User Profile

It's okay. Not remotely scary, and, intentional or not, it exists in the shadow of the gargantuan achievement that is It.  

Character development is hinted at, but doesn't really happen. There are glimpses of ideas with the alcoholism of the main character, but that also doesn't ever gel. Some things don't make sense, like the mixing of third person omniscient with first person narration(not even a perfunctory, 'they told me all this later' in the denouement.) I think some might take issue with the character of Dennis, but the portrayal didn't bother me overmuch.

Oh well, it could have been a lot better, but it could also have been a lot worse(fuck you, Summer of Night.)

Of course I loved it, was there any doubt? One thing I really dig about it is how both J.R.R. and Christopher treat the subject matter in an academic way, as if discovering ancient writings and treating discrepancies and gaps as different traditions of legend. It's really cool. The only criticisms I have are that Christopher is not as good a writer as his father, and his tendency to through all the footnotes into a list at the end of an entry makes it difficult to read, meaning that you have to constantly flip back and forth. Other than that, it rules, naturally.

I actually liked it quite a bit. Very different to the movie, and in a good way. Very unsettling, and I look forward to reading the next one.

 A very breezy read, but not terrific. Very paper thin characters, not much cohesion, and loads of it didn't make sense. Felt like an adaptation of a found footage film. Probably would work better that way, actually. 

Lahane has killer prose and the bleak realism was absolutely punishing. Unflinching. I had originally planned on watching the movie, but I don't know if I'm up to seeing some of those scenes on screen. 

 It's pretty good, but it does this thing that's been starting to grate on me where characters opine and hold forth endlessly about how mysterious and strange and mystical women are, and how you can never know the mind or heart of a WOMAN.

They're just people, dude. 

Meh, it's kinda just whatever. Long, meandering, poor resolution. I wouldn't read it again or recommend it.

I wish the people who needed to read this would.

I guess I really liked this when I first read it back in 2013, but I didn't remember any of it. Just finished a re-read, and it's fantastic. Apparently, Barker does great in a sort of YA-type genre. And why hasn't this ever been adapted as a film?

It's alright. It's not my favorite, but no real complaints. Probably won't ever re-read it, though.

It's fine. Probably could have used an editor, though. Lots of really clumsy sentences and clunky dialogue. The action isn't anything to write home about, but the finale would make a pretty fun live action set piece. Characters aren't anything special.

It's pretty good. One of those horror books that are full of portent and weighty passages, but is let down by the ending. But, until then, it's pretty good. At first, the pretentious and wanky screenplay bothered me, especially since it violates a lot of rules of a proper screenplay, but I guess it works, having come from a pretentious and wanky writer in-universe. And if you examine it through the lens of the tragic events of the making of the film, it makes sense. I don't know if I'm a fan of Tremblay, and I don't think I'll ever read this again or heap much praise upon it, but it tries.

Also, I'm not sure if Tremblay has seen a horror movie past 1989 or realizes that there are more horror movies than just teen slashers. I could be way off base, though.

This is firmly okay. Not terrible, not great. I suppose if you're a fan of Koontz it's gonna be enjoyable. I didn't care for how it takes place over one 18 hour period, and it tries to have a poignant message about living life after grief, but I don't think it really lands. Still, there are worse ways you can waste a couple afternoons.