It’s been one week since Oscars were handed out and while I’m still thrilled for the winners1, I’m ready for a new slate of films to get excited about.

Enter: Project Hail Mary.

To mix sports metaphors, this movie is a slam dunk, a home run, and it should be celebrated! We should celebrate building sets, puppets and puppeteers, practical effects, making movies without green screen, and a moving score that also blips and bops. We should celebrate an original story written by a space nerd adapted into a big budget Hollywood movie. I hope it makes a billion dollars.

I realize the title of my newsletter is “Bite Size Reviews” which paints me into a corner when I have more to say. I’ll put the bite size portion up front and then get right to the lengthy, spoiler filled review where I’ll gush about all things Project Hail Mary (with only a few minor complaints that aren’t a big deal).

Bite Size Review

Read this book. It’s a blast. If you haven’t read a book in years, it’s the perfect book to get you back into reading.

See the movie in a theater. Take the kids, it’s family friendly. They will never forget it.

Ok, let’s dive a little deeper. Please don’t read on if you haven’t read the book or watched the movie yet!

Cast

Let’s talk about my buddy Ryan. Gosling is really good on his own and can carry a scene and an entire movie, but he does even better with a scene partner. He’s with the medical robot at the beginning, Carl and Stratt during the first long flashback, Mary the ship, and finally Rocky, the absolute best scene partner. Even the video logs are humorous and serve to deliver exposition. They give Gosling someone to talk to and solve the problem of how to advance the story when Grace is alone. But the movie also knows when to be quiet and let the score or Gosling’s body language do the work. Gosling carries those moments as well. He’s also really good at the physical comedy of being clumsy in a zero g environment.

The rest of the cast is also perfect. Sandra Hüller as Stratt is deadpan and exactly who you’d imagine in that role. I love the gravitas she brings. Lionel Boyce as Carl is a fantastic addition and the entire scene with him and Grace becoming parents is a joy to watch. “We’re parents, Carl” is hilarious.

But the movie could have dropped the ball on every supporting cast member as long as they got Rocky right. And boy did they. Shout outs to legendary creature designer Neal Scanlon and puppeteer James Ortiz, who also voiced Rocky. It may not have been exactly what I imagined, but Rocky’s physical design, movement, sound design, and personality put a smile on my face anytime he was on screen. You can’t help but love him, just like in the book. I also loved the additional touches of “Rocky vision,” tattoos, and goodbye grooves. It would be easier to say goodbye if I had a guiro built into my arm.

Sights and Sounds

Visually, the movie is stunning. Charles Woods’ ship set is elaborate and tactile. It is built one way for thrust gravity, then disassembled and rebuilt when the ship is in centrifuge mode. I loved the little touches like magnetic cups and rotating beds. Cinematographer Greig Fraser (who shot both Dune movies) integrated the switching of gravity with his rotating shots that served as transitions between space and flashback. The camera work was highly effective.

The visual effects team came to work. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller said the movie was made with no green screen. The stunning petrova collection sequence where everything goes pink and glittery was done practically and it was beautiful.

Daniel Pemberton’s score has some novel sounds and instruments and hopefully becomes instantly iconic. I loved how it integrated Grace’s signature “let’s get to work” clap in the Box in a Box track.

Writing

Drew Goddard’s script is the only beef I have and it’s a minor beef. I thought there were too many emotional beats toward the end and it made the movie feel long. First Rocky’s injury and eventual recovery (which had a child sobbing in my theater). When Grace remembers his cowardice he feels shame about that and we feel it with him. The farewell with Rocky is really touching, but then Grace remembers he was forced, not convinced, to come. And before he can process those feelings, he realizes he needs to go rescue Rocky and they reunite. It’s all very emotional and it’s all packed into the last 30 minutes.

All of these beats happen in the book, but they have more room to breathe. And it’s very clear in the book that Grace is sacrificing his life to save Rocky and Erid, not because of a fuel problem, but because he’ll run out of food for the return trip. The catharsis in the book is the Eridians figure out how to keep Grace alive long enough for him to learn that the sun was saved. Everything Grace did mattered and there is a home to return to. I didn’t feel that triumph at the end of the movie.

I guess that’s a major beef. The minor beef is I missed some of my favorite book lines such as ‘your face is leaking’ and ‘I wish Rocky were here to help me save Rocky.’

Final thoughts

The more I learn about the film making, the more I love this movie. I also love the experience of watching it. I love seeing Grace and Rocky working together, the hopefulness, the optimism. I love that nobody throws a punch or shoots a gun. I can take my kids and they can laugh and experience wonder. That’s worth so much.

What did you think of Project Hail Mary? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

Maybe “hate” is too strong a word. How about this: This movie was not my cup of tea. I saw it late last night in a mostly empty IMAX screening. A few little things hit well, but overall it missed the mark.

See how low that arrow is? Borderline “Avoid it” territory. I put it there because I actually need you to see it so we can talk about it. And who knows, maybe you’ll love it like Alison Willmore from Vulture (who wrote a great review).

My biggest problem is the source material, Emily Bronte’s 1847 novel which I just read last month, is brimming with potential and the movie didn’t seem interested in any of it. Below I spoil specific movie decisions so if you haven’t seen it yet, skip this next part!

What Hit

The music - Charli xcx sounded awesome with IMAX sound and I can see myself revisiting this album. It’s a lush sound that creates a good atmosphere. Would I listen to it while reading the book? Probably not, but it worked for the movie.

B roll footage - I don’t know if that’s what this is called, but it’s all those detailed filler shots. Hands kneading wet dough or touching runny eggs, snail goo on windows, beading sweat on someone’s back. Whoever was in charge of getting those shots did a fantastic job and I have no complaints.

Young Cathy and Heathcliff - Charlotte Mellington is going places. She was sweet and charming and pretentious and wild. Owen Cooper has already been places (he was the standout in Netflix’s Adolescence) and he was great here too. I would have liked more time with these two, they were more believable than the grown-up versions. And the final shot with them really got me good (it also made zero sense but let’s not get into that now).

What Missed

The S-E-X - I couldn’t believe my eyes: The sexual awakening of Cathy - due to Joseph’s equine kink no less! - was not at all what I was expecting. I held on to a vain hope that their passion for each other would be more than horny passion, but alas, it went there.

But then the sex scenes were disappointing. Haven’t we all seen better? It didn’t feel passionate or romantic or even toxic and abusive it was just…boring. So while I don’t think it should have been done at all, the way it was done missed the mark for me.

Heathcliff - Look, I don’t “like” the book character one bit, but at least book Heathcliff has an ethos! Movie Heathcliff has n o t h i n g going for him except he’s horny for Cathy. The character dynamics in the book are twisty and Heathcliff plays everybody to get what he wants. He turns characters against each other and convinces them that he’s not the bad guy. He sucks, but he’s complex and interesting and reminds me of the Bible verse to be wise as serpents (forget the harmless as doves part).

Isabella - A ribbon-obsessed dimwit who unwittingly makes art resembling genitalia? That’s what we’re doing with Isabella? Alison Oliver absolutely delivered on what was asked of her, but it felt cruel that the movie was trying to get me to laugh at her.

Margot Robbie’s accent - Whatever dialect coaching she received was insufficient. The way she pronounced certain words took me right out of the movie.

No Hindley(!) - The psychological complexity of bullying a rescued half-brother because your dad favors him over you is interesting. Removing Hindley from the equation required Mr. Earnshaw to step into the role as physical abuser to traumatize Heathcliff. It was a miss.

Sure, the misty setting, costumes, production design (never seen fleshy walls before), and cinematography was all dazzling. It looked good and sounded good. But I was hoping to feel something. I wanted to despise Heathcliff with all the bile in my gut. I wanted to be exasperated by Cathy’s helplessness against self-sabotage. I wanted to be twisted in knots because I could relate so well to that feeling that you know you should quit something, but you just can’t (for me it’s M&Ms, what’s yours?). I didn’t feel a range of emotions.

I’m mostly mad at the movie because now it’s forcing me to defend the book, a book I didn’t even like! Sorry, it’s not that I didn’t like it, but that the reading experience was excruciating. To be more charitable, the first read was excruciating. I’ve since read and listened to commentary and gained more of an appreciation for it. I feel like I could read it again and get a lot more out of it. But during my first reading where I realized A) most characters were named one of three names and at times not referred to the same way in a paragraph, B) characters were infuriating, and C) the plot was deeply troubling, I just wanted it to be over.

Credit where credit is due, whatever appreciation I have gained for Wuthering Heights came from Kate Mosse defending it in this stellar YouTube video. Shout out to who suggested this one. Mosse’s passion and the actors’ representation of the characters nearly moved me to tears and succeeded in convincing me that maybe I missed something on that first read. Maybe it is worth revisiting.

What about you? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the book, movie, and anything else you feel like sharing.

Thanks so much for reading,

Kyle

I’m a huge fan of adaptations. It’s fascinating to see how a story goes from an idea in an author’s head to a published book to a written script to a released film. I like how an entire Academy Award category is dedicated to the adapted screenplay. Two years ago I was thrilled by Sarah Polley winning for her Women Talking screenplay. I wrote about that book and movie and it remains one of my favorite deep dive experiences I’ve had on this newsletter.

Last year Cord Jefferson won for his American Fiction script (adapted from Percival Everett’s book Erasure) and I loved his acceptance speech. His script was funny and true to the source material but not servile to it.

Now that Oscar season is upon us, I’m looking at the list of nominees for best adapted screenplay and feeling mixed on it.

The Good

Conclave adapted from the book Conclave by Robert Harris

I’m pleased with this nomination because I thought the book and movie were both well done and started interesting conversations (read: controversy). My minor quibble: The book feels like something written with adaptation in mind. The conversion from book to script seems effortless. Harris is an author whose work gets adapted consistently, which isn’t a knock - I liked this book and movie a lot. I’m commenting on the level of effort and ingenuity when it comes to adapting the material, which I consider low for this book and high for something like Nickel Boys.

Nickel Boys adapted from the book The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead

This represents the gold standard of adaptations and the strongest contender on the list. This Pulitzer Prize winning book is challenging to translate to the screen. It deals with the upsetting topic of the sexual and physical abuse of Black youths. It jumps back and forth in time. It has a surprise ending that works in a book but would be difficult to maintain in a visual medium. And yet, the movie pulled it off because of the way it was written and shot. I’m impressed and I hope it wins this category. I want more people to read the book.

Sing Sing adapted from "Sing Sing Follies" by John H. Richardson and “Breakin' the Mummy's Code” by Brent Buell

I haven’t seen it or read it but enough people I trust are raving about it so I’m putting it with The Good.

