Search
Search results
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Woman with Wings in Books
Sep 24, 2020
Alison works in the international advertising company as an IT specialist, and she loves bird watching. During one of her trips, she falls off the mountain but survives. I liked Alison as a person, she is a loner, and she is doing what she loves. She is like every other female in London, only she gets wings from somewhere. Alison has a great friend Jed, who likes and supports her, and a rich executive of the company named Doxat that fancies her, so this book could’ve been a great romantic novel, and those wings ruined it for me. The story was told from multiple perspectives, but the transition between those perspectives was quite blurry, I would’ve liked if different thoughts started as a different chapter.
Alison talks a lot about birds and their migration, it is great to know about this, especially because Alison’s true passion is birds, but I was skim-reading them because I don’t like copy-paste material. I am sure, bird enthusiasts will enjoy the information, and I can see the research put into that, but those parts were not for me. Another thing that did not make sense to me were parts about Kurt Godel and his mathematical calculations regarding time traveling. There were pages and pages about the same thing, which was well researched and very philosophical, but at the same time repetitive and felt like pasted there out of Wikipedia. :/ I liked the way Alison was interacting with other characters, and there was an interesting love triangle going on in there, but that’s about it.
I was not a very big fan of the writing style of this novel, it seemed well researched, and poetic, but at the same time, it felt raw and unfinished. The setting of this book was changing between London and remote places of the UK like Skye, and I enjoyed its picturesque views. The chapters were quite long, and the narrative quite jumpy. The culmination of this novel didn’t make any sense to me and left me with million of questions instead of answers. :/
So, to conclude, this book was not for me. It has interesting characters, and I enjoyed their relationships with each other, and this book has great potential, but the plot didn’t really impress me. I think this book might interest a bird-loving community as well as people who enjoy philosophy.
Alison talks a lot about birds and their migration, it is great to know about this, especially because Alison’s true passion is birds, but I was skim-reading them because I don’t like copy-paste material. I am sure, bird enthusiasts will enjoy the information, and I can see the research put into that, but those parts were not for me. Another thing that did not make sense to me were parts about Kurt Godel and his mathematical calculations regarding time traveling. There were pages and pages about the same thing, which was well researched and very philosophical, but at the same time repetitive and felt like pasted there out of Wikipedia. :/ I liked the way Alison was interacting with other characters, and there was an interesting love triangle going on in there, but that’s about it.
I was not a very big fan of the writing style of this novel, it seemed well researched, and poetic, but at the same time, it felt raw and unfinished. The setting of this book was changing between London and remote places of the UK like Skye, and I enjoyed its picturesque views. The chapters were quite long, and the narrative quite jumpy. The culmination of this novel didn’t make any sense to me and left me with million of questions instead of answers. :/
So, to conclude, this book was not for me. It has interesting characters, and I enjoyed their relationships with each other, and this book has great potential, but the plot didn’t really impress me. I think this book might interest a bird-loving community as well as people who enjoy philosophy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)