Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sanctuary in Books
Apr 27, 2018
rating: 3.8/5
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
My Summary: Lea is a refugee who has survived for the past few months living in the wild and traveling from house to random house, just trying to stay alive. When she is found, ill, by American soldiers and taken care of and healed, she has a choice—leave the soldiers and spend the winter by herself, homeless, with no protection in the middle of a war, or trade sex for protection and safety from Major Russell. She chooses the exchange. But Lea and Russell both are not prepared for the outcome of the bargain—Love. Lea and Russell are married, and try to build a real relationship from their original bargain. Can they make it work…
Thoughts: I really hate it when a book has what I call “happy-land syndrome—” where everything works out nicely, relationships are smooth and when they’re rough their fixed quickly and painlessly, and everyone lives happily ever after. This book does have a happily ever after of some sort, but it most certainly does not have happy-land syndrome. This book was a picture of a real marriage—the ups, the downs, the arguments, the forgiveness. There were clear differences between passion, lust, and love (which is always refreshing), and there were arguments the way real arguments happen. There was pride, there was sympathy, and there was forgiveness.
There was a lot of humor in this book! Now mind you it was not a “funny” book, but there were some very good funny pieces of dialogue.
Plot: This book didn’t have a complicated plot, or any huge unexpected occurrences. It was a “simple” story line—but it was a very addicting read. That’s not to say that everything that happened was dull or boring or expected, it just means it was definitely not a sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of romance. It was more like a cuddle-up-with-a-cup-of-tea-and-a-blanket kind of romance. It flowed smoothly, and the pacing was very good—not to fast, not too slow. The only thing about the pacing was that the part where they realized that they’d fallen in love didn’t feel like any kind of climax. Which could have been the point, as it did sort of happen slowly.
Characters: I liked the fact that the characters in this book were like real people—they had their strengths and weaknesses, their qualities and their flaws. Lea was stubborn and rebellious, and not at all submissive to her husband, yet she was a sweet and kind girl, and was willing to make sacrifices for Russell. Russell was a very kind man to Lea, and his protective attitude was appealing, however his language and his anger were his downfalls.
Writing: The writing in this book was good. It wasn’t fantastically breathtaking (J.K. Rowling, Robert Frost, Paolini, Dostoyevsky etc.), it wasn’t mediocre (Stephenie Meyer, Becca Fitzpatrick) and it wasn’t atrocious (Meg Cabot.). I can’t really place it in any of those categories. It sort of fell between the first two. It was very readable, it wasn’t dull and empty of good words with barely acceptable sentence structure, but it wasn’t something that sounded like poetry read aloud either. Again, very readable.
Content: There was a lot of sex in this book. I mean, it’s a romance about a girl who trades her body in exchange for being kept alive by a horny soldier, and I expected it, so I’m not saying I was surprised. I think it could have still been a very good powerful romance without all the details. I skipped a few paragraphs here and there. There was also a lot of language. And yes, it is the military, after all. Soldiers swear. They did in the book, too. I guess some people aren’t bothered by stuff like that in books. It wasn’t so bad that I wanted to stop reading, but I thought some of the words (and again, details) could have been left out and the book would have been just as good.
Recommendation: Ages 16+ at least, and wait until you’re 18 if you are picky about content. I rate high for the wonderfully relatable and realistic characters, high-ish for my enjoyment, and medium for plot and writing.
Click here to read the first chapter of Sanctuary.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Sweet Little Lies in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Perplexing, well-written tale
Young Detective Constable Catrina (Cat) Kinsella hasn't had the easiest of lives--she didn't get along well with her father and her mother has since passed away. At twenty-six, Cat is in counseling after a traumatic incident while on the job, and she spends most of her nights alone, plagued by insomnia. She isn't close to her family, including her father, sister, or brother. Her latest case is that of thirty-five-year old Alice Lapaine, who is found murdered and dumped in Leamington Square. Alice too led a solitary life, spending weeks away from her husband, Thomas, who quickly becomes the team's top suspect. But then they receive a call--Alice isn't Alice, but rather Maryanne Doyle, a teenager who went missing in Ireland nearly twenty years ago. Suddenly, Cat's world is upside down. After all, she knew Maryanne, whom her family met while visiting Cat's grandmother when Cat was eight. And Cat has always suspected her father had something to do with Maryanne's sudden disappearance. Cat chooses not to tell her DCI about the linkages between Maryanne and her father, but this choice may have serious consequences: for Cat, her career, and her entire family.