The Head Scratchers

A Complete Unknown adapted from the book Dylan Goes Electric! by Elijah Wald

I’m not a history of music buff or a Dylan fan but this book sounds interesting and I’m on the waitlist at the library. I haven’t seen the movie but I’m feeling bitter towards it for reasons unrelated to this nomination. First off, Hollywood and the Academy have a weird obsession with musical biopics. There are so many and they rarely spark my interest. And then there’s James Mangold, a fine director who I’m sure did great work on this film, but giving him a best director nomination while Denis Villeneuve, who busted his butt in the desert for several months to shoot Dune, goes unrecognized is annoying.

Emilia Perez adapted from the book Ecoute by Boris Razon

Like everyone else, I’m baffled by the 13 nominations. Like David Chen says in his newsletter, I don’t personally know a single person who has both 1) Seen it and 2) Thought it was good. What is going on here? I have not seen it yet either and I want to withhold judgment until I do…but seriously, what is going on? I don’t understand why it’s nominated in so many categories but especially this category. The source material is a French novel (I can’t find an English translation) called Ecoute which has 15 ratings on Goodreads of 3 stars or less. It has five reviews on Amazon. I need to do more half-hearted research, but I’m scratching my head about the whole thing. If someone knows more please explain.

Notable exclusions

Dune 2: I know not everything can be nominated, but Dune is an amazing script. Part 1 was nominated in this category so it feels weird to leave out Part 2. The book is such challenging source material and when I look at what Conclave did versus what Dune did, Dune has the edge! Not knocking Conclave but as I say above, the book is clearly written with the screen adaptation in mind. Again, it’s the level of effort, which I know isn’t the standard used for determining who gets a vote but maybe it should be.

Wicked: Wicked got plenty of love elsewhere so I’m fine with it not being nominated in this category. I also think the musical did most of the heavy lifting on the writing front and what the movie adds is everything in the visual medium, which it got nominated for. I have more thoughts on this after reading the book and plan to write a newsletter about how I hope Gregory Maguire’s Wicked gets a more faithful adaptation someday. Heresy, I know.

The Wild Robot: I’m happy for this movie getting recognized for music, sound, and animated feature (which it will probably win). I haven’t read the book, but it may be something about it being a children’s book that discouraged voters.

It Ends With Us: Ha, kidding. Nothing notable about this, just seeing if you’re paying attention.

Thanks for being here and sharing in this weird obsession of mine. What are your thoughts on the nominations?

Also, if you simply comment and tell me what you’re reading, it’ll make my day.

Kyle

Leave a comment

Despite my best efforts, I have failed to steer clear of political news. The last few months especially have been hard to avoid, with candidates dropping out, a new candidate stepping up, running mates chosen, attempted assassination attempts, conventions, and debates. I’ll pat myself on the back that, unlike 2020, I have avoided heated political discourse among family/friends. So that’s a win. But completely escaping has proven impossible.

And now the yard signs have started popping up. My next door neighbor has a Trump-Vance sign; across the street there’s a Harris-Walz. It got me thinking about identity and labels - how we label ourselves and how others label us. Which reminds me of Greasers and Socs.

Last month I traveled to New York City with my best pal Michael1 and we went to see The Outsiders on Broadway with my sweet cousin Adeline.2 In the weeks leading up to the trip, I did what any sane person would do to prepare to see the musical: I read the book and watched the movie.

I was struck by how badly I needed the story of Greasers and Socs in the year 2024.

Stay Gold

Some of you may not have read the book since middle school so here’s a quick recap: In a small Oklahoma town in the 60’s, the Greasers and the Socs fight over territory. They’re from opposite sides of the tracks and they hate each other. The Greasers are poor while the Socs are more well to do. They go out of their way to look and behave differently than the other group.

Ponyboy is a ‘tuff’ Greaser, but he also enjoys looking at sunsets, memorizing poetry, and reading books, which aren’t typical Greaser activities. He is conflicted about the situation — about his friends getting jumped and the Socs getting all the breaks. He says:

I couldn’t just take it or leave it, like Two-Bit, or ignore it and love life anyway, like Sodapop, or harden myself beyond caring, like Dally, or actually enjoy it, like Tim Shepard. I felt the tension growing inside of me and I knew something had to happen or I would explode.

I find Ponyboy’s feelings highly relatable.

When he runs away to the countryside with his best friend Johnny Cade, they experience a sunrise together and he recites the Robert Frost poem Nothing Gold Can Stay:

Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

It’s a nice moment, but neither boy understands what it means. What they do understand is that even though they are Greasers, that isn’t all they are. More on that later.

As Johnny Cade lies in the hospital, he thinks about the poem and its meaning. His last words to Pony are to “stay gold,” which might be my favorite line in all literature. He understands what the poem means:

It’s just when you get used to everything that it’s day. Like the way you dig sunsets, Pony. That’s gold. Keep that way, it’s a good way to be.

It served as a powerful reminder for me to stay hopeful, stay full of wonder and awe, stay curious like a child. Hold on desperately to that part of you that forgives easily and looks for the good in everyone.

Just a guy

While the line to “stay gold” had the most emotional impact on me, Pony’s conversation with Randy, a Soc, was even more relevant to the political conflict I’ve been experiencing:

“Thanks, grease,” [Randy] said, trying to grin. Then he stopped. “I didn’t mean that. I meant, thanks, kid.”

“My name’s Ponyboy,” I said. “Nice talkin’ to you, Randy.

Shortly after that conversation, fellow Greaser Two-Bit asks:

“What’d Mr. Super-Soc have to say?”

“He ain’t a Soc,” [Ponyboy] said, “he’s just a guy. He just wanted to talk.”

Like the Greasers and Socs, we seem eager to apply labels and establish clear lines of us vs. them. They are woke or MAGA, communist or racist. But we’re all just people and people are more than a label.

My next door neighbor is just a guy named Chuck. He’s a bit socially awkward and takes good care of his lawn. My neighbor across the street is just a guy named Mike. He rides his bikes, drives a Tesla, and mows his lawn with a push mower. They will have different signs in their yards for the next month, but they are both excellent neighbors all year round.

Still lots of good in the world

I haven’t talked about the musical yet, but it was an astonishing technical achievement. The sound design was incredible and the climactic brawl between the Greasers and Socs was a huge choreographed fight in the rain.

A line that I didn’t notice in the book that gutted me during the musical was another of Johnny’s in a letter to Ponyboy. He says:

There’s still lots of good in the world. Tell Dally. I don’t think he knows.

By the time Pony gets that letter, it is too late to tell Dally. Hopefully the people we care about the most know how much good is in the world.

I’ll end with a relevant quote from the fantasy book I’m reading.

But the grand thing about people was that you could also choose to focus on particular faces, really see them, and find a wealth of stories. So many people with so many lives, each a separate little mystery…Look close at a given person, and you’d see their uniqueness—see that they didn’t quite match whatever broad category you’d first put them in.

-Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer

With effort, we can choose to focus on the good. Stay gold, everyone.

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

2

Adeline has been living in NYC for the past 2.5 years and is a Broadway regular. She recommended The Outsiders, which received 12 Tony nominations and won 4 (best musical, director, lighting, and sound).

Hi readers,

I’m fascinated by the things that get their hooks in me. Last year, it was Mick Herron’s series of spy thrillers known as “Slough House.” I wrote about book 1 Slow Horses, book 2 Dead Lions, and the series-adjacent book The Secret Hours. I became a huge Herron fan over the course of a few short months as I binge-listened to the books back-to-back. I’ll buy anything he writes and I plan to catch up on his non-Slough House books.

Today I want to talk about Slough House book 3 and its adaptation, season 3 of the Apple TV+ series Slow Horses. I’ll give some overall thoughts on the book and the show and then discuss a couple spoilers.

The book

The highest praise I can give this book is that it kept me wanting more. More time with each of the characters, more of the intricate plots, more of the political maneuvering, shifting loyalties, and juicy backstabbing that are the trademarks of this series. The plot was never dull, always unpredictable, and surprising in a way that wasn’t so twisty that it felt manipulative. Herron is good to his readers.

In Real Tigers, the rejects of the British Secret Service (aka “slow horses”) are once again in over their heads. One of their own has been taken hostage and the ‘nappers have made their demands known, but not their intentions. They want the slow horses to break into a secure MI5 facility and retrieve classified documents. But things are never what they seem and the situation quickly gets out of control.

Listen, if my previous articles haven’t convinced you, allow me to reiterate one more time that this series has a brain. The wit is sharp enough to cut stone and Gerard Doyle’s audio narration performance adds the indispensable element of droll British sarcasm. If you aren’t an audiobook fan, this series might turn you into one.

The show

I didn’t love this season and that could be a “me” problem. I might be enamored with the books to the point that it’s hard to enjoy an adaptation. This season made some brilliant choices and some baffling ones. If there are show lovers and defenders out there, please make yourselves known!

Here are a few specific spoiler-y thoughts on the book and the show that I hope illustrate my point.

Spider’s Web

James ‘Spider’ Webb is a great character in the first two books, but his severe injury in book 2 puts him in a coma for all of book 3. I was pleased to see that Freddie Fox, who was so smarmy in the first two seasons, was brought back for season 3. His involvement in the private sector provided consequences for his season 2 screw up and allowed him to continue messing with River. Brilliant choice.

Killing him off the way they did? Baffling choice. I was hoping that hit only put him in a coma, but he seems quite dead.

Unrealistic shootouts are not compelling action

These are suspenseful spy thriller novels and this season leaned way too hard into gun action. I found all of the shootouts boring. They reminded me of scenes from The Mandalorian where the bad guys can’t hit anything and the good guys have unlimited ammo. Do shelves of documents provide adequate cover from assault rifles? Would two handguns successfully hold off an entire unit of automatic weapons? Do handguns have unlimited ammo? I was so distracted by the logistics and plausibility that I couldn’t enjoy it. It felt off brand.

Plot heavy, character light

When I think about some of my favorite television shows (Ted Lasso, The Bear, Game of Thrones), they are the moments in between the big plot moments that I love the most. I love the character moments, the conversations, the quiet, emotional scenes with the swelling music. It’s fun to spend time with a group of people who have a vibrant dynamic and who have tension beyond the things happening to them.

In Slow Horses, River’s relationship with his grandfather David does this really well. There’s generational conflict with young, scrupulous River maintaining noble ideals vs. the battered grandfather who has been through the ringer and knows what it takes to survive (literally and politically). Standish and Lamb also have a compelling dynamic with her sobriety, his alcoholism, and their shared past with Charles Partner.

But as great as those are, I want more. Six episodes isn’t enough time and I wish the creators weren’t focused so much on getting through the plot. I wouldn’t mind a filler episode or side quest or bottle episode focused on two to three characters. A day in the life of Roddy Ho could be a hilarious and insane episode! Roddy Ho After Hours! I worry the creators aren’t planting enough seeds for future seasons.

Am I crazy? What did you think of season 3? Have you started reading the books yet?

