Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Revived in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I must be the sad opposite corner of book club. NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE LOVED REVIVED AND I DIDN'T.
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
8.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
The film opens by revealing that a cemetery in rural Texas has been vandalized; several gravesites...
horror
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Beautiful animation and good character design (2 more)
Voice acting/voice actors
Pretty good setup or start of story going into the movie
$29.99 on top of a Disney plus subscription (2 more)
More often than not pretty predictable and not enough surprises
Not enough stakes or characters never really felt like they were ever in danger to me
Raya, A Really Good Movie That Could Have Been Great
This movie was really good. I really liked it, from the character design to the excellent voice-actors and the setup of the story going into it in the beginning, it really had a lot going for it. This movie had a pretty good all-star cast of Asian voice actors and really liked Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina's performances. Awkwafina was really funny to me and her voice fit naturally for her character Sisu. The character designs were interesting to me and I liked the way they differed for the different tribes. I heard a lot of people were giving comparisons to Avatar: The Last Airbender and I can see why people would say that but for me there really isn't that much of a comparison. Avatar is by far a way better show but it also has a lot more episodes to be a better show and tell a better story. I feel this movie wasn't able to live up to the hype and the Disney standard in the long run but that doesn't stop it from trying. I just think that a lot of it is predictable and nothing really surprising, also as likable as the characters were, there wasn't a lot of character development outside of the main character and nothing to really make you feel enough for the other characters to make them really, really matter to the viewer/audience. The beginning like I said was a decent setup of the legend of how the people had the dragons protecting them from these evil spirits and how the last dragons used their power to save everyone. That was a pretty cool concept and I definitely like the way it lead into the introduction of the different tribal lands and tribes which exist in the present. The training scene with Chief Benja and Raya reminded me of something, from another movie but it was pretty cool. There are also some pretty funny and cool characters you meet later like the charismatic young boy Boun, the hilarious little baby Noi and let's not forget the adorable Tuk-Tuk, Raya's best friend. There's a lot more that I want to go over but I'll save it for the spoiler section because I don't want to ruin this movie for those who still want to see it. This movie doesn't get my must-see seal of approval but it did come close. Main reason is the additional $29.99 price tag on top of Disney plus subscription required for most people to see it at home. If you can see it without having to pay that price then I would say it's definitely worth checking out and if you're going to see it in theaters then it's worth taking the family too. But if your short on cash I'd say wait for this one to be free on Disney plus around June 4th. The rating I give for this movie is going to be a 7/10. It was really good but not great but I enjoyed it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
I thought this movie was really good but it definitely had a lot of flaws. One of those wasn't the character designs or animation which were looked awesome. Also the voice actors were really good and Awkwafina's performance really surprised me but was understandably one of the better performance's and reminded me of such great comedians who have leant their voices for roles like Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin and Eddie Murphy as Mushu in Mulan and Donkey in Shrek. I mentioned in the first part of the review that the opening story of the legend of how the dragons saved everyone was a really cool concept I thought worked well into introducing the different tribes and then the main characters. That opening scene of Raya breaking into the orb chamber and training with her father reminded me of a scene from another movie. Not sure if it was Pacific Rim: Uprising where John Boyega's character Jake is stealing something from one of the giant robots or a scene from Indiana Jones but it felt very familiar. Which brings me to another big thing that I didn't like about this movie, which is that most if not all the movie was pretty predictable for me. Which doesn't necessary make it a bad thing or a bad movie but takes some of the fun out of it. One of the things that I didn't predict was how after making friends with Namaari in the beginning of the movie that she would totally backstab Raya the way she did. That was such a gripping and tense moment where Chief Benja had to come to Raya's rescue as the Fang tribe moves in to steal the orb. I really liked the part where he can see in the reflection of his sword that Raya was ready to continue fighting alongside him against all the enemies even when the other