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Stunning
The king of the Kaiju, Godzilla, has had a very chequered cinematic history. From the classic original Japanese films to Roland Emmerich’s 1998 disaster, the famous beast hasn’t always been given the respect deserved of such an iconic monster.
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated WandaVision in TV
Mar 7, 2021
A welcome return to the MCU
WandaVision is the latest Marvel series to hit the small screen, arriving in a flood of hype as the first official series to tie in with the rest of the MCU. Initially I hadn’t been interested in this after struggling to enjoy previous series, however after discovering that everyone I know was watching this, FOMO and the fact that we haven’t had a new MCU release since Phase 3 wrapped up with 2019’s Spider-Man: Far From Home, has prompted me to give this a go. And I’m rather glad I did.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Enter the Void (Soudain le vide) (2010) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
WOW!
Not many modern filmmakers garner such a reputation for being controversial and are well deserved. Lars von Trier and Ari Aster come to mind, but I am sure there are others. They pull no punches with their work, so most provoke extreme reactions either love or hate. Maybe also appreciate the art form or what they are trying to say, but do not enjoy the extreme sex or violence or shock value from many of their scenes.
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
Fit Men Cook - Healthy Recipes
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
Struggle free, healthy and practical recipes that are easy on the wallet. It’s as simple as that,...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Jen Dixon is back in kindergarten. She thought her days as "Class Mom" were behind her: Jen's two daughters are in college after all. But Jen, at age forty-six, is back on the Mom circuit, with her first husband, Ron, and five-year-old son, Max. This is Jen's chance to do things over again, with a husband and the security she lacked the first time around. So when her best friend Nina (also PTA President) asks Jen to be Class Mom, she agrees. The duties of Class Mom seem fairly simple--coordinate field trips, set up class parties, and send out emails to the other parents. Jen does this with aplomb and a fairly decent level of sarcasm, which isn't always appreciated by all the parents. At the same time, she's training for a mud run and attempting to keep the flame going in her marriage with Ron. It doesn't help when she discovers that her high school crush is another parent in Max's class. Jen has a lot going on--can she juggle it all?
This book appealed to me on LibraryThing as I have two daughters in kindergarten and am suddenly in the midst of the whole school dynamic. Luckily, things aren't quite as dramatic as the school portrayed in Gelman's novel! The book came along at a pretty good time, as I've read a string of fairly serious thrillers recent. <i>It's certainly a funny and fast read. </i>
I couldn't help but like Jen. She's an engaging protagonist. Her struggles as a parent, wife, and friend are realistic and yet humorous. Her surrounding cast of characters, while not quite as fleshed out, are also funny, though not perhaps always as realistic (more on that later). I enjoyed that her husband, best friend, and kids weren't the typical stereotypes or cardboard cutouts you often see in novels, but real people, with issues of their own.
Also enjoyable was the way the novel interspersed Jen's emails to the class at the beginnings of many chapters (along with a variety of replies). They were usually funny and lightened up the book and surprisingly moved the plot along fairly well. They also made me grateful for some of the lack of politics at my kids' school--so far. It's still early though, sigh!
The only problem for me was that a lot of the good in this book--great characters, humor--was marred a bit by just a lot going on--not all of it completely believable. There are some silly plotlines thrown in that almost don't seem necessary and once resolved, are a bit disappointing. There's one last "shocker" tossed in at the very end of the novel that did surprise me somewhat, but I'm not really sure it was needed.