Thanks for being here,

Kyle

If you enjoy Bite Size Reviews, please consider sharing or subscribing. Thank you!

Share

Subscribe now

Hey there, readers!

I’m slowly working my way through my draft back log! It means my articles on A Gentleman in Moscow are taking a hit (I’m now 3 episodes behind), but those will be out soon enough.

Today I’m talking about Bad Luck and Trouble by Lee Child, which was recently adapted by Prime Video as Reacher season 2. I want to give overall impressions about the book and show before getting into spoilers. I’ll be sure to tag the spoiler section.

The book

For some background on my feelings about Jack Reacher, check out what I wrote on Killing Floor back in August of last year. To summarize, I’m a fan of the books for their entertainment value and Reacher season 1 was a good time.

Bad Luck and Trouble is the 11th Reacher book and 4th that I’ve read. It wasn’t my favorite (that honor still belongs to One Shot), but I enjoyed the mystery. To Child’s credit, he’s always coming up with creative schemes for the bad guys.

Reacher roams the country as a lone wolf who finds allies during his adventures, but this book teams him up with three former members of his Special Investigators unit from his Army days. The mystery impacts them directly when members of their team start turning up dead. Is someone targeting them? If so, who is it and why?

I liked hanging out with Reacher and his crew - they had a fun rapport and I enjoyed their approach to solving the mystery and taking down baddies. There are some memorable action scenes (ok, maybe “memorable” is being generous) and plenty of trademark Reacher levity. It gave me exactly what I was expecting from a Reacher novel and the audiobook entertained me on my daily commute.

The show

If season 1 was big, dumb fun, season 2 was just big and dumb. I liked the early episodes as we got to know the crew and learned about their backstory. Maria Sten was back to kick butt as Neagley. Shaun Sipos was funny as wise-cracking O’Donnell and he had great chemistry with Reacher. I liked Serinda Swan as Dixon the least, but at least she got some steamy scenes with Reacher.

The series used flashbacks (something the book does not do) and the first 3 or 4 times the phrase “You do not mess with the special investigators” was used, I muttered a “Hell yeah!”

But then they kept saying it and there came a moment when it stopped being cool. Then every line delivery felt forced and corny. As the episodes went on and things seemed to be dragging out, I couldn’t silence the inner critic.

I started picking nits.

“Where is she?”

Robert Patrick was my least favorite casting choice and I never bought him as the intimidating villain. It shocked me that the man who terrified me as T1000 could be so bland. He played Langston, a stone-cold killer in the books, but the show version was dumb enough to keep Reacher alive. Stop punching him and shouting “Where is she!?” and just shoot him!1 I get that the plot armor is omnipresent in a Reacher story, but this was too much.

Speeding cars can’t sneak up on people

As a book reader, I liked how the Russo character was a major departure from the book’s Curtis Mauney “dirty cop” character. I was being smug waiting for the reveal that Russo was dirty, only to be surprised that not only was he clean, he had a heart of gold. His death was tragic and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

In this same scene we get the speeding-car-takes-out-unsuspecting-bad-guy-who-is- about-to-kill-a-good-guy trope. I’ve seen it a few times now and I know it’s supposed to be funny and shocking, but the logic doesn’t work and it has to stop. Unless it’s an electric vehicle — which soundlessly come out of nowhere — a speeding car can’t sneak up on someone.

How big is too big?

I raved about Alan Ritchson’s size in my last article, but this season it was distracting. He didn’t have the ability to move fluidly and the action scenes appeared to be edited to hide his stiff and clumsy movement. He even had to run at one point and it looked painful. I worry that by pushing him to bulk up so much, his athleticism was sacrificed.

I hope this hasn’t been overly critical. The show had its moments, but I ultimately couldn’t enjoy it in the same way that I enjoyed season 1.

What did you think of Reacher season 2? Have you read Bad Luck and Trouble?

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

I’m talking about Chinese author Cixin Liu’s Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy, which consists of The Three-Body Problem, The Dark Forest, and Death’s End.

These books took me on a journey across space and time. I hesitate to mention any plot details because the journey is most enjoyable when you have no idea what is coming next. Brief synopsis: Humanity has made contact with an extraterrestrial entity and is facing existential questions about its place in the universe. This is hard core science fiction that is fun to discuss with nerdy space friends.

Now that I’m done with the entire trilogy, I’m realizing I was wrong about the Netflix adaptation 3 Body Problem. Very wrong! I wrote about it a couple weeks ago from a position of total ignorance. I’m shocked that nobody called me out on it! Not a single person was like “Bro, you don’t know what you’re talking about!” The adaptation doesn’t make sense if you’ve only read one or two books; the entire trilogy is required. The show does a great job setting up all the future events.

Today I’m recanting much of what I said and trying to make things right. I hope if you’ve read the books and watched the show, you can chime in with your thoughts. I’m beyond pumped for future seasons and have no idea how they’re going to adapt these crazy books.

There will be spoilers!

***********************Spoilers Ahead!********************************

I was wrong about the characters

In my original review, I said “I think the show did a smart thing by adding characters (the “Oxford Five”) and an interpersonal dynamic between them that isn’t in the book.” WRONG! These characters are in the books and to some extent, so is their interpersonal dynamic. Each of the Oxford Five is a named character from the trilogy:

• Jess Hong as Jin Cheng (book character: Cheng Xin ← see what they did?). Now that I’ve finished book 3, I know that Cheng Xin is the major character we follow, so Jess Hong will be getting a lot more screen time. I’m glad I liked her so much!

• Jovan Adepo is Saul Durand (book character: Luo Ji). Luo Ji is another fantastic character with a major part in book 2 and a minor role in book 3. I’m so excited for them to adapt his Wallfacer solution from book 2! It’s going to be epic.

• John Bradley as Jack Rooney (book character: Hu Wen). Even a version of Jack’s Snacks is in the book! Hu Wen shows up in book 3 and is wealthy from selling mineral water. He gifts a bunch of money to Yun Tianming, who uses the money to buy a star for Cheng Xin. All of this is depicted in season 1.

• Alex Sharp as Will Downing (book character Yun Tianming). Alex Sharp’s performance makes WAY more sense now that I’ve read the trilogy. In book 3, he loves Cheng Xin! He pines for her! I think their storyline was set up well and I’m looking forward to seeing it develop in future seasons.

• Eiza Gonzalez as Auggie Salazar (book character Wang Miao). I wasn’t very nice to her in my last post and I stand by what I said.

Also, Thomas Wade is a book character, and quite a good one I might add! I’m very happy that Liam Cunningham will have such a fascinating role in upcoming seasons.

Did I mention I’m VERY excited for upcoming seasons?

The series showrunners are the guys behind Game of Thrones and I think this book trilogy is way more ambitious and technically challenging. I’m looking forward to seeing how they visualize all the events and concepts. I have an entire list of scenes in my head and I’m asking myself: “How are they going to do that?” My imagination barely contained these ideas so seeing it adapted is going to be very interesting. Adaptations are the best.

We all make mistakes and I appreciate you indulging this correction.

Thanks for reading!

Kyle

I recently returned from spring break in Palm Springs, CA where I finally became converted to the activity sport of pickleball. Yes, it’s fun! Especially against a tough opponent (here’s looking at you, Michael). We also played in the pool with the kids, watched Caitlin Clark and the other Iowa stars win a couple games, and I finished a book (A Gentleman in Moscow for the second time) and started another (James by Percival Everett - amazing so far).

When the kids were asleep, us grown-ups watched 3 Body Problem, Netflix’s new sci-fi series starring Benedict Wong, Liam Cunningham, and Jess Hong. We managed to get through all 8 episodes during our 5-night stay. The series is based on the Hugo Award winning novel The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu.

(It should be noted that I had only read the first book and the adaptation covers parts of all three books in the trilogy).

Overall, I really enjoyed the book and am mixed on the series. It was hard for me to stay awake through all of it (maybe I was playing pickleball a little too hard?). There were things I liked about it and things I didn’t care for. If you could only do one, my recommendation would be to read the books.

Here are some of my impressions on the book and the series.

***********************Spoilers Ahead!********************************

The story is mostly preserved

This is a plot and idea driven book with characters that don’t have a lot of depth or dimension. They exist to present the big science ideas that keep the story moving forward. And it is a cool story! I think that approach works in the book — sometimes I don’t need the deep characters or interpersonal drama that I can find in other epic sci-fi series like The Expanse.

However, the pure science/speculative approach wouldn’t work at all in a TV show, especially a Netflix show geared toward a general audience. To be invested for 8 hours of television, one needs to care about the people on the screen. I think the show did a smart thing by adding characters (the “Oxford Five”) and an interpersonal dynamic between them that isn’t in the book. But did those character work for me? No, not really.

The cast is fine

Let’s talk about those new characters because I think they were mostly fine with a few standouts. They are the Oxford Five:

• Jess Hong as Jin Cheng was the MVP for me. She carries each scene with intelligence and believability. I particularly enjoyed how she explained the three-body problem and the nuclear rainbow.

  

• Jovan Adepo played Saul Durand with so much confidence but also plenty of fish out of water insecurity. I wanted more with him, and I think I’ll get it in season 2 based on what I know about book 2.

• John Bradley as Jack Rooney I could take or leave. He was bringing a good energy, but his character was somewhat expendable.

• I could not invest in Alex Sharp as Will Downing. I just didn’t care about him at all! I intentionally dozed off every time he was on screen. His pining for Jin didn’t move me.

• While Eiza Gonzalez's portrayal of Auggie Salazar had its strengths, there were aspects that didn't land. It's not that I don’t think nano-scientists can be stunningly beautiful; rather, it's about how her portrayal didn't align with the characteristics I'd expect from a nano-scientist. Factors such as demeanor, attire, and speech seemed considerably disconnected from the profession. As someone with acquaintances in the scientific community, this discrepancy stretched my ability to suspend disbelief. In short, she needed to be nerdier!

The true standout characters were Liam Cunningham as Thomas Wade (not a book character) and Benedict Wong as Da Shi (my favorite book character). Their snarky banter was funny and I’d watch Benedict Wong play grumpy detective any day.

Part of me thinks the whole concept would have worked better had these people not been best friends. They should have been smarty pants from all over the world who discovered the video game independently and were brought together by this extraordinary circumstance.

The sci-fi ideas are fresh and fun

There are some really cool science fiction concepts in the book, but it can be pretty dense. The pacing in the book and the way it unfolds is engaging, exciting, and reads like a mystery thriller. You don’t know what’s going on and you don’t realize it’s an alien invasion story. I love the idea that the aliens will take 400 years to arrive and have inhibited all earth technology using the sophons to ensure their survival when they do.

The show does a good job bringing these ideas and concepts to the screen. The explanation of sophons inhibiting earth technology combined lots of exposition with engaging visuals. The show felt original and unlike anything else on TV because it had so much rich book content to work with.

