Rating: 
Summary: LAZY WRITING
Review: After a promising start, this book was pretty disappointing. I think he made it up as he went along. The only surprises or so-called twists are a few highly unlikely coincidences he needed to drive the story forward. No apparent effort to give depth to the characters or layers to the plot. He should stick to movies.
Rating: 
Summary: I WANT MORE BRICE
Review: Easily the most exciting character I've stumbled upon in years! In a book full of wild characters moving through an insanely funny story, Brice reigns supreme. Please, Please, Please, can we see Brice again? Soon!
Rating: 
Summary: Could have (Should Have) Been the Greatest Mystery Ever
Review: Everyday some new piece of crime fiction comes out that's almost indistinguishable from novels already sitting on bookstore shelves. It seems like a lot of the time, mysteries and suspense are written for the lowest common denominator - easy language, a plot that's just engaging enough to keep a reader moving, a few stereotypical characters that readers feel comfortable with, etc. Ridley's Everybody Smokes In Hell, however, provides a refreshing voice in crime fiction.The plot isn't much to write home about. Down and out youth in L.A. stumbles into a bad situation and finds himself on the run from all kinds of nasty folks. The way this plot is executed is amazing. The characters Ridley comes up with are unique and colorful, each with unique motivations subtly sketched by the author. Dialogue is fresh and crisp, presented the way people talk, not just an author's bland translation. Action is quick and descriptions show no restraint. Often funny, sometimes heartbreaking, the story is an exceptional one. Fiction's lucky to have an author like Ridley. It's a reminder that there's more than cookie-cutter mysteries out there.
Rating:
Summary: Everybody Smokes In Hell - John Ridley
Review: Everyday some new piece of crime fiction comes out that's almost indistinguishable from novels already sitting on bookstore shelves. It seems like a lot of the time, mysteries and suspense are written for the lowest common denominator - easy language, a plot that's just engaging enough to keep a reader moving, a few stereotypical characters that readers feel comfortable with, etc. Ridley's Everybody Smokes In Hell, however, provides a refreshing voice in crime fiction. The plot isn't much to write home about. Down and out youth in L.A. stumbles into a bad situation and finds himself on the run from all kinds of nasty folks. The way this plot is executed is amazing. The characters Ridley comes up with are unique and colorful, each with unique motivations subtly sketched by the author. Dialogue is fresh and crisp, presented the way people talk, not just an author's bland translation. Action is quick and descriptions show no restraint. Often funny, sometimes heartbreaking, the story is an exceptional one. Fiction's lucky to have an author like Ridley. It's a reminder that there's more than cookie-cutter mysteries out there.
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: Fails in its attempt to be hip. Succeeds at being boring and badly written.
Rating: 
Summary: Uneven
Review: Fast-paced, humorous, pleasantly nasty, brilliantly plotted, yet unconvincing. The characters seemed contrived and unevenly developed. One character near the end of the book, a female casino worker in Las Vegas, seemed to appear out of nowhere; I was never sure who she was or what she was doing in the book. I found myself skimming some sections of interior monologue/exposition. The street language seemed overdone. Overall, the book could have used some more editing, but I don't want to give the wrong impression with all this. The plotting was absolutely brilliant and I would recommend the book to anyone who likes black humor with their red meat crime fiction.
Rating:
Summary: A Contender
Review: Gave Ridley another chance after "Stray Dogs" which was an interesting 'treatment' not a novel. It served it's purpose. U-Turn is a tour de force. "Everybody Smokes in Hell" is a novel. If James Ellroy had a sense of humor and forgot about his mother for a couple of hundred pages, he just might be able to write a book like this. Ridley wants to be a noir writer and he has succeeded. Los Angeles seems to affect people with an inordinate amount of hostility. I'm certainly glad that Ridley's is on paper and not with a gun.
Rating:
Summary: Packs a punch but still goes down as noir "lite."
Review: Given its L.A. setting and overall nastiness, Ridley's latest will surely garner the usual comparisons to Chandler, Ellroy, et al. Unfortunately, such accolades, disbursed as indiscriminately as they are, only serve to "dumb down" the perception that uninitiated readers will have concerning the masters. Sure, ESIH is a fast, compelling read with a few moments of high-tension violence and some clever plotting. It has no moral weight or depth however, and ultimately, nothing to say. Spade, Marlowe and Archer may have been world-weary, cynical and even "unlucky in love," but they weren't simply losers on an inevitable glide path to self-destruction as portrayed by Ridley. A specific problem here is that in spite of the author's attempt to set up the "I-know-Los Angeles-and-Boy-Is-It-Hell-And-More-Specifically-Hollywood-Is-A-Real-Killer, etc. etc." routine, the reader can never escape the sense that the whole thing is another (particularly well-done) screenplay. I don't consider myself a movie/video fanatic by any stretch, but I dare anyone to say that the Hollywood A-Listers don't leap off the pages here. Come on, John, the blond assassin, that's Cameron Diaz in a butch haircut, right? Will Smith as Paris and how about smarmy Bronson Pinchot as snivelling Chad Bayless (with a brief, ominous cameo turn by Kevin Spacey as his silent but scary boss) and oh-yes, the perfectly cliched Samuel L. Jackson as Daymond, spewing his cold-blooded demands that people start "getting dead." Save the Chandler comparisons, but maybe give it a David Goodis for a brief glimpse at compelling losers.
