Skip to main content

FUNNY GIRL by Nick Hornby

Funny Girl is the latest novel from Nick Hornby, released originally in 2014.  It pains me to say, but I had to put a Nick Hornby book down before I finished it.  I know.  Tragic.  I only read a third of the book, so it’s only fair to write a third of a review.

Funny Girl takes place in the mid-60s and follows Barbara, a young girl from Blackpool, England.  She is apparently a babe, having won the local beauty contest.  However, she resigns from being the beauty queen (champion?) as it would mean staying in Blackpool for another year, shaking hands and kissing babies.  No, she has bigger dreams of becoming a TV star, like her idol Lucille Ball.  Her first step is to move to London where she lands a job at a department store.  It’s here where she schmoozes and networks with married men who take her on dates and who are also intertwined with the entertainment industry.  It’s not long before she lands auditions and in one case, she scores the lead in a new BBC comedy series.  The show picks up acclaim for pushing the envelope (for its time) despite mild disapproval from the BBC.

I wish I could tell you more, but I stopped shortly afterwards.

I was disappointed.  I really didn’t want to put it down, but I had to.  I was hoping I would be hooked or gripped by something by the time I reached a third of the way, but it never came.  Neither the plot nor the characters were interesting.  Part of me felt like Hornby wrote this book to reflect some of the things he witnessed now that he’s working more directly in Hollywood, producing scripts.

Either way, I’ve read other Hornby books that were of less acclaim but that I still managed to enjoy.  He’s my favourite author after all.  So it sucks that I couldn’t get into it, but perhaps it’s not fair to expect every release to knock it out of the park.  But you know, there is tha-…



And that concludes the third of the review.  Later geeks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dreamers, Achievers, Believers

It was quite a week last week. It started off on a more heavy note last Sunday, but as the week wore on, things became better and more clear. So let's do a little recap. This is going to be kind of long, so if you find this kind of stuff boring I've inserted pictures of funny cats for your entertainment. So... 1.5 Weeks Ago About 1.5 weeks ago, my friend Jon from Living Room gave me the contact info for his uncle. His uncle is an engineer and apparently was looking for new grads and new hands to hire. That week, I gave him a few calls but he wasn't there when I called him and when he returned my calls, I wasn't here either. We were playing phone tag that week *insert schoolgirl giggle*. Sunday Morning So last Sunday morning, his uncle gave me a call at 9 am (The morning! My weakness! HISS!) and we talked about stuff. I was telling him a bit about school as well as elaborating my work/coop experience as he didn't have my resume yet. So he goes on to tell

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here ). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have. In The Science of God , Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible. The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will. In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genes

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong? Pacing. If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game? Max Payne is