You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
Actual rating:
3 stars for story
4 stars for the bonus features using the app
2 stars because Scott had to be one of the worst investigative journalists in the history of investigative journalism. Seriously, the man was a cardboard character with such glaring biases and prejudices, one wonders if his previously glowing career wasn't part of his hallucinations.
12/30/2013: I had to edit this because the grammar mistakes were driving me nuts. Also, I had to adjust a couple thoughts, so I added some spoilers and quotes for clarification.
12/29/2013: But before I go into my rant because I do have a few things to say about it all, I want to say this: Dear Ms. Pessl, despite what I write here and my issues with this particular story, I hope you continue to write novels because I will continue to read them. I think you have the potential to be an incredible story teller. It's all there now, you just need to build your characters better, particularly your men. But you have a gift that I would love to see flourish. If your next novel is even 50% better than this one, you've got yourself an ardent fan.
And now my rant:
1. The italics: What. The. Hell. is going on here? I can overlook most things. And truthfully, I didn't really notice them at first until a friend pointed it out. But once seen, it can't go unseen. And they are everywhere. Everywhere. In places where emphasis is not needed. Did I mention they were everywhere?
2. The similes. The metaphors. The analogies. All coming out of Scott like a cartoon character/pulp fiction detective. I expected Dick Tracy, Roger Rabbit, and Two Face to appear at any given moment. "Girls like her moved here by the truckload, hoping to be discovered and to meet Mr. Big but too often ended up in bars in Murray Hill wearing black dresses from Banana Republic." Get me a trench coat, a fedora, and a street lamp. And also, it gave away the author is not a native to NYC "a look Sue Ellen gave Miss Ellie throughout twelve seasons of Dallas". Yeah, I don't think this guy would be a big 80s night-time soap fan, or enough so to make that particular reference. Although it would explain his melodrama.
3. Scott. How in the world is any reader supposed to believe this man was a serious contender in the investigative journalism world, who could go toe-to-toe with hardened criminals, drug lords, and other dastardly foes of the underworld when he didn't even keep his files secure in his own home knowing he was followed? "Scott McGrath, a journalist who'd go to hell just to get Lucifer on record..." He prejudged (wrongly) Hopper and Nora based on their age and their outwardly appearances and then shocked by their moxy. "I doubted I'd see him again--or Hannah Montana, for that matter. When New York took over, both of them would fall by the wayside."/"These two kids clearly knew more than they let on." He prejudged all his witnesses until he needed to believe what they said was true because it fit the story he was constructing. "Maybe Kate Miller was right..."/"But I always thought Kate Miller's ID of Cordova was a little suspect...Now if the National Inquirer won't touch you because you're dirty, that means you're really filthy." (There is reserving judgment and there is cynicism and then there is just plain arrogance.) He went into every plan half-assed and then had the audacity to be surprised when everything went tits up. I was willing to suspend my disbelief on the whole devil's curse part of the story, but I can't get past his idiocy. Also, he probably would be in contention for a Darwin Award for worst father ever. A man who won't get a babysitter because his kid might be upset staying with a stranger but takes her to an underground club to meet with a potential insane man because said man was half burned alive. When the insane man appears to be staring at his daughter in a greedy, suspicious way, Scott doesn't leave, but rather sticks her in a corner and puts himself between her and the man so they can have a chat about the case, his back to her.
4. Ripped off. I felt the whole movie slant was interesting at first but vaguely familiar. And then it occurred to me that one of them seemed like a Tarantino movie. And then she goes and mentions Pulp Fiction and Tarantino. And later she quotes Se7en. And Cordova is supposed to be like Hitchcock and Brando. So you get the feeling that there isn't anything particularly new being done here, but rather a mashup of better stories.
Overall, I just wanted more. I thought the ending was far too pat. For all the references to Thumbscrew and Brad, I expected there to be more of a parallel between it and Scott. And then when Beckman tells him he better "be the good guy" how could anyone not see how this was going to end? The ending to Thumbscrew left you wondering did Brad do it? But in Scott's ending, you know what he does. And it doesn't matter how it ends up, the mere fact that he found what was in "his suitcase" just felt like a giant cheat.
But here are the pros, because there were pros:
1. Marlowe. Best character of the whole book. I found her wonderful and perfect for this story. All the women in this story were really well done. The fortune teller lady. Olivia. Sam. Inez. Even Nora at times. Which makes me wish the protagonist would have been a girl. Maybe she wouldn't have written her so cheesy. Her men were all caricatures and stereotypes, which was unfortunate.
