Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
You had me at Nicolas Cage.
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Really Great Video Game Movie
Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is a 2019 video game film adaptation directed by Rob Letterman with screenplay written by Letterman, Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit and Derek Connolly from a story by Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman. The movie is produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures and The Pokemon Company, in association with Toho Co., Ltd. It's based on the Pokemon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and the 2016 video game Detective Pikachu. The movie stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Ken Watanabe, and Bill Nighy.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Father (2020) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
1st half is GREAT! The 2nd half? Not so much...
THE FATHER is one of those types of films that, generally, I would not seek out - except at Oscar time. A small, “drawing room” type of drama, based on a stage play and starring a couple of Oscar winning performers at it’s core.
And that is enough to make this film very entertaining and interesting…but, unfortunately…this piece of entertainment falls flat at the end, so one will have to be contented to watching a decent drawing room drama (based on a Stage play) starring 2 strong Oscar winning actors at it’s core.
Written and Directed by Florian Zeller, THE FATHER tells the tale of a…well…FATHER, who is aging and mentally deteriorating. His daughter is trying to aide him and bring him comfort, but his befuddled mind begins to see things (conspiracies) that are not there…or are they?
Zeller wrote the lead role, specifically for Anthony Hopkins and it is a very good thing that Hopkins agree to this role for he is in EVERY scene and commands this picture as only a performer of Hopkins stature and abilities can. Hopkins is, rightfully, nominated for this performance and could pull the upset (but I highly doubt it).
Strongly supporting him - in an Oscar nominated turn herself - as Olivia Colman as his daughter. She has the much less flashy - but no less important - role in this drama and Hopkins would not be as good as he is without her to play against.
Zeller (who was nominated for an Oscar for his Screenplay adaptation of his Stage Play) was smart to cast a strong ensemble of British Stage Actors for this film - Mark Gattis, Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell and Imogen Poots are all strong, interesting people to watch on screen and they help bring an air of seriousness and gravitas to the proceedings.
The first half of this film is extremely fascinating to watch and I was intrigued by the premise, the direction, the script and the direction it seemed to be headed. But…unfortunately (at least for me) the 2nd half of the film (and I would imagine, the Stage Play) never, really capitalizes on the promise of the first half and THE FATHER just sorts of peters out in the end.
Which, I guess, you could say for the poor souls who suffer from dementia, but I don’t think that was the point that Zeller was trying to make.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that I really, really liked the first half)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is enough to make this film very entertaining and interesting…but, unfortunately…this piece of entertainment falls flat at the end, so one will have to be contented to watching a decent drawing room drama (based on a Stage play) starring 2 strong Oscar winning actors at it’s core.
Written and Directed by Florian Zeller, THE FATHER tells the tale of a…well…FATHER, who is aging and mentally deteriorating. His daughter is trying to aide him and bring him comfort, but his befuddled mind begins to see things (conspiracies) that are not there…or are they?
Zeller wrote the lead role, specifically for Anthony Hopkins and it is a very good thing that Hopkins agree to this role for he is in EVERY scene and commands this picture as only a performer of Hopkins stature and abilities can. Hopkins is, rightfully, nominated for this performance and could pull the upset (but I highly doubt it).
Strongly supporting him - in an Oscar nominated turn herself - as Olivia Colman as his daughter. She has the much less flashy - but no less important - role in this drama and Hopkins would not be as good as he is without her to play against.
Zeller (who was nominated for an Oscar for his Screenplay adaptation of his Stage Play) was smart to cast a strong ensemble of British Stage Actors for this film - Mark Gattis, Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell and Imogen Poots are all strong, interesting people to watch on screen and they help bring an air of seriousness and gravitas to the proceedings.
The first half of this film is extremely fascinating to watch and I was intrigued by the premise, the direction, the script and the direction it seemed to be headed. But…unfortunately (at least for me) the 2nd half of the film (and I would imagine, the Stage Play) never, really capitalizes on the promise of the first half and THE FATHER just sorts of peters out in the end.
Which, I guess, you could say for the poor souls who suffer from dementia, but I don’t think that was the point that Zeller was trying to make.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that I really, really liked the first half)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BBC Drama
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Girl with All the Gifts in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I went to see the film adaptation of this on Saturday, and I have to say I was pretty impressed with it! Obviously the book is a whole lot better, but I think they did a pretty good job of transferring the book to screen. The characters felt a bit different to how they came across in the novel, <spoiler> Caldwell was nowhere near as evil and we didn't get to know Parks enough for his death to be that traumatising like it was in the novel</spoiler>, but I'd say it's one of the better book-to-film movies!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series <i>Our Zoo</i> on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called <i>Our Zoo</i>, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While <i>Our Zoo</i> cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series <i>Our Zoo</i> on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called <i>Our Zoo</i>, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While <i>Our Zoo</i> cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Published in 1880, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is considered one of the most influential Christian books of the nineteenth century. The success of the novel led to film adaptations, most notably the 1955 academy award winning version of the film string Charlton Heston. Fast forward to 2016 and MGM and Paramount Pictures hope to see continue the success of this proven story with their newest film adaptation Ben-Hur.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.