The visuals are a bit much

Judgement Day passing through the nanofiber fence was gruesome, horrifying, and oh so creepy! A slow approaching, unseen, indestructible force is a terrifying concept. The perfectly severed bottom halves of the paper people and the backpacks spilling their contents was a nice touch. But was it a bit much? Did we need to see that many people severed into pieces? Probably not.

The three body game visuals looked unreal by design and I really liked the dehydration and rehydration effects. I also liked how the video game headset was visualized. They must have used CGI to get that perfect, distorted reflection. Very cool.

Will I be watching season 2? Absolutely.

I don’t know how they’re going to pull it off (book 2 is pretty wild!) but I’m looking forward to the next season.

How about you? What did you think of this series? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

I’m writing this first part in advance because I’m hoping a few things happen in this episode.

Predictions for Episode 2, An Invitation

1. More with the Triumvirate. We met Andrey and Emile last week but there wasn’t enough time to establish the relationship. I expect more of them this week.

2. Meet General Kutuzov (the one-eyed cat) and Anna. I’m excited for the scene with the dogs that serves as their introduction.

3. The Count will discover his secret room!

4. We say goodbye to Nina.

Let’s see what happens!

What’s working

• Ewan McGregor’s wig. It looks great, I like the decision to make it curly. You don’t get any description of the Count’s hair in the book so kudos to the team for coming up with this look.

• Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s wig. She makes a great blonde! It’s a solid bob.

• The music delightfully matches the tone by adding a playfulness or mischievousness.

What’s not working

• I should have mentioned this last week but the fake snow continues to look and move really bad. It’s fine while it’s in the air, but terrible on the ground.

***************Spoiler Section**********************

Mishka

Some interesting changes from the book to note:

• I miss the characterization of Mishka as someone who “could easily pace twenty miles in a twenty-foot room” and could “wear out the carpet.”1 In the book he’s a poet and member of the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers. The show has given him a more prominent and outspoken role in the revolution.

• We start the episode with animosity between Rostov and Mishka and discover that they had a falling out. Mishka loved Helena, he even painted the portrait! But Rostov got between them due to Mishka’s social standing. Would Helena be alive if the Count hadn’t interfered? This is all show convention.

• We learn in this episode that Mishka wrote the poem that was attributed to the Count, thus saving the Count’s life. We don’t find this out until much later in the book and to me it was a big reveal.

And the similarities? The bar fight highlighted each of their characters:

Sure enough, while Mikhail was prone to throw himself into a scrape at the slightest difference of opinion, regardless of the number or size of his opponents, it just so happened that Count Alexander Rostov was prone to leap to the defense of an outnumbered man regardless of how ill conceived his cause. Thus, on the fourth day of their first year, the two students found themselves helping each other up off the ground, as they wiped the dust from their knees and the blood from their lips.2

Kudos to the writers for mixing things up and keeping us book readers on our toes!

Osip

We have two scenes between him and the Count. First, he asks for help to understand Mishka better, for insight into his character. It seems Mishka doesn’t have the full trust of the Party. This pretext for future interactions is quite different than the book but I think it will work to the same end.

In the second, the Count slips him a copy of War and Peace, which Osip takes reluctantly but I think we just witnessed the beginning of something.

Sidenote: I was glad to see this book dialogue, albeit stated more aggressively:
“Let’s just say that I am charged with keeping track of certain men of interest.”
“Ah. Well, I imagine that becomes rather easy to achieve when you place them under house arrest.”
“Actually, it is easier to achieve when you place them in the ground. . . .”3

Anna and Nina

• Anna isn’t all that likeable, at first. She’s haughty and rude to her assistant, Olga. But she holds her own with the Count as they banter flirtatiously. I very much enjoyed that most of their dialogue together was from the book. “How could I relinquish my memory of this?” (which, for the record, is more romantic when said post-coital).

  • He readies a tip to the bell hop but she beats him to it.

  • He hangs up her clothes! Ah, the attention to detail.

• And Nina, dear, dear Nina. I chuckled when she approached the bar to interrupt the meet-cute with Anna, but it hurt when the Count brushed her off. Luckily, they made up by the end and we get a tender scene between them. “To an entirely unanticipated and truly wonderful friendship.” The exchange of gifts, the hug, it’s all so sweet and touching.4 Her gift of the key immediately changes the Counts possibilities and outlook and I imagine it will continue to serve him well.

Overall, we leave the Count in a much better position than at the end of episode 1. I’m excited for what’s to come!

What did I miss? Let me know what you thought of the episode!

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading!

Kyle

End Notes: Omissions and Inclusions

• No one eyed cat. I don’t think I’ll get over this - I really liked that cat!

• The Bishop is barely in this episode but still lurking.

• The staff party was a lot of fun with the instruments, music, dancing, food and drink. I’d like to attend a party like that! But where is Emile? I need more Emile.

• The discovery and outfitting of the secret room is a wonderful scene. I love that one must travel through matching wardrobes and it’s an excellent use of lighting and photography to make the space feel bright, large, and welcoming opposed to his dark, cramped, and cold bedroom.

It’s here! This is easily my most highly anticipated media release of the year. I’ve been calling A Gentleman in Moscow my favorite book ever since reading it for the first time in 2020 (you can read my glowing review here) and it held up during my re-read earlier this month.

And now we have the first of an 8-episode limited series on Paramount+ with Showtime! What I want to do for every weekly episode is a list of what’s working (and what’s not) followed by a discussion of similarities and differences and why those changes work or don’t work. Let’s jump right in!

What’s Working

• Ewan McGregor. This guy is the Count! He may be an English gentleman in Moscow, but you know what? It works. He has the subtle charm and eye twinkle that I imagined Count Rostov to have while I was reading.

• The set. It looks amazing. So rich, so textured, I’m obsessed with how it is lit and photographed. The color palette and tones inside the hotel must work for this show to work so I’m glad nothing looks phony or fabricated.

• The music. Lovely, not overdone, perfect.

• Flashbacks. We don’t need to see Rostov as a boy or young man, seeing through his eyes with a filter works really well.

• The tone. It is striking an effective balance of weight and levity.

• The voice over. If you haven’t read the book, I won’t say who it is, but if you have read you know by the end of the episode. It’s a nice touch that isn’t overused.

What’s not working

• I got nothing so far, not even a nit to pick.

Spoiler warning for those who haven’t seen the show as we dive into the changes from the book. You’ve been warned!

*********Spoilers Ahead**********

Extended Roles for Osip and Nikolai

• The first thing that jumps out is that Osip, who is never named out loud (but is named in the subtitles) is being set up as the main antagonist. He attends the hearing at the beginning, escorts the Count to his new quarters, is present during a search and shakedown of the Count’s room, and is there at the end during Nikolai’s death. He threatens, intimidates, and is clearly out to get the Count.
  In the book, Osip shows up much later and while his motives may be mysterious or unclear at first, he is a friend to the Count throughout. I’m curious to see how this character will evolve over time. I like the change.

• In the episode, Prince Nikolai Petrov is a dear friend of the Count and plants a seed of escape. They speak throughout the episode in hushed voices about obtaining papers and getting out of Russia. The Count is even offered papers (pulled from the violin case in what I think is a nod to Casablanca). We see a possible means of escape via disguise (a terrible plan if you ask me). All this culminates in Rostov refusing the papers and Petrov refusing to run, resulting in his execution outside the hotel. It’s infuriating! You feel the Count’s pain and anger at the injustice of it all.
  Petrov has a tiny role in the book, appearing briefly as an acquaintance to the Count and then having his unfair treatment elaborated in a footnote. He was not killed, merely “given a Minus Six,” and that’s that. I like the expanded role they gave him and how it paints a dire situation for our hero.

We Have a Rat

The Bishop! Oh, he detests the Count from the start! Great introduction to the character with the plopping down of the plate and sloshing of the wine. He’s spying. He’s scheming. He’s a slick little twerp and I relish it!

Helena

This intrigues me the most. The set up is so good: The flashback to the funeral and Helena saying “Is it just us now?” Knowing that she was his only family growing up and that as a result of an ill-advised duel (because aren’t they all?), he ends up hurting her to the point that he can’t forgive himself. The line “She’d want you to live your life” and the Count responding “Perhaps I don’t deserve to” suggests there’s significant guilt there.

Also, he refuses to leave with Nikolai if he can’t bring Helena’s portrait - what’s up with that? There seems to be an emphasis on his possessions, but this one in particular. Osip mentioned that he can only take a select few and the rest become the property of the people. Nina saying “they’re just things” and the Count responding “All my memories exist within them.” Contrast this to the book where the Count himself says “a thing is just a thing” and he “expunged them from his heartache forever.” I might be reading into this too much, but I’m intrigued.

There is enough going on here that even as a book reader, I’m excited to see where it goes next.

Omissions

A few omissions I noticed but I’m not giving up hope on some of these:

• No one eyed general Kutuzov (yet).

• No clean shave, we are sticking with the mustache but without the wings.

• No Konstantin Konstantinovich and the “business of practicalities” (yet). I find the title of the episode, “A Master of Circumstances,” a bit odd considering the Count was beaten down considerably. I’m hoping the next episode introduces the Triumvirate, Anna, and some of the practicalities that help the Count master his circumstances.

Thanks for being here and going on this journey with me!

Kyle

Hello, readers —

Today I want to dig into Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s Pulitzer Prize winning book American Prometheus and Christopher Nolan’s script. Let’s discuss background on why Nolan chose Oppenheimer as a project, take a look at the structure of the script, and analyze a scene from the film.

While this is history, I’ll be discussing major plot points of the film so if you haven’t seen it, go check it out and then come back.

Background: Why Oppenheimer?

We have Robert Pattinson, in part, to thank for Oppenheimer existing. In an awesome Scriptnotes interview with John August, writer/director Christopher Nolan explains the genesis of the film:

As a wrap gift [to the 2020 film Tenet], Robert Pattinson…gave me a book of Oppenheimer’s published speeches from the 1950s, where he’s speaking to the issue of how to control what to do about this new technology they’ve unleashed on the world. It’s terrifying reading this stuff, reading these brilliant minds discussing how to stop the world being destroyed.

Reading that book of speeches brought back Nolan’s teenage memories of growing up in the UK and the threat of nuclear weaponry in the news. He goes on:

Then Emma and I…spent a weekend with our old friend Chuck Roven…[h]e suggested that I read American Prometheus. He knew the rights-holders…I read it, and it was that wonderful feeling you get where you’ve been interested in something, you’ve been trying to explore it in different ways, but not quite knowing what to do with it, and then you read this book that’s so definitive.