2. The storytelling. Despite my issues with the character development and Scott's entire being, Pessl works words well. I often found myself mesmerized by them. Bewitched, if you may. This lady knows how to sell creepy, how to set a tone. There were many times I was reminded of [b:2666|63032|2666|Roberto Bolaño|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1328038189s/63032.jpg|3294830], in that while you are reading you have that sense in the back of your mind you are going somewhere very dark and murky and not at all nice. But there is nothing explicitly written for you to point to. Her tone and setting is what I wanted [b:The Shadow of the Wind|1232|The Shadow of the Wind (The Cemetery of Forgotten Books, #1)|Carlos Ruiz Zafón|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344545047s/1232.jpg|3209783] to be. I want her to write that book. I might like it better.
3. The app. I know. Reading is purity. Blah blah blah. No. I think interactive reading should be the next great thing. Really. I loved all of it. It was exactly what I wanted from "hidden Easter eggs" in a book. Do you need them to enjoy the story? No. Can you read the book first and then go back and look, listen, and see the Easter eggs? Of course. But does it enhance the mood, tone, and overall experience to do it while you're reading? For me, a definitive yes. My favorite: the black rectangles in Chapters 93 & 94. I thought they were a dead give away of what the ending would be if you were paying attention. I don't know if that was her intention, but the ending went about the same route as I was expecting. This wouldn't work for all genres, or all books of this genre even. But done properly, this really could give a reader an incredibly immersive experience. Second favorite: The piano piece that Ashley supposedly played at 14. It just helped me picture it so much better. It helped me picture her. And it set the mood while I was reading that chapter.
All in all, it's a fun book. Lower the expectations and you'll be fine. It's snappy like [b:Gone Girl|8442457|Gone Girl|Gillian Flynn|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1339602131s/8442457.jpg|13306276] but not quite as fun. It has a great creepy vibe but doesn't really delve into horror. It doesn't read like a 700 page book. Truly.
3 stars for story
4 stars for the bonus features using the app
2 stars because Scott had to be one of the worst investigative journalists in the history of investigative journalism. Seriously, the man was a cardboard character with such glaring biases and prejudices, one wonders if his previously glowing career wasn't part of his hallucinations.
12/30/2013: I had to edit this because the grammar mistakes were driving me nuts. Also, I had to adjust a couple thoughts, so I added some spoilers and quotes for clarification.
12/29/2013: But before I go into my rant because I do have a few things to say about it all, I want to say this: Dear Ms. Pessl, despite what I write here and my issues with this particular story, I hope you continue to write novels because I will continue to read them. I think you have the potential to be an incredible story teller. It's all there now, you just need to build your characters better, particularly your men. But you have a gift that I would love to see flourish. If your next novel is even 50% better than this one, you've got yourself an ardent fan.
And now my rant:
1. The italics: What. The. Hell. is going on here? I can overlook most things. And truthfully, I didn't really notice them at first until a friend pointed it out. But once seen, it can't go unseen. And they are everywhere. Everywhere. In places where emphasis is not needed. Did I mention they were everywhere?
2. The similes. The metaphors. The analogies. All coming out of Scott like a cartoon character/pulp fiction detective. I expected Dick Tracy, Roger Rabbit, and Two Face to appear at any given moment. "Girls like her moved here by the truckload, hoping to be discovered and to meet Mr. Big but too often ended up in bars in Murray Hill wearing black dresses from Banana Republic." Get me a trench coat, a fedora, and a street lamp. And also, it gave away the author is not a native to NYC "a look Sue Ellen gave Miss Ellie throughout twelve seasons of Dallas". Yeah, I don't think this guy would be a big 80s night-time soap fan, or enough so to make that particular reference. Although it would explain his melodrama.
3. Scott. How in the world is any reader supposed to believe this man was a serious contender in the investigative journalism world, who could go toe-to-toe with hardened criminals, drug lords, and other dastardly foes of the underworld when he didn't even keep his files secure in his own home knowing he was followed? "Scott McGrath, a journalist who'd go to hell just to get Lucifer on record..." He prejudged (wrongly) Hopper and Nora based on their age and their outwardly appearances and then shocked by their moxy. "I doubted I'd see him again--or Hannah Montana, for that matter. When New York took over, both of them would fall by the wayside."/"These two kids clearly knew more than they let on." He prejudged all his witnesses until he needed to believe what they said was true because it fit the story he was constructing. "Maybe Kate Miller was right..."/"But I always thought Kate Miller's ID of Cordova was a little suspect...Now if the National Inquirer won't touch you because you're dirty, that means you're really filthy." (There is reserving judgment and there is cynicism and then there is just plain arrogance.) He went into every plan half-assed and then had the audacity to be surprised when everything went tits up. I was willing to suspend my disbelief on the whole devil's curse part of the story, but I can't get past his idiocy. Also, he probably would be in contention for a Darwin Award for worst father ever. A man who won't get a babysitter because his kid might be upset staying with a stranger but takes her to an underground club to meet with a potential insane man because said man was half burned alive. When the insane man appears to be staring at his daughter in a greedy, suspicious way, Scott doesn't leave, but rather sticks her in a corner and puts himself between her and the man so they can have a chat about the case, his back to her.