<i>Still, this is a very engaging and fun novel for a first-time novelist.</i> It's not a pretentious literary piece, but it's not aiming to be. Instead, it's certainly a witty and fascinating look at the craziness that happens in your children's classrooms. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and LibraryThing (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 08/01/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
This book appealed to me on LibraryThing as I have two daughters in kindergarten and am suddenly in the midst of the whole school dynamic. Luckily, things aren't quite as dramatic as the school portrayed in Gelman's novel! The book came along at a pretty good time, as I've read a string of fairly serious thrillers recent. <i>It's certainly a funny and fast read. </i>
I couldn't help but like Jen. She's an engaging protagonist. Her struggles as a parent, wife, and friend are realistic and yet humorous. Her surrounding cast of characters, while not quite as fleshed out, are also funny, though not perhaps always as realistic (more on that later). I enjoyed that her husband, best friend, and kids weren't the typical stereotypes or cardboard cutouts you often see in novels, but real people, with issues of their own.
Also enjoyable was the way the novel interspersed Jen's emails to the class at the beginnings of many chapters (along with a variety of replies). They were usually funny and lightened up the book and surprisingly moved the plot along fairly well. They also made me grateful for some of the lack of politics at my kids' school--so far. It's still early though, sigh!
The only problem for me was that a lot of the good in this book--great characters, humor--was marred a bit by just a lot going on--not all of it completely believable. There are some silly plotlines thrown in that almost don't seem necessary and once resolved, are a bit disappointing. There's one last "shocker" tossed in at the very end of the novel that did surprise me somewhat, but I'm not really sure it was needed.
<i>Still, this is a very engaging and fun novel for a first-time novelist.</i> It's not a pretentious literary piece, but it's not aiming to be. Instead, it's certainly a witty and fascinating look at the craziness that happens in your children's classrooms. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and LibraryThing (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 08/01/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated NOS4A2 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i>I read this novel as my BookBum Club book for January! Check out <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/297482-the-bookbum-club">The BookBum Club on Goodreads!</a></i>
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.
A darkly disturbing thrill ride of a book! I was expecting it to spook me out a little more than it did, but it was super enjoyable even still.
I’ve never read a Joe Hill book before this one, but now I know I want to read more of his work. I don’t think there’s any denying that his writing style really sucks you into the story and he’s a genius as describing things. How can one man come up with so many different Christmas similes? I also loved how this book was set up, where sometimes the end of sentence in a paragraph wouldn’t end because the title of the next paragraph completed the sentence. I thought this was a really unique aspect of the novel, as well as several illustrations dotted throughout.
One thing I really loved about this novel was the characters. I’ve seen some less that glowing reviews whinging about Vic, and while I can understand some people’s frustration at how frustrating she was, I think the whole point of her character to be frustrating. I personally found her troubled but sweet. Lou was equally sweet, a nice human being through-and-through, but at the end of the day, I don’t think he brought an awful lot to the story.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, was Charlie Manx. What a genuinely terrifying character. I’ve read through several books with horrifying characters (Annie Wilkes springs to mind immediately) and Charlie Manx is definitely up there with the worst of them. What made him so chilling, for me, was how I imagined his voice. Every sentence of his speech was lifted at the end by an exclamation mark! He was always so cheery! Always so sinister! And then, of course, we have Bing Partridge who may just be the most repulsive character I’ve ever read about.
I loved the story of this novel, but I’m not going to explain what happened because this novel needs to be experienced, not told, in order to reach its full potential. My only issue was I though maybe 700 pages was a bit long. Chapter after chapter was a new dip and dive in this roller-coaster of a story, but sometimes it just felt like stalling time.
Another thing that disappointed me about this book, and this is what brought it down to 4 stars, is that I was expecting this to be scarier than it turned out to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s seriously sinister and has some really creepy moments, but I wanted to get to “I can’t sleep” scared. Though saying that, when I was driving home in the dark one day, an old classic black British car (we have a lot of old car conventions around where I live) pulled up behind me and followed me nearly all the way home and I did get the heebie-geebies (don’t worry, I didn’t break the speed limit though).
Overall, this novel is well worth the read if you’re into dark, sinister novels filled with the really weird and the really wonderful. I’m so happy I’ve finally read this novel and have been opened up to the world of Joe Hill’s writing. I will definitely be reading more of his stuff.