a collegue borrowed me the curious incident of the dog in the night time by mark haddon a coupla weeks ago. i have to admit that i am not all that excited about the book in the first place because i just have to say this: what kind of title is that la? the synopsis tells about a serious story about a boy with asperger’s syndrom so i was expecting it to be a mature read, right? so what’s with the children’s story title la?
i have read the book. and i still do not get the title completely, which bothers me because i am usually quite particular about title of books. it is not that i judge a book by its title, but i strongly feel that the title is where the writer is able to convey a very special form of the story or message or theme or something. the title is like an oppourtunity to shout out something.
mother used to say that it meant that christopher was a nice name because it was a story about being kind and helpful, but i do not want my name to mean a story about being kind and helpful. I want my name to mean me.
but the story is important. i feel everyone should read this book to understand autistic children and what they go through. the story is told from the child, christopher’s point of view and how he reasons out the world about him. is form of autism devoids him from emotions. in some parts of the story, he is like a robot, simply because he is unable to comprehend emotions. and although this may seem unreal to normal people, it does make us emphatise people like christopher and his blunt sense of logic.
this, is an important book. i highly recommend it.
last night, i saw sky captain and the world of tomorrow and thanked my lucky stars that i did not pay money to watch this in the cinemas. it was showing on astro last night. yea we laughed, but not at the story because it was funny. but because of the characters because they were mega stupid.
Polly Perkins: You should’ve let me go back for my film.
Joe Sullivan: You’re right, I should’ve.
this is gwyneth paltrow at her absolute lowest. she was, without a doubt, the most menyusahkan and menyampah character i have ever come across on the big screen. a complete bimbo brain idiot. a complete insult to women. jude law’s character pulak is so hindustani hero wannabe, it is so one of the dumbest he has ever taken on. he would roll on mud and crash into things and not have a sinle speck of dirt or a single grazed injury. the only saviour of hollywood in the movie is angelina jolie whose character is so canggih, it is the most unbelievable one of the lot.
someone told me that it is a comic book rendition. yea, so what if it is? to have taken on such dumb roles totally killed my impression of these people’s ratings, as least where i am concerned. even if it is for cimena’s sake, well, they must’ve been totally desperate for roles, kan?
the only thing i can say that is good about this movie is that it has a damn cun title: sky captain and the world of tomorrow! immediately, the possibilities and endless. but what a let down, man.
two reviews. one good. one ugly.