The Pulitzer Prize winning book was just the authoritative source Nolan needed. He decided to “lock into [Oppenheimer’s] point of view on everything” as the first story thread. The other thread would be the objective point of view, the view of Lewis Strauss, which would provide opposition and exposition. Nolan became “very, very obsessed” with Strauss and his relationship with Oppenheimer, saying:

I looked at it from almost the Salieri-Mozart view from Amadeus…about rivalry and the weirdly trivial personal interactions that can drive a very destructive rivalry.1

The Script

With an antagonist and a structure forming in his mind, Nolan came across this passage about 3/4 of the way through American Prometheus:

Strauss’ enmity toward Oppenheimer had only deepened since the 1954 trial. And then all the old wounds had been reopened in 1959, when President Eisenhower nominated Strauss as his commerce secretary. In the bitter confirmation battle, in which the Oppenheimer hearing was a central factor, Strauss narrowly lost, by a vote of 49–46.2

Oppenheimer defenders in the scientific community laid out Strauss’ “reprehensible conduct in the Oppenheimer case” and convinced three senators to vote against his confirmation.

In the book, Bird and Sherwin move on quickly from this scene and a casual reader may not have made a connection. Christopher Nolan, however, is no casual reader; Nolan “immediately grabbed” this idea of Strauss losing the cabinet seat in this very public way and how it echoed Oppenheimer losing his security clearance, which Strauss himself orchestrated in a very private way five years earlier. Nolan said:

As a writer, you’re always looking for those kinds of poetic echoes, those kind of rhyming relationships in narrative. I chased that down.

The parallel moments when Oppenheimer’s security clearance is not restored, and the denial of Strauss’ cabinet position, serve as the climax of the script.

Scene Analysis

For this climactic finale to be effective, the film had to build up to it and highlight the “old wounds” that contributed to the “steady decline” of the relationship between Oppie and Strauss. In Nolan’s words, “two timelines braided together.”

Many scenes are explored from multiple perspectives at different points in the film. For example, the hearing on the export of isotopes.

Here is the text from American Prometheus:

“You can use a shovel for atomic energy; in fact, you do. You can use a bottle of beer for atomic energy. In fact, you do.” At this, the audience murmured with laughter. A young reporter, Philip Stern, happened to be sitting in the hearing room that day. Stern had no idea who was the target of this sarcasm, but “it was clear that Oppenheimer was making a fool of someone.” Joe Volpe knew exactly who was being made a fool. Sitting next to Oppenheimer at the witness table, he glanced back at Lewis Strauss and was not surprised to see the AEC commissioner’s face turning an angry beet-red…

Afterwards, Oppenheimer casually asked Volpe, “Well, Joe, how did I do?” The lawyer replied uneasily, “Too well, Robert. Much too well.”3

And here is the script:

This scene is one example of the characterization in the film that Nolan constructs in the script. But these are words on a page. For it all to work, you need Academy Award winner Robert Downey Jr., who plays Strauss, to bring the humiliation, bruised ego, and vindictiveness of the character to life. In Bird and Sherwin’s text, they describe Strauss thus:

Self-righteous to a fault, he remembered every slight—and meticulously recorded them in an endless stream, each entitled “memorandum to the file.” He was, as the Alsop brothers wrote, a man with a “desperate need to condescend.”4

Oppenheimer is also described as condescending, and Cillian Murphy embodies this attitude of superiority that Bird and Sherwin wrote about:

…for Oppie, condescension came easily—too easily, many friends insisted; it was part of his classroom repertoire. “Robert could make grown men feel like schoolchildren,” said one friend. “He could make giants feel like cockroaches.”5

“The screenplay has to embrace editing”

The build-up to a satisfying climax, the braiding and crosscutting between two timelines, the non-linear storytelling that Nolan has come to be known for, all starts in the script. John August said it eloquently in the same Scriptnotes interview.

You talk about kinetic on the page. You definitely sense the editor on the page. You have a tremendous number of pre-laps and post-laps that make it really feel like this is the experience of watching the movie, that the dialogue is going to anticipate the cut, that we’re going to continue on a little bit after the cut. Things are going to braid themselves together well. Someone who didn’t know might just assume, oh, it’s the editor who moved that stuff around, but it’s very deliberate and clear on the page. You get out of scenes with energy leaning forward that tumbles you into the next scene. That’s why the movie can be the length and the size that it is, and it still feels fast and still feels like it’s moving really quickly.

To which Nolan replies:

Exactly. That leads you to this, I don’t know what you want to call it, guiding principle, whatever, impulse, that says that the document of the screenplay has to embrace editing. For me, that has to be part of my writing process, or I’m not using the screenplay for what it can do fully. It’s like tying a hand behind your back.6

It’s that energy, that tumbling forward, that makes the movie engaging and highly rewatchable, even at a 3-hour runtime.

This has been a bit of a deep dive, so I appreciate you sticking with me until the end. I’ll need to do a part 3 on Oppenheimer because I haven’t even talked about the war and the bomb.

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

This post has been intimidating me for months so I decided to divide it up and send in two parts. After finishing the 26-hour audiobook of American Prometheus and watching the 3-hour film way back in August 2023, I needed some time to process. Lots of time, apparently. But with the Oscars around the corner, it’s now or never!

For today’s part 1, I want to talk about my reading experience and viewing experience, what my first impressions were, what has stuck with me, and why I think Oppenheimer is going to win a lot of awards.

For part 2 (coming soon) I’ll do a deeper dive into the adaptation, discuss some background info on the film, and analyze the structure of the film and a couple key scenes.

My reading & viewing experiences

I live in Denver which is dead center of a large swath of the United States that I’m calling “IMAX Wasteland.” We have fake IMAX (“LieMAX”) at our local AMC, which was projecting the film in 70 mm, but I needed the true 70 mm IMAX experience.

Fate stepped in: My family went on vacation in Anaheim. A true IMAX theater was 20 minutes away in Irvine! The movie gods smiled on me and I booked my ticket.

By this point, I had hit a wall on the audiobook after listening to the first 20 hours. There are lots of names to keep straight and the Chevalier affair, which is equal parts pivotal and banal, is discussed in detail. I confess I zoned out at times such that the first test of the bomb snuck up on me and I had to go back and re-listen. It’s a fantastic book that I highly recommend, but I was in a slump and needed motivation to finish.

As soon as the movie started, I felt motivated again. I also felt a distinct advantage over other filmgoers who hadn’t read the book. Remember all those names in the book to keep straight? Nolan included all of them. There are about 5 dozen named characters and nearly all of them are played by “Hey, it’s that guy!” actors.

When I exited the theater three hours later, I wished it had been longer and that there had been a pause button. I wanted to freeze certain shots and moments so I could take it all in and study every detail. It was a cinematic experience like no other.

First Impressions

I’m telling you, each scene looked astounding. There isn’t a wasted frame in this movie and director Christopher Nolan and cinematographer Hoyt Van Hoytema took full advantage of the IMAX format. Which feels weird to say since it’s mostly people in rooms talking, but each frame had depth, texture, and vibrancy.1

The film is long, but it moves. The way it was edited propelled the story forward at a brisk pace and I was never bored.

It only took another day or two to cruise through the last 6 hours of the audiobook. I was hooked on the story and the adaptation. I was intrigued by how much money the movie was making at the box office and the reports of it breaking projectors.

What stuck

I’ll discuss this more in part 2, but what has stuck with me is how both book and film tell the story from the perspective of Oppenheimer, the scientist. I finished the book fully convinced that we could have avoided dropping the bomb and that our frigid relationship with Russia, an ally, led to avoidable decisions. I had strong anti-military feelings and felt mislead by whatever/whoever it was that convinced me two atomic bombs were the only way to end the war.2

Awards Darling

I have a few more movies to watch before the ceremony on Sunday, but I’m predicting this wins the Academy Award for best picture, adapted screenplay, actor, supporting actor, and director. It is possible it also wins cinematography, score, and editing. I’d much rather see award love spread around so let’s hope that happens instead.

What were your first impressions of Oppenheimer? What has stuck with you since seeing it?

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

There were many comments that shared hesitancy over sci-fi generally and Dune specifically. Now that you’ve read this sci-fi classic, it’s time to ask yourself a very important question: How much more Dune do you want? Or perhaps a better phrasing is how much more spice do you want in your life?

I’ve created this handy flow chart so you can self-assess and determine how much more time you want to spend on Arrakis. I hope you enjoy!

I’m Good!

If reading the first Dune book was a slog and you want nothing more to do with it, then you’re good! Ride off into the Arrakeen sunset and never look back.

But wait, before you go! I encourage you to watch Dune Part 1 (2021) and Dune Part 2 (2024). They are epic and pure capital “c” Cinema and retroactively made me like the book more. Dune Part 2 is in theaters now and you should see it on the biggest screen with the best sound.

A little more spice, please!

If Dune piqued your interest, there are several places to go from here. Let’s take a look at books and movies, fiction and non-fiction, that can satiate your need for a little more spice.

Non-fiction Book & Movie

The Spice Must Flow by Ryan Britt is a fun and fascinating exploration of the impact Dune has had on pop culture. It is a quick read that has the potential to deepen your appreciation for the Duniverse. In 288 brisk pages, Britt managed to convince me that “Dune is for everyone.”1 Proceed with caution, however — Britt gives minor spoilers from the Dune sequels so if that matters to you, make sure you skip those chapters.

Jodorowsky’s Dune is a documentary currently streaming on Max (formerly HBO Max) and it was bizarre. But also fascinating. Filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky is, in my opinion, an experimental filmmaker who decided to adapt Dune before even reading it. He assembled a team of “spiritual warriors” with an end goal to “change the world.” Visual artists like H.R. Giger, Chris Foss, and Jean “Moebius” Giraud came together and storyboarded the entire film, but eventually ran out of money and it was never made.

The best part is seeing the artistic renderings of costumed characters and ships as well as learning about Jodorowsky’s dream cast, which feature Mick Jagger as Feyd-Rautha, Orson Welles as Baron Harkonnen and Salvador Dali as Emperor Shaddam IV! This documentary combined with The Spice Must Flow were fun and well worth it even for a casual Dune fan.

Fiction Books & TV Series

If you’re even a little curious where the story goes after Dune, you can’t go wrong with Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune. For me, these books had enough fun and suspense that I felt like they were worth my time. The plot of Messiah is especially intriguing and tense until the end.

But that’s as far as you should go if you only want a little more spice. I read book 4, God Emperor of Dune, and I agree with Ryan Britt when he said: “If the first three Dune novels were unfairly labeled as dense or unapproachable, God Emperor of Dune pretty much lives up to Dune’s ‘difficult’ reputation.”2

I can’t in good conscience recommend 1984’s Dune directed by David Lynch if you only want a little more spice. I also struggle to recommend 2000’s Frank Herbert’s Dune, a three-part Sci Fi miniseries with a 4+ hour runtime.