Rating:
Summary: Strong starter, but uneven finish
Review: Has there been a filmmaker who has been more imitated in the last decade than Quentin Tarantino? His use of language, his gift for plotting, and his knack for memorable characters (in the movies PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS and JACKIE BROWN) have inspired more bad movies and novels since George Lucas unleashed STAR WARS on the world. Now, I am not trying to knock the credible talent that John Ridley has. And perhaps it's unfair to complain of imitation. After all, it is a form of flattery. Tarantino himself admits the variety of sources and inspirations for his movies, including the novels of Elmore Leonard and Jim Thompson. But that said, EVERYBODY SMOKES IN HELL is a novel that cries out for Tarantino to adapt it for the screen. It is a movie of desperate people doing desperate things, of thugs and molls, gangsters and hitmen, and generally unpleasant people. In fact, Tarantino might not attempt an adaptation purely for the reason that it is too similar to his earlier works (I found the tone and plot of EVERYBODY SMOKES to be remarkably similar to Tarantino's script for TRUE ROMANCE). The plot is thus: Paris Scott, a convenience store clerk in L.A., happens across the only recorded copy of a recently deceased rock star's magnum opus (shades of Kurt Cobain?). He decides to cash in on this windfall, but due to a bizarre set of coincidences, combined with his own ineptitude, finds himself running away to Vegas, with a pile of corpses in his wake. This is a well-written piece of modern pulp. Ridley has created some memorable characters, each of whom is given just enough of a history for the reader to empathize with their plights. And, truth be told, in the space of three pages, Ridley creates the most grotesquely funny suicide scene I can remember reading. While some may deride the cinematic feel to the presentation (short chapters, quick cuts between scenes, vivid use of imagery), it works to the narrative's strength. Ridley presents us with characters raised on exactly the type of pop culture EVERYBODY SMOKES is itself a part of. Why shouldn't the writing style have the same goal? But EVERYBODY SMOKES, as enjoyable as it is, can't hold its head up all the way to the end. There are too many intertwining threads to be wrapped up in a neat little package. The ending feels rushed, and while it may work on the movie screen, a novel is supposed to be capable of more depth than is on view here. The final outcome is, if not disappointing, than disjointed. I don't mean to imply that happy endings are better. But EVERYBODY SMOKES, after setting up Paris so well, gives the reader a resolution that feels unsatisfying, incomplete. There is the introduction of several new characters towards the end that seem to exist for no useful purpose. And Paris' actions at the end are completely at odds with what happened before, and not believeable after all we've been told. EVERYBODY SMOKES IN HELL is definitely worth reading. It holds your attention from the first page to the last. It is often so good, you wish it were better as a whole.
Rating:
Summary: Strong starter, but uneven finish
Review: Has there been a filmmaker who has been more imitated in the last decade than Quentin Tarantino? His use of language, his gift for plotting, and his knack for memorable characters (in the movies PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS and JACKIE BROWN) have inspired more bad movies and novels since George Lucas unleashed STAR WARS on the world. Now, I am not trying to knock the credible talent that John Ridley has. And perhaps it's unfair to complain of imitation. After all, it is a form of flattery. Tarantino himself admits the variety of sources and inspirations for his movies, including the novels of Elmore Leonard and Jim Thompson. But that said, EVERYBODY SMOKES IN HELL is a novel that cries out for Tarantino to adapt it for the screen. It is a movie of desperate people doing desperate things, of thugs and molls, gangsters and hitmen, and generally unpleasant people. In fact, Tarantino might not attempt an adaptation purely for the reason that it is too similar to his earlier works (I found the tone and plot of EVERYBODY SMOKES to be remarkably similar to Tarantino's script for TRUE ROMANCE). The plot is thus: Paris Scott, a convenience store clerk in L.A., happens across the only recorded copy of a recently deceased rock star's magnum opus (shades of Kurt Cobain?). He decides to cash in on this windfall, but due to a bizarre set of coincidences, combined with his own ineptitude, finds himself running away to Vegas, with a pile of corpses in his wake. This is a well-written piece of modern pulp. Ridley has created some memorable characters, each of whom is given just enough of a history for the reader to empathize with their plights. And, truth be told, in the space of three pages, Ridley creates the most grotesquely funny suicide scene I can remember reading. While some may deride the cinematic feel to the presentation (short chapters, quick cuts between scenes, vivid use of imagery), it works to the narrative's strength. Ridley presents us with characters raised on exactly the type of pop culture EVERYBODY SMOKES is itself a part of. Why shouldn't the writing style have the same goal? But EVERYBODY SMOKES, as enjoyable as it is, can't hold its head up all the way to the end. There are too many intertwining threads to be wrapped up in a neat little package. The ending feels rushed, and while it may work on the movie screen, a novel is supposed to be capable of more depth than is on view here. The final outcome is, if not disappointing, than disjointed. I don't mean to imply that happy endings are better. But EVERYBODY SMOKES, after setting up Paris so well, gives the reader a resolution that feels unsatisfying, incomplete. There is the introduction of several new characters towards the end that seem to exist for no useful purpose. And Paris' actions at the end are completely at odds with what happened before, and not believeable after all we've been told. EVERYBODY SMOKES IN HELL is definitely worth reading. It holds your attention from the first page to the last. It is often so good, you wish it were better as a whole.
|
