At 06:03 PM 13/03/2007, Mark wrote:
>I'm with you Mario. I read Mystic River after having
greatly enjoyed
>his series books. Not to say it can't be done well,
but I'm immediately
>skeptical of any book that starts with a prologue set
decades earlier.
>So I was quickly on my guard. Still, I was surprised
how quickly it
>read. I enjoyed it well enough while I was reading
it, but as it
>settled in, things started nagging at me. The
whodunnit was not that
>surprising, with some of the red herrings depending
upon highly
>contrived coincidences. As many specific details as
the characters were
>given, they remained far more "types" than
individuals. And some of the
>gimmicks (like the runaway wife's hang-up calls) were
gratutitous and
>annoying. I haven't read another by Lehane since.
Still, it was a lot
>better than the movie, which stripped it to its
contrivances and cliches
>and (unlike most Eastwood-directed movies) allowed
its stars to chew the
>scenery, especially Award winner Sean Penn -- Bill
Murray got robbed
>that year.
Yeah, but the question wasn't did you like it, but did it
successfully innovate on the noir form. Not that the two are
entirely unrelated, but still...
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Mar 2007 EDT