But, if you had to choose between the two, pick the miniseries. While the special effects resemble an old video game, it has more room to breathe, hews closer to the book, and was wildly successful:

According to an analysis from Broadcasting and Cable published on December 10, 2000, “despite a slow start and a notoriously complicated storyline, Sci-Fi Channel’s adaptation of Dune became the most watched program in the network’s history . . . this miniseries is a decided home run.”3

The spice must flow through my veins!!

If this is you, then you are in for a real treat — there are 7 more books in the main Dune series! And then several more by Herbert’s son, Brian! Happy reading if you choose to pursue more books.

I enjoyed the original trilogy but book 4, God Emperor of Dune, was so bizarre that I couldn’t continue.4 I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from continuing if that’s what you want to do.

If you still need more spice, of course watch the cult classic Dune (1984) directed by David Lynch and read Max Evry’s A Masterpiece in Disarray: David Lynch’s Dune, An Oral History. I can’t recommend either to general audiences which is why these are here in the “spice must flow through my veins” section.

If that’s still not enough spice, YouTube has excellent behind the scenes featurettes and book to film comparisons. I’d start with this 90-minute breakdown by Alt Shift X that has 15M views!

Final Thoughts

I can’t help but love Dune. The world is so rich and original albeit somewhat unapproachable for me. I like action and intrigue and thrills and I think the world of Dune has tons of potential. I’m really glad the new movies were made and I hope we get a part 3 covering Dune Messiah. Part of me wishes we could get the raw materials of Dune in the hands of an author or authors that are more plot focused and better at writing action. The ingredients of this world in the hands of plot-forward writers could be really cool.

I’ll sign off with two more YouTube videos that are short and awesome. The first is how Hans Zimmer developed the music and sound of Dune (2021). Rarely do I think of a composer being responsible for certain sound designs in a movie, but here’s proof of that.

The second is a video from Nerdist that attempts to pull every Dune reference from pop culture. If you do nothing else as a result of this article, please watch this and enjoy.

What did I miss? Please share your recommendations!

Thanks for reading and we’ll see you over on The Big Read for Jane Eyre!

—Kyle

I hope you enjoy his review. Here’s Andrew!

Hey everyone,

I’m so pumped to be writing for you! Kyle—my bestie—invited me to once again submit a guest post.

Because of my former career in the Marine Corps, I approach military-themed books, shows, and movies with both a mixture of excitement and skepticism. With friends who are SEALs, Army special forces, and former CIA, I have a pretty strong grasp on what’s realistic and what’s overdramatized BS in the genre.

Growing up, I read a lot of Tom Clancy, Jason Bourne, Vince Flynn, etc. About ten years ago, I stopped reading these types of books—especially when the protagonist was a Navy SEAL (mostly due to overdramatization, unrealistic scenes, or predictable plots).

But then last year, I watched the Amazon Prime hit series The Terminal List starring Chris Pratt. I loved it! Was it realistic—no way! Was it pure entertainment—oh yeah!

This led me to start reading (aka listening to) the Terminal List book series by retired Navy SEAL Jack Carr. Thus far, there are seven books in the series (with book 7 only available for pre-order right now); and I’ve digested books 1-6. Here’s my review of the book series and the TV show!

The Books

First, who shouldn’t read The Terminal List series?

These books are violently graphic. The main character, James Reece, is a Navy SEAL turned rogue-ish CIA operative who kills a lot of bad guys. The action scenes are described thoroughly in detail. If bloody action isn’t your thing, I’d avoid this book series.

With that disclaimer up front, here’s why I like the Terminal List:

Tactics and Simplicity. Does James Reece use cool guns? Yes, but they’re all real; no James Bond gadgets from Q. Jack Carr excels at incorporating real military tactics, methods, and equipment into the plot and scenes, and keeping things simple. Not that there aren’t great plot twists or intriguing plot lines, but the action is simplistic in its reality. Everything from the personas, relationships, mindsets, and emotions is realistic. Not overdramatized or exaggerated.

It’s just real*.

The plots are entertaining and informative. Are the plots 100% realistic—no, of course not. But they’re entertaining and realistic enough. Carr weaves modern geopolitical considerations into his books with sprinklings of historical context. The history is accurate, and the politics are valid viewpoints from someone like James Reece. The books all take place at the time of publishment, and some of the things that happen are sometimes creepily accurate in describing current troubles or predicting future events.

I won’t go through the plots or summarize each book in the series, but they all build on each other with many of the same core characters in each. Lots of action, some love, and plenty of political intrigue. In short, if you’re looking for entertaining and realistic action, this is a good book series to check out.

*Important point of clarification—when I say “realistic,” I’m not necessarily referring to the overall plot. I’m referring to all of the tactics, methods, and behaviors employed by all of the good and bad guys.

The TV series

Amazon’s adaptation of The Terminal List sticks to the book pretty closely. There are a few details that are different but most of the differences aren’t impactful to the plot. For example: In the book, the initial scenes take place during a SEAL mission in Afghanistan, but in the TV series it takes place in Syria. There are a few other screenplay alterations but for the most part, the TV series is a great adaptation of the first book in the series.

And I think Chris Pratt’s performance is excellent. Pratt depicts James Reece very well. There’s one scene in particular that stands out to me: Pratt (James Reece) approaches a stairwell with the rifle in his right shoulder (as a righthanded shooter), but as the stairwell turns to the right, he switches the rifle to his left shoulder (to shoot lefthanded) so that he maintains an advantageous angle and posture. As soon he’s up the stairs, he immediately shifts the rifle back to his right shoulder. The whole scene is about five seconds, but it’s just an example of the simplistic, realistic tactics that embody both the book and the show.

In short, if you don’t like violence, stay away. If you want some entertaining action, give the books a read or listen; or binge watch the show!

It was great sharing my thoughts with you! If you have any comments, or especially criticisms, just send those to Kyle, thanks!

Andrew

Share

If you enjoyed this article, I invite you to share it! And for more fun articles about page to screen adaptations, please consider becoming a free subscriber to Bite Size Reviews. Thanks!

Subscribe now

What a fascinating adaptation this was! While I didn’t love either thing on its own, I’m excited to talk about it as an adaptation.

First, I need to beat a dead horse: Don’t watch the trailer. For readers and non-readers alike, the trailer gives away every cool and surprising set piece in the film. If you watch the trailer, you’ll know more about what happens in the movie than if you’ve read the book!

With that out of the way, here are the bare bones of the story: A family renting a remote vacation home receives a knock at the door late at night from a couple claiming to be the owners of the home. The couple has come from the city, which has experienced a blackout with an unknown cause. The two families are faced with innumerable unknowns as their access to information is cut off by failing technology.

As a person who loves adaptations, complete faithfulness to the source material is not what I’m looking for. If I read the book first, I still hope for the film to provide suspense, surprises, and a fresh take. I want the storyteller to use the film medium to say and do things that justify the films existence.

Writer/Director Sam Esmail (Homecoming, Mr. Robot) does that. While hitting all the essential story beats from the book, there are enough changes that a book reader will be pleasantly surprised and entertained. I certainly was.

To discuss certain changes in more detail, I have to talk spoilers. Please don’t read on if you have any interest in the movie.

Thrills

The five scenes not in the book that thrill and surprise are the crashing ship, crashing plane, flyer-depositing drone, crashing Teslas, and standoff with Danny. Each set piece starts quietly and slowly builds tension.

These scenes do more than just thrill. The crashing ship and planes serve the narrative by giving certain characters more information than others. This imbalance of information creates more tension.

The drone scene is a stretch mostly because the flyer-to-human ratio is way off. Such a waste to dump that many flyers in the middle of nowhere! But I like the theory the characters come up with that the flyers introduce misinformation on a large scale that sows widespread distrust with the ultimate goal of societal self-destruction. We can assume the imbalance of information among our four main characters is what is happening across the country.

The standoff with Danny was my least favorite scene but gave us the best line: “I’m a useless man!” Clay says it in the book too, but in a less desperate way.

Myha’la as Ruth

I thought this change was genius. In the book, GH shows up with his wife Ruth. They are an older couple than Amanda and Clay and that generational gap is explored to a degree. In the movie, Ruth is GH’s daughter played by the formidable Myha’la. The generational gap between her and Amanda (played by Julia Roberts) creates juicy tension and awkwardness and adds another layer to the situation.

That ending!

How about that ending!? From what I’ve seen in the online discourse, it is controversial, but I loved it. On the surface, it’s subversive for me as a book reader, promotes physical media, and is a reminder to download. On another level, it cuts to black with our main characters separated from each other, yet we hear the familiar “I’ll be there for you!” It leaves you with many unknowns and only one certainty: Rose will find out what happens to Ross and Rachel. The lowest of stakes up against the highest of stakes.

What did you think of this book and movie? Let me know in the comments. And if you enjoy my newsletter, please consider sharing or subscribing.

Thanks for reading!
Kyle

Subscribe now

Share Bite Size Reviews

Happy Holidays, readers!

It’s been a highly rewarding reading year and I hope to publish a “Best Of” list in the next few weeks. A major contributor to the success of my reading year was participating in The Big Read! We read Lonesome Dove, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, The Count of Monte Cristo, “The Lottery,” and most recently East of Eden to finish the year. As the kids say: “Bangers!”

Not only did I read those books and get a lot out of the online discussion, but true to form, I watched the movies or TV series adaptations. Today I want to share a few thoughts on the reading experience of John Steinbeck’s East of Eden and the 1955 film starring James Dean.

The Book

I loved reading this book. It has a depth that is sometimes hard to find in today’s novels. There is so much truth and wisdom. The characters of Lee and Samuel Hamilton are on my list of favorite protagonists. They are rich characters full of life and light.

In many ways this book reminds me of scripture — the themes are somewhat obvious and right there for the taking, but that doesn’t make them less meaningful or impactful. Steinbeck said:

What is the purpose of being a writer? To reconnect humans to their own humanity. Their memory of compassion, their memory of pain, their memory of things. They forget.1

In many ways this book is a reminder of all that and more.

The Movie

The movie is fascinating. Made in 1955 by acclaimed director and friend of Steinbeck, Elia Kazan, it was nominated for four Academy Awards.2 During the casting process, Kazan and Steinbeck met with James Dean and neither liked him, but both knew he was perfect for the part of Cal. Kazan said:

As I got to talking to [Dean] more and more, I said “This guy is it!” And I called Steinbeck up and said “I found a guy who may not be a great actor, but he is it! Is that important?” And he said, “If he is it, send him up.” So I sent him up to John and John said “I don’t like the guy, but he’s it. He’s the guy.”3

Dean certainly brings an “it” factor to the role of Cal. He sulks, broods, slouches and drapes himself on parts of the set and fellow cast members. His body language is a major part of the performance.