tribes came to steal the orb for themselves as well. The character designs and animation were really awesome too. I liked Raya's costume and how she transitioned from what she wore as a child to the time skip as well as the different attire that the different tribes had. I liked how they all were quite different beside just their clothes too, like how Raya's tribe was the Heart and they wore green and blue but their home was the most full of life, with plants and water, the Fang looked more like a city but like a capital militaristic feel to it, with much being about law and order or rule. The spine was more in the colder region and had big people wearing multiple layer clothing for warmth and Tail which little is known about even though it was the first one we're shown because it has been wiped out by the Druun and it is supposed to be a mainly dried up desert region and have small pockets of villages. The last one, Talon was probably one of the most colorful ones and smart in how they dealt with the Druun as well. They built their houses on stilts right on the water and had a huge marketplace where it seemed like a festival or party was going on because there was so many people going on as if there wasn't any danger. Another thing I liked about the movie was how Raya didn't have to have powers and she didn't have to be the rescued princess but instead was a strong capable person on her own. I also liked how it seemed the more the movie went on, she kept adding people to her group/crew on her journey. Kind of like Magnificent Seven. One thing I didn't like was that it never really felt like their were enough stakes along the way. Characters kept making mistakes but nothing bad really happened or mattered for long enough to impact the characters in a bad way. The part that got me the most was in the very beginning scene where the tribes try to steal the orb and it falls and breaks and Chief Benja gets shot by an arrow in the leg and tries his hardest to save Raya from the Druun as they come back and start devouring everyone turning them to stone. I heard a lot of people say that he didn't need to sacrifice himself and throw Raya into the river to save her if he just kept running; and that he probably could have hopped more on the other leg. If you think about it though he probably made it pretty far even though he had that injury and couldn't go on any further. I admit that this part got me a little emotional but for many people that knew it was a Disney movie and not Pixar figured that it didn't mean everyone would stay as stone. I however thought back to the beginning of the film and remember that even the dragons stayed as stone meaning it was possible that these people might never turn back to normal. The other part that got me was also a part I had a hard time with was when Namaari first sees Sisu and then her actions later after she tells her mother. I felt that Sisu should have told her something or vice-versa but I guess she stayed in shock. Also when she told her mother and the mother already knew I really felt like her Mother was the bad guy of the film but when Raya gives Namaari her pendant back and sets up a meeting with her, I really felt like I knew what would happen next. Namaari's mother, Virana would have a bunch of guards show up and it would be a setup and Namaari wouldn't have known about it and it would be a time for her character to redeem herself. Instead Namaari pulls out a crossbow when she sees Raya has all the pieces of the orb and while Sisu tries to talk her down Raya takes a chance to attack Namaari and Sisu gets struck with an arrow and falls into the river to die. I could totally see this happening but what I couldn't predict was that Namaari would blame it all on Raya and say it was all her fault and none of this would of happened if it wasn't for her. This was like the stupidest line in the movie and made no sense to me because Namaari was the one when she was a girl who backstabbed Raya and betrayed her as soon as she found out the location of the orb. So the scene where Raya is super pissed and trying to kill her was very gratifying to me because it made a lot of sense that Raya was mad and didn't care about anything but revenge in that part. Namaari tells her that she's lost everything already and doesn't care, and Raya decides to help her friends with her orb piece. As the pieces start losing power and they are becoming surrounded by the Druun, what doesn't make sense to me is how Raya chooses to put her faith in Namaari and let's herself become consumed by the Druun. Her friends decide to follow her example and do the same and eventually when Namaari is the only one she's able to put the pieces of the orb back together vanquishing the Druun and bringing everyone back to life including Sisu and all the dragons. I don't know to me it just seemed like Namaari was pretty irredeemable after all that she had done and didn't seem like it was a sure thing and this kind of bothered me. It seemed like the movie had a message about wanting to be able to trust people but showed more and more how sometimes you can't so had me pretty mixed about what the movie was really about. Anyways I think I went off a little too long for this review but it's because it was a fun watch for me. So like I said, I give this movie a 7/10 and say it's a really good movie.
https://youtu.be/3So_GFox4-A