Spoiler
And shocker, she gets injured.4. Ripped off. I felt the whole movie slant was interesting at first but vaguely familiar. And then it occurred to me that one of them seemed like a Tarantino movie. And then she goes and mentions Pulp Fiction and Tarantino. And later she quotes Se7en. And Cordova is supposed to be like Hitchcock and Brando. So you get the feeling that there isn't anything particularly new being done here, but rather a mashup of better stories.
Overall, I just wanted more. I thought the ending was far too pat. For all the references to Thumbscrew and Brad, I expected there to be more of a parallel between it and Scott. And then when Beckman tells him he better "be the good guy" how could anyone not see how this was going to end? The ending to Thumbscrew left you wondering did Brad do it? But in Scott's ending, you know what he does. And it doesn't matter how it ends up, the mere fact that he found what was in "his suitcase" just felt like a giant cheat.
Spoiler
For me, it wasn't that you were left wondering if Cordova killed the kid, was Ashley dying or cursed or crazy, or did Scott hallucinate what happened at the Peak, was it fans who added stuff, or did he uncover truths. The fact Scott figured out the Chile residence and got to see "his" Cordova was like finding the shirt in Brad's suitcase. It doesn't matter if the shirt had fake blood on it or if it was real. It doesn't matter if it was planted by the fans. Now Brad is implicated in a way that can't be undone. Whereas the way Cordova left you in the film, it was a mystery that would be forever unsolved. And I like that some things just can't be resolved. I don't like being dragged further down the rabbit's hole when it's not necessary. I wanted it to end with Scott going to the old folks home and standing in the doorway seeing an old man and we are left wondering if everything Inez said was true? Or was it just to throw Scott off his trail? Will Scott accept this or will he continue his path to self destruction? That would have been killer.But here are the pros, because there were pros:
1. Marlowe. Best character of the whole book. I found her wonderful and perfect for this story. All the women in this story were really well done. The fortune teller lady. Olivia. Sam. Inez. Even Nora at times. Which makes me wish the protagonist would have been a girl. Maybe she wouldn't have written her so cheesy. Her men were all caricatures and stereotypes, which was unfortunate.
2. The storytelling. Despite my issues with the character development and Scott's entire being, Pessl works words well. I often found myself mesmerized by them. Bewitched, if you may. This lady knows how to sell creepy, how to set a tone. There were many times I was reminded of [b:2666|63032|2666|Roberto Bolaño|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1328038189s/63032.jpg|3294830], in that while you are reading you have that sense in the back of your mind you are going somewhere very dark and murky and not at all nice. But there is nothing explicitly written for you to point to. Her tone and setting is what I wanted [b:The Shadow of the Wind|1232|The Shadow of the Wind (The Cemetery of Forgotten Books, #1)|Carlos Ruiz Zafón|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344545047s/1232.jpg|3209783] to be. I want her to write that book. I might like it better.
3. The app. I know. Reading is purity. Blah blah blah. No. I think interactive reading should be the next great thing. Really. I loved all of it. It was exactly what I wanted from "hidden Easter eggs" in a book. Do you need them to enjoy the story? No. Can you read the book first and then go back and look, listen, and see the Easter eggs? Of course. But does it enhance the mood, tone, and overall experience to do it while you're reading? For me, a definitive yes. My favorite: the black rectangles in Chapters 93 & 94. I thought they were a dead give away of what the ending would be if you were paying attention. I don't know if that was her intention, but the ending went about the same route as I was expecting.
Spoiler
After further discussion with fellow readers, I think I am like a Cordovite and placing more meaning to it than there ever was. Because I wanted there to be secret meanings in it all. I think I may be a crazy conspiracy theorist who just hasn't found her theory yet because I love that kind of thing. Sigh. But I still like my interpretation, so there you go.All in all, it's a fun book. Lower the expectations and you'll be fine. It's snappy like [b:Gone Girl|8442457|Gone Girl|Gillian Flynn|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1339602131s/8442457.jpg|13306276] but not quite as fun. It has a great creepy vibe but doesn't really delve into horror. It doesn't read like a 700 page book. Truly.
Well I knew from about 70% of the way through that this was going to have an ambiguous ending and I was very right. I don't yet know how to feel about the ending, but the method, the getting there, it was something thrilling and deep and complicated and magical. I was so freaking confused 90% of the time, but it was a good confused. And I loved the mixed media style of the book. I enjoyed being able to experience the clues more directly, rather than distantly through the main character. If you enjoy thrillers, especially those with ambiguous, thoughtful endings, you will like this one! Well, maybe "like" is the wrong word.
