Well, I never knew this was a book! Its only a short read, however it's still very enjoyable. The content is the same as the movie, which in turn leads me to believe the book was written from the movie script.Something I liked about this book in comparison to the movie is that you can easily see how the characters feel. Unlike other books, this author portrays feelings through other characters opinions and assumptions. For example, Riddick is a very closed person. He doesn't show his feelings and speaks little. However, we can assume how he may be feeling through his long-time friend Kyra. She sees him thinking through a hard situation and she assumes that under his dark glasses that his eyes are concerned for the welfare of the other escapees. She sometimes imagines that he smirks but doesn't quite know if she's seen it or not. I like this type of writing because it keeps you guessing. It gives you an inkling about how Riddick may feel but it also keeps the mystery about the character.I found this book a lot more informative about Riddick's past than the movie (perhaps because it's spelt out!), example. Riddick has some flashes, imagines, almost like movie snippets when he's in trouble. It's assumed that this is his home world and he's repeatedly referred to as a Furian. You see, when I watched the movie I must have missed this part, and it certainly wasn't repeated. I knew Riddick was different, but I didn't know what he was. The book tells you what he is and the typical traits of his species and sometimes why (e.g. being able to handle more heat that other types of human).I'm glad I read this book because although it didn't tell us why Riddick was on the run in the first place, or about his past, it gave us an inkling about his early life and where he's from. A bit of the mystery has been solved.This book is easy reading and you can easily finish it in a day or two. I'd recommend it over the movie as the description of fights and combat are quite amazing. The way the author writes really sucks you in.I only gave this book three stars because it felt like something was missing that I couldn't quite put my finger on. I couldn't even begin to tell you what it was, but something was definitely missing for me. As a book I'd rate it an average read. It's not amazing (though it did impress me), and it's worth a read if you're interested in a story like Riddick's. It's one of those books that you'd pick up to pass the time more than anything else, unlike one that you pick up because you can't wait to start it or see what happens.Either way, if you decide to read, it please do enjoy!If you would like to read more of my reviews, please visit: http://a-novel-start.blogspot.com
The Director's Cut of "Chronicles of Riddick" (the movie) is a stark contrast to the theatrical release; the DC could arguably be one of the best scifi pieces done to date. Having seen there was a novel adaptation, I grabbed it right away.I seem to recall reading work by Alan Dean Foster before and not finding it bad.God in HEAVEN this book is hacky and awful. It does to the screenplay what the theatrical version did: it over-explains obvious items (to the point of talking down to you as the viewer) and then leaves other important information deliberately obscure if not outright omitted.Allow me to quote a choice passage:"There was nothing more he could do. He knew Riddick well enough to know that even had that been able to restrain him, they would not have been able to compel him to do anything he himself did not want to do. Easier to move a mountain. That was only a matter of physics. There was no equation to explain Riddick.It was a beautiful, clear night. Clear as noontime to Riddick, who shunned the daylight. A quick check behind him showed that no one was following him. Imam knew better, he assumed. Not that the delegate or his clerical friends could have stayed on Riddick's track for more than a few meters had they tried to follow him. The big man moved too fast, too silently. He could not disappear in a blur like an Elemental--but it would seem to others that he could come close." Some quick facts about the above:-Bear in mind this is only about the tenth time we've been told about Riddick's SPECIAL EYES THAT DO NOT ENJOY FULLY BRIGHT LIGHT.-Riddick moves too fast for some reason. Too silently as well, he actually takes away noise rather than creates it.-I mean, read it. God damn it.I would have actually been able to forgive some pretty bad flaws because I'm so in love with the fluff and worldlore of Riddick, but this book actually ANGERED me and is a patent example of how you can butcher anything with a poor enough talent.Thank you, Alan Dean Foster. Thank you for taking an incredible intellectual property and wiping your behind with it.
Do You like book The Chronicles Of Riddick (2007)?
Oh. Wow. Is there a literary version of the Razzie Awards, because the winner for 2007 must have been this stinker. This book (which seems to be the same as the director's cut of the movie) reads as an un-edited YA novel. Choppy sentences; the one-liner dialogue that only works in a movie format; action sequences killed by ill-timed exposition; and an assumption that one has a photographic memory of the movie to keep track of the characters and/or actions that are not described. I also disliked the characterisation of Lord Vaako as a hen-pecked himbo, but I suppose that's because I'd rather see him with Riddick than Dame Vaako and Riddick would need a stronger personality in a mate than we see in this book. Mmmm... Riddick/Vaako slash.... now there's an entire section of the internet I wish I could rate on GoodReads (http://archiveofourown.org/tags/Chron...). (cough) distracted mysef for a miute there...The only real value the book has (and the reason I bothered giving it this 1 star rating) is in the brief history of the Necromonger Lord Marshalls tacked on as an afterword. This is not the Alan Dean Foster I remember.
—PointyEars42
When I pick up a book based on a movie, rather than watch a movie based on a book, I expect the book to still offer a little something more than the movie. Normally this means extra background and insights into characters, possibly what the characters are thinking etc that help add to the overall story and make it different and often better than the movie. Well, in this case, watch the movie and skip the book. There is nothing in the book other than a small tacked on section at the end that is different from the movie. Worse, the book lacks all the imagery and costumes that add so much visual appeal to the movie. The book does not even try very hard to provide this imagery. Overall, very disappointed that more was not offered. A faithful render of the screen play and nothing more.
—Jeff
Riddick is an archetypal character, the quintessential anti-hero, a cunning survivor who is so good at surviving that he could almost be thought of as a force of nature himself. That was the point of the movie that this novel was based on. Here is a monster to fight off the other monsters, not because he cares but because fighting for mates and meat is what monsters do.The author who wrote this novelization does seem to have some awareness of all this. He wants desperately to convince the reader that this is a gritty universe and Riddick is the grittiest. He needs me to see the monsters as monsters and everyone else as scared cattle (or maybe less potent monsters). He needs me to feel the cold gray of that universe and the painful futility of living in it. And all of that swirling want and need on the part of the author is exactly the problem with this book. The tone of the book is so overpowering that it almost feels violent to me as a I read. There is no room for my observation or my opinion. There is only the very specific mood that the author wants me to experience, and his storytelling squeezes me uncomfortably into that box. It is just too forceful. The spice is too strong.If the universe and the story were more interesting it may be worth it to slog through. But stories that are so archetypal are not known to be nuanced. Like superhero blockbuster movies these kind of stories move with simple broad strokes, and this is just as true with Riddick as with any of these stories. That is not in itself a bad thing, but the storytelling needs to be as uncomplicated and weightless as the story it is conveying or the whole thing becomes a boring mess.Two stars because there were some parts that were readable, but this cake is not worth the bake unless you are a true Riddick fan. Just go watch the director's cut of the movie instead.
—Gregory K.
