers for "The Hunger Games" and "Divergent" series ahead. No major plot twists are revealed.)

Goodreads Review: "Allegiant"

Allegiant by Veronica Roth
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

While there were definitely some things I liked about "Allegiant," the final chapter of the "Divergent" trilogy by Veronica Roth, this book just didn't quite work for me.

"Allegiant" finishes the story of Tris Prior, who, with the help of her boyfriend, Tobias, tries to save the people of dystopian future Chicago from the people who want to tear it apart with war.

When I read "Divergent" and "Insurgent," I really liked the world but I feel like it suffered quite a bit when everything was explained. Part of it was that Roth likes to info-dump. I understand the temptation, especially when there is a lot of information to try to jam into a book, but it led to some pretty dry passages, and made the overall flow of the book uneven. I still like the idea of the world, but the execution left something to be desired.

The whole feel of "Allegiant" was just kind of off. Part of the big problem was that this book had chapters from Tobias' point of view, rather than telling the whole book from Tris' point of view. I see why Roth structured the book that way, because Tobias and Tris were separated and doing a lot of important things away from each other, but it made the book kind of confusing. It was hard to tell who was talking in what chapter, because there wasn't much of a stylistic change between Tris and Tobias. I would find myself saying, "Why is Tris ... oh, this is Tobias' chapter!"

I also felt like there was a lot of rehashing in "Allegiant," while other parts (specifically the ending) were really rushed. I could have done without Tris and Tobias talking in circles about things, and instead given a little more time for the book to wrap up properly.

I didn't hate "Allegiant" though - in fact, I read several hundred pages in one sitting. The plot was still exciting, when it moved forward (which it did in fits and starts sometimes), and I like the relationship between Tobias and Tris. I felt like their romance was very natural for older teens, and it was a bit steamy besides. I also have to give props to Roth for a brave plot decision near the end of the book that I wasn't expecting. It was a bit contrived, I thought, but it was not something that every author would do.

I'm not sorry that I read "Allegiant," or the other "Divergent" books, but I have definitely read YA dystopian novels that were much better (*cough*HungerGames*cough*). However, there were some spots where "Allegiant" really held its own, and it's definitely worth a quick read sometime.

View all my reviews

Look At This: 'Hannibal' Season 2 trailer

One of my favorite shows of Summer 2013 was "Hannibal." And, thankfully, it's coming back!

(Photo Credit)

Delicious.