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Rape, Sexual assault, Suicide, Murder, Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Alcohol
Minor: Terminal illness, Transphobia, Trafficking
Very disappointing. I was so excited to start this book and for the first 100 pages or so, I was very disturbed (in a good, "I cannot put this book down" kind of way) and was so intrigued where this story would go. It had the potential to be outstanding which was the only reason I gave it 2 stars; it probably just deserves 1. The main character became completely unbelievable and annoying. His behavior was not what I think of when I think "hard hitting investigative journalist". And then it just got boring and tedious. When it FINALLY ended, I was okay with the ending. By ending, I mean the last page or two, not the events leading to the ending (drawn out, boring). The graphics were great and contributed well to the story. I'm about 100% sure the author is a 19 year old coat check girl.
I really enjoyed Special Topics in Calamity Physics but this book was remote, tedious, and filled with many, many more similes and metaphors than necessary, like an Easter basket overfilled with melting chocolate candies, old jelly beans, and oily Junior Mints. The author employed the extremely grating tactic of inexplicably italicizing particular words or phrases for no discernible reason. I felt no connection to the characters, who had vastly different backgrounds, yet all spoke with identical speech patterns and traits. They were not likable and there was absolutely no one for whom to root. What was quirky in the much shorter Calamity was irritating in this book, and the only reason I finished the book was because of that human foible of needing to follow bad investments with more bad investments; I had already read too many pages to turn back.
I do not recommend that you waste your time with this book.
I do not recommend that you waste your time with this book.
Looking at the reviews on Goodreads I feel like the only one that didn't love this book. It started out well...the author did a great job ratcheting up the creepy factor early on. Plus I really liked how McGrath's research, websites, etc were included. It made the story seem more real and definitely even more frightening. There were a few issues, like I didn't find it believable that Scott would just give in and let these two inexperienced kids join his "research team." However I let it slide and kept reading.
Then the book slowly slipped into "oh em gee. Is this ever going to end?" By the end I'd heard the same story told a couple of times and in some detail. The creepiness had disappeared and the articles/research incorporated in the beginning had almost disappeared. Oh , then there's the fact that the book is 200 pages too long.
I wanted to love this because so many people that I usually agree with loved it, but it just didn't work for me.
Then the book slowly slipped into "oh em gee. Is this ever going to end?" By the end I'd heard the same story told a couple of times and in some detail. The creepiness had disappeared and the articles/research incorporated in the beginning had almost disappeared. Oh , then there's the fact that the book is 200 pages too long.
I wanted to love this because so many people that I usually agree with loved it, but it just didn't work for me.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Mental illness, Suicide, Toxic relationship
So I really, really enjoyed this book! The supernatural elements mixed in was super cool. I liked the first half of the book way more than the second. It started to feel a bit dragged out towards the end and after such a whirlwind of an investigation the conclusion seemed kind of bland.
I went back and forth on the rating for this book. Three stars seemed too high, but two seemed to low. So let's call it two and a half.
I loved the concept of this book (a reporter investigates the work and world of a mysterious cult filmmaker after the director's daughter commits suicide) but the actual novel didn't deliver. Dialogue was hamfisted, characters behaved in bizarre ways, and the mystery itself leads pretty much nowhere as the final chapters present several different answers (none of which are entirely satisfying) without even hinting which could be the true one. What was probably an attempt to let the reader decide for themselves feels more like an author who just didn't know the end of their own book.
So why the reluctance to give it two stars? Because the world Pessl creates is fascinating, even if the characters that populate it aren't believable. We get just enough information about the body of work of the mysterious director Stanislas Cordova to make it feel real. In fact, I'd have been much happier if Night Film had been a fake scholarly text about Cordova's career (along with all of the rumours about his possible links to the supernatural) instead of a disappointing thriller using that world as its backdrop.
I loved the concept of this book (a reporter investigates the work and world of a mysterious cult filmmaker after the director's daughter commits suicide) but the actual novel didn't deliver. Dialogue was hamfisted, characters behaved in bizarre ways, and the mystery itself leads pretty much nowhere as the final chapters present several different answers (none of which are entirely satisfying) without even hinting which could be the true one. What was probably an attempt to let the reader decide for themselves feels more like an author who just didn't know the end of their own book.
So why the reluctance to give it two stars? Because the world Pessl creates is fascinating, even if the characters that populate it aren't believable. We get just enough information about the body of work of the mysterious director Stanislas Cordova to make it feel real. In fact, I'd have been much happier if Night Film had been a fake scholarly text about Cordova's career (along with all of the rumours about his possible links to the supernatural) instead of a disappointing thriller using that world as its backdrop.