Dean had a strained relationship to his own father, which likely informed his performance, but he also butted heads with costar Raymond Massey, who plays Cal’s father Adam Trask. It was a tension that director Elia Kazan encouraged. Kazan said:

[Dean] was always cutting in on [Massey’s] lines, saying the wrong lines. Massey had learned the script exactly and he would say to me “He’s not saying the lines” and I’d say alright, I’ll get him to say the lines and I was tricky – I let Jimmy do it the way he wanted because it irritated [Massey]. You think I would do anything to stop that antagonism? No, I increased it. Because it was the central thing that I photographed. What I photographed was their relationship to each other, the absolute hatred for each other.

Manipulative, but I can’t argue with its effectiveness. In the central scene of the film, that antagonism shines through.

I hope you get a chance to check out the film. It doesn’t come close to the scope and depth of the book, but it’s a piece of cinema history and an adaptation that I’ve enjoyed watching and learning more about.4

Thanks for reading! I wish you and yours peace and joy as the year comes to a close.

Kyle

Back in June I talked about some page-to-screen adaptations that I was excited about, but new adaptations are constantly being released, announced, or delivering trailers. In an alternate universe, I’d have time to explore all of them — read all the books, see all the movies, watch all the shows! But since I love my family, job, and reading books/seeing movies/watching shows that aren’t adaptations, I will accept my limitations, acknowledge these adaptations, and move on.

Let’s take a look at a few that are already out as well as what the next few months have in store!

Available now

Lessons in Chemistry (Apple TV+)

Based on the book by Bonnie Garmus.

I talked about this one last time and can’t wait to watch it. New episodes every week!

Wes Anderson short films (Netflix)

Based on the Roald Dahl short stories “The Swan,” “Poison,” “The Rat Catcher,” and “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar.”

According to my favorite movie podcaster Jeff Cannata: “This is the perfect marriage of adaptee (author Roald Dahl) and adapter (writer/director Wes Anderson). The language absolutely sings. These short films have long monologues and long takes with actors being theatrical. Wes Anderson loves a framing device (just watch any of his movies) and these short stories give him a perfect framing device. What is special about Dahl’s writing is how it is expressed and the specific language used and these adaptations get that right.”

The short films The Swan, Poison, and The Rat Catcher, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (trailer below) are available now and because of the short factor, I’ll probably check them out.

The Changeling (Apple TV+)

Based on the book by Victor LaValle

Description from IMDb: Set in an alternate New York City, a father and husband searches through a magical world for his abducted son and missing wife.

I’m intrigued by the concept, like a grown up fairy tale. I haven’t heard positive or negative things but if any of you have checked this out (book or show) I’d love to hear if you think it is worth a read/watch.

Foe (in theaters, limited release)

Based on the novel by Iain Reid

Description from GoodReads: Hen and Junior farm a secluded piece of land that has been in Junior's family for generations, but their quiet life is thrown into turmoil when an uninvited stranger shows up at their door with a startling proposal.

I love Paul Mescal and I love Saoirse Ronan, but this looks slow and potentially boring. And sweaty.

A Haunting in Venice (theaters)

Based on Hallowe’en Party by Agatha Christie

I enjoyed the book versions of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, but the movie versions fell short. I’ve heard from trusted sources that this film is the best of the three. If you’ve seen it or read the book, please let me know what you thought!

Dumb Money (theaters)

Based on the book The Antisocial Network: The GameStop Short Squeeze and the Ragtag Group of Amateur Traders That Brought Wall Street to Its Knees by Ben Mezrich

Mezrich has a formula and a spoken goal to have the longest subtitles ever and to have his books made into films. He succeeded with the movies 21 (based on Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions) and The Social Network (based on The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, a Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal — see what I’m saying about those subtitles??)

He has done it again with this book turned film and from what I’ve heard, the movie is pretty solid. From GoodReads, it appears that not many have read the book and those that have weren’t impressed.

Blackberry (VOD)

Based on the book Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry by Jacquie McNish and Sean Silcoff

This looks fun but not unmissable. There’s a lot to learn from companies like Blackberry that gain a stronghold on a market only to lose it in spectacular fashion. Those stories can be highly entertaining too. Like Jim Belushi’s shady character says in the 1996 Christmas classic Jingle All the Way: “It’s fun and educational.”

Coming Soon

Argylle (theaters, 2024)

I can’t figure out what’s going on with this one. If anyone knows, please leave a comment! The trailer looks terrible. It’s based on a spy novel that doesn’t exist yet and keeps getting delayed. The author doesn’t seem to exist. Just one mystery after another!

Leave a comment

Priscilla (Nov. 3, theaters)

Based on the book: Elvis and Me: The True Story of the Love Between Priscilla Presley and the King of Rock N' Roll by Sandra Harmon and Priscilla Presley

After Baz Luhrman’s Elvis took cinemas by storm last year, what else is there to learn about these two?? This looks completely different in tone and style. I’ll probably skip book and movie.

The Killer (Nov. 10, Netflix)

Based on the graphic novel: The Killer by Matz and Jacoram

Description from IMDb: After a fateful near-miss, an assassin battles his employers, and himself, on an international manhunt he insists isn't personal.

This is a David Fincher film so expect dark, gritty, violent, and (hopefully) really good.

Next Goal Wins (Nov. 17, theaters)

Description from IMDb: Based on the 2014 documentary of the same name (trailer below) this chronicles the infamously terrible American Samoa soccer team which lost a 2001 FIFA match 31-0.

I’m a big but not “all in” Taika Waititi fan. What We Do in the Shadows and Thor: Love and Thunder didn’t click with me, but Hunt for the Wilderpeople is one of my all-time favorites and I adore the Hulu show Reservation Dogs which he produces. This looks like a wholesome good time, so I’ll be checking it out.

Leave the World Behind (Netflix, Dec. 7)

Based on the book by Rumaan Alam
Description from GoodReads: Amanda and Clay head to a remote corner of Long Island expecting a quiet reprieve from life in New York City, quality time with their teenage son and daughter and a taste of the good life in the luxurious home they've rented for the week. But with a late-night knock on the door, the spell is broken. Ruth and G. H., an older couple who claim to own the home, have arrived there in a panic. These strangers say that a sudden power outage has swept the city, and - with nowhere else to turn - they have come to the country in search of shelter.

I am intrigued by the premise and my buddy Jeremy really liked the book. But the above description and his review don’t seem to fit what I’m seeing in the trailer, which makes it look like a disaster thriller. The movie has an all-star cast and I’m very curious if it will be good or HNG.

Poor Things (Dec. 8, theaters)

Based on the book by Alasdair Gray

I love Emma Stone but Yorgos Lanthimos and I are on completely different wavelengths. I’ll be passing on this one but if you’re excited or have read the book, please let me know!

American Fiction (Dec. 22, theaters)

Based on the book: Erasure by Percival Everett

Stephen David Miller (who I hope takes off on Substack) wrote an excellent review after seeing this at TIFF: “The first truly great film I’ve seen here that I hadn’t already caught at Cannes. A hilarious provocation about identity, “authenticity”, and the contradictions put upon Black creators in America. Very much in conversation with recent films like Sorry To Bother You and The Forty Year Old Version, albeit decidedly more neurotic (much like its protagonist, played by a pitch-perfect Jeffrey Wright). As a lover of neuroses and inside baseball jokes about the American literary scene, this was 100% my shit. The only thing keeping me from going 4.5 stars, honestly, is having time to sit with it…there are some indulgent late act twists that require more time to digest.”

I’m in. Check out this trailer!

The Boys in the Boat (Dec. 25, theaters)

Based on the book The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics by Daniel James Brown

This trailer just dropped and I had no idea this was coming. Directed by George Clooney? WHAT?! Very fun surprise. This looks like Chariots of Fire: In a Boat and I expect it to be very crowd pleasing. The book has been on my TBR for years so maybe this is the kick in the pants I need to finally read it.

What are you most excited for? Any I missed that you’re looking forward to? Let me know in the comments! And for more of my takes on books and their screen adaptations, please consider subscribing.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

Share

It’s a BSR double feature! Here is the second collaboration of the week. Sarah was so fun to work with and her Substack community is a peaceful, happy place on the internet. If you live with, work with, or simply want to inspire young readers, consider subscribing!

Her part that covers the book is first followed by my bit about the movie. Enjoy!

Coraline by Neil Gaiman (2002)

When Coraline was published in 2002, I went out and bought it and read it promptly.

It’s a middle-grade novel and I was 20 years old, so that piece of information may sound a little surprising, but I was in a really bad place in my life — I’d opted to drop out of college after the first semester of my freshman year because I was pretty sure if I stayed in Minneapolis, all alone, I was going to kill myself, and my parents listened to me when I told them I needed to come home. I got a job working as a server and hostess at an Italian restaurant, which provided me with a pile of cash, the opportunity to make many bad choices (I took every one), and a lot of room to focus on staying alive.

As such, I was back living in my childhood bedroom, surrounded by my childhood things — including my big IKEA bookcase, the largest of the Kallax line, which remains truly one of the best things my parents have ever bought for me. I had all my old picture books, even some of my board books, on some of those shelves (I repeat: I was 20), and there was nothing and no one stopping me from pretending I was eight years old from the time I woke up (usually around noon) until the time I had to be at work (4pm).

So I bought and read Coraline because, I suppose, I was trying to soothe myself in the best and most reliable way I knew (know) how: reading books.

I loved it — and I was disturbed by it — so when Kyle and I landed on it as the book we wanted to cover together, I was excited to revisit it (especially after having finally made peace with that time in my life, and finding deep compassion for the lost young adult I once was).

I decided, this time, to listen to it on audiobook with my children, who are 9 and 7yo (as of tomorrow, my youngest’s birthday). Of course a huge part of the appeal of this format is Neil Gaiman, who narrates his own books. I mean have you listened to Neil Gaiman narrate his own books? He’s so good — so monstrously skilled at this — that part of me wishes he’d narrate every book ever, but perhaps this is only because the magic he brings to reading his own books is so potent and powerful (and it would surely be diminished if it were overused).

In any case, the story is this: Coraline is a little girl living with her parents in an unnamed time period, in a large, rambling old house that has been divided into three flats. Her neighbors above and below are an eccentric crew, and her parents, though loving, are pretty hands-off. She spends a great deal of time alone.

One day, she discovers a never-before-seen door in the unused parlor of her apartment. Her mother opens it with the oldest, darkest key on their family key ring to reveal a brick wall. But a few days later, Coraline uses the key to open the door again and this time, steps into another version of her house, complete with the people and animals and the world she is used to, only with a few relevant — and super creepy — differences: it’s cool that the cat in this other world can talk to her, but far less cool that her “other mother” and “other father” have big shiny black buttons where their eyes should be. And ask her to stay in this “other house” permanently.

Coraline knows something is deeply wrong with this scenario, and her gut instinct is confirmed when she goes back to the normal side of her house to find her parents have disappeared. It takes her two days to discover they’re trapped behind a mirror that seems to reach both sides of this perplexing residence — and along with them, she finds other children, children lost long ago, held captive by this “other mother.”

As you can imagine, things only get worse from there.

Though I’d love to unpack every element of this delightfully frightening story — what’s scarier (and more metaphorically rich) than the people you love revealing another version of themselves? Hasn’t this, in some ways, happened to all of us, in one form or another, especially by the time we’re reading this aloud to our children? — but I don’t want to give away too much of the narrative or the ending so that you can read this one for yourself. It’s too good.

There is absolutely zero mention of Halloween in this book — and it’s not outright alarming (neither of my kiddos can handle stories like that), it’s more… sinister and unnerving and spooky, and that’s certainly relevant this time of year. (And, I swear I am telling the truth when I say that I got legit, bottom-of-the-spine up to my hairline chills listening to this story — twice! — while driving with my small fellow listeners.)

I am 100 times more unsettled by this excellent creepshow of story than I was 21 years ago, and I highly recommend getting your hands (or ears) on it.

(Is “creepshow” a word? It is not. But Coraline is a creepshow, so there you go.)

(Here’s my part)

Hello Can we read? readers! It’s a pleasure to collaborate with Sarah on a story that has tunneled its way into my brain over the past few weeks. I read Coraline for the first time for this project and it delivered a creepy and spine-tingly story that I also found sweet and thoughtful. I don’t consider it a children’s book, but the story of how it became a children’s book is a good one!1

After I finished, I checked out the graphic novel and listened to the Gaiman-narrated audiobook. Each reading in each format yielded something new and exciting.

The Harper Perennial edition of the book had unsettling illustrations by Dave McKean.

The graphic novel was adapted and illustrated by P. Craig Russell and was effective in translating Gaiman’s rich (but not overly detailed) descriptions into horrifying illustrations.

Gaiman’s audiobook narration is flawless and has some creepy touches that you’ll need to hear for yourself.

I had high expectations as I approached the film and a mental checklist of specific scenes and lines that I was hoping would make the cut.

Released in 2009, Coraline was written and directed by the legendary Henry Selick (James and the Giant Peach, The Nightmare Before Christmas) and was the first feature film made by the talented team at Laika Studios.2 Do yourself a favor and check out these behind-the-scenes videos of how Coraline was made because you have to see it to believe it. The team at Laika is painstakingly patient and dedicated to the art of stop-motion filmmaking.

The movie was recently remastered and briefly re-released in theaters at the end of August, so I got to see it on the big screen. It looked great. The stop motion style is well suited to the story of creepy button-eyed characters whose appearances aren’t what they seem. This film succeeds as an artistic triumph and was well deserving of the Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Feature.3

Aesthetically speaking, there are some design choices that may not be for everyone. There were a few characters that were downright off-putting. I don’t say that to discourage anyone from watching it, but to manage expectations. This isn’t squeaky clean Pixar animation or soft-edged Wallace and Gromit claymation. There are scenes near the end that young kids might find terrifying, so knowing what your kids can handle and previewing the movie yourself are the best approach.

On the story side, it was missing some of my favorite parts! What I consider the grand idea of the story was not included, which must have been intentional rather than an oversight. There was a part in the book where I nearly wept due to the power of the message, and it wasn’t included either.

Coraline is a phenomenal Dorothy-like protagonist who comes out on the other side of her adventure a different person. Her circumstances remain the same, but she is, somewhat ironically, now seeing everything with new eyes.

I recommend reading the book out loud or listening to the audiobook first, then checking out the graphic novel or the film if your kids can’t get enough. Let me know if you do, I’d love to hear about your experience!

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

Four weeks ago I mentioned that I was excited about two upcoming collaborations, and both went out this week! I wrote this for my buddy Jeremy’s online book club The Big Read. If you aren’t a member already, you must check it out! We are doing “The Lottery” at the end of October and East of Eden in November and December. Check out the exciting 2024 slate here and be sure to sign up!

Hello, Big Readers!

I’m happy to be here to discuss the merits of the 2002 film adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo, a movie I have loved for two decades. It stands out so vividly in my memory that I was shocked, upon finishing the book a few weeks ago, to discover so many differences! Big ones! If you have finished the book by now, I hope you watch and enjoy the movie. If you haven’t finished the book yet and need a little boost to get you across the finish line, you could watch the movie right now and still have no idea what’s going to happen next in the book.

Yes, this is a case of faithlessness to the source material being a feature, not a bug. This is also one of those rare cases where the movie is more enjoyable than the book.1 Yep, I said it! The movie has rewatchability whereas the book is something I’m glad I read once but won’t be re-reading. I know some of you book lovers will disagree and that’s fine! I’d love to hear from you in the comments. I’ll try not to be unkind to the book while I praise the movie.

Leave a comment

Here’s a spoiler-free run down of what makes the movie so rewatchable.

It came out at a perfect time: Late 90s/early 2000s

The Count of Monte Cristo came out at a great time for movies.2 So great that you’d think a small adventure flick based on a classic door stopper would get lost in the shuffle. But if the performances of The Mask of Zorro (1998) and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) proved anything, it was that audiences during that time were hungry for swashbuckling adventure. The late 90s/early 2000s have some stellar cinematic sword fights and The Count of Monte Cristo fit right in.3

Location, location, location

Seven years before making TCoMC, director Kevin Reynolds made one of the biggest box office flops in cinematic history called Waterworld starring Kevin Costner. But you know what Waterworld has that a lot of movies are missing these days? Practical effects and on-location filmmaking.

TCoMC has those too. The caves, cliffs, island prison, and vast estate grounds of Powerscourt House in County Wicklow all feel real and look great because they are real. While not filmed in France, Ireland and the island of Malta were more than suitable stand ins.

The Count of Montage Cristo

I’m a sucker for a good training montage and this film has one of the best, including a great visualization of tunnel digging progression. It helps the 14-year prison sentence fly by.

Super, magical casting

When the OG Albus Dumbledore aka Richard Harris pops up (literally) in this movie, it immediately takes things to another level. Harris is who I saw in my mind’s eye when I was reading the Abbe Faria chapters.

Jim Caviezel as Edmond Dantes and Guy Pearce as Fernand deliver their lines with relish. Caviezel does the pious yet conflicted act well. Pearce is so evil that to this day I think of him as an antagonist. Unfortunately, there is no Caderousse, but Pearce’s Fernand more than makes up for it with extra sleaze.

Dagmara Dominczyk is stunning as Mercedes and has a couple of the best lines and young Henry Cavill as Albert is here in one of his earliest roles!

Timeless one-liners

I doubt a single line from the book is in the film, but I haven’t fact checked that assumption. There are some zingers that don’t sound 18th century, but I forgive screenwriter Jay Wolpert since they don’t scream 20th century either.

“Here is your final lesson - do not commit the crime for which you now serve the sentence.”

“Perhaps you should get out more.”

“Do your worst!”

“May I steal your wife?”

“Don’t rob me of my hate.”

“You never pleased me.”

“God sees you out of the corner of his eye.”

Killer ending

The big Hollywood action ending is fun to revisit. More sword fights need to take place in long grass! I’ll say no more.

It’s not the book

I’ll be the first to acknowledge this is a highly dumbed down and oversimplified version of such an intricate story, but that scores points in its favor. As a movie, it had to be simpler and bring the named character count way down. Caderousse isn’t the only character missing, so are the Cavalcanti’s, Maximilien, Valentine, Bertuccio, Ali, Beauchamp, Château-Renaud, Eugenie, Haydee, and more. As an action-oriented crowd pleaser, the movie ending is much tidier and more “Hollywood” than the book.

Would I like to see a more faithful adaptation? Sure! There are book scenes and plotlines that are intriguing and thrilling and would work well in a prestige TV multi-season format.

But this movie holds up and is rewatchable because it’s so lean and well-paced. It’s easy to compartmentalize and enjoy it as a loose adaptation that isn’t offensive and simply reflects Hollywood trends of the time.

My mainstream-movie-loving self loved it when I first saw it in theaters more than 20 years ago and I still love it now.

What do you think of the 2002 film adaptation? Have you seen any other adaptations? There are many!

Thanks for reading!
—Kyle

Hello readers,

My wife and I recently summitted the Mt. Everest of adulthood and made new friends with another couple. It helped that our kids were friends with their kids first, but it’s not a given that you will get along with your children’s friends’ parents.

I was this close to messing it all up when I mentioned to them one evening at dinner that I, as a 38-year-old man, had recently read Are You There God? It’s me, Margaret. They each gave me a look. “Isn’t that a book about pre-teens getting their periods? I read that in middle school — why are you reading it now?”

Luckily, I was prepared. There are occasions when spending too much time on IMDb has its benefits, and this was one of them. “The book was published in 1970 but has never been adapted to a film until now. Rachel McAdams is in it and Abby Ryder Forston plays Margaret! (She was in a Marvel movie if you didn’t know, Ant-Man’s daughter). It’s written and directed by Kelly Fremon Craig who wrote and directed Edge of Seventeen with Hailee Steinfeld, have you seen that? (Hailee Steinfeld is in that Marvel show Hawkeye if you didn’t know). And did I mention the book was published in 1970 and has never been adapted?!”

Oh yeah, I could tell they were impressed.

The truth is the movie itself saved our friendship. Last weekend our new friend told us she watched it on a plane and loved it. Now we laugh about our friendship’s origin story when they ask me if I’ve read any more period books.

A masterful adaptation

This was one of my most anticipated adaptations of the year. When I read the book back in January, I related to the mixed faith family. Margaret’s father and paternal grandmother are Jewish and her mother and maternal grandparents are Christian. Her parents have decided to let her decide what religion to be when she grows up. A brave choice, but not always easy for Margaret.

Being raised by two Christian parents, I did not have Margaret’s religious angst growing up. Being in a mixed faith relationship now, I think often about my sons and what they should “be.”

The book has a scene where Margaret’s grandparents insist that she’s Christian and a separate scene where her grandmother insists she’s Jewish. The film combines these two scenes into one awkward post-dinner encounter with all the adults arguing in front of Margaret.

It’s powerful as she tells them to stop fighting. In the book, Margaret’s internal dialogue says:

I didn’t want to listen anymore. How could they talk that way in front of me! Didn’t they know I was a real person—with feelings of my own!

Movie Margaret writes to her teacher that religion makes people fight and that praying hasn’t made things better. Book Margaret writes a report that says maybe kids should be told what religion they are starting at a young age.

In my favorite scene, Rachel McAdams, who plays Margaret’s mother, apologizes and then just sits on the couch and holds her. “I don’t feel like talking. Want to just sit for a minute?” It is a moment of empathy and love that I’ll try and remember.

I hope you get a chance to see this sweet movie. If you have already, I’d love to know your thoughts.

Thanks for reading,

Kyle

If you enjoy my newsletter, please consider subscribing or sharing! Thanks.

Subscribe now

Share