Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
Terribly written. (2 more)
Overacted.
Halle Berry.
Moonfall Review: It’s Raining Moon
Moonfall is a $146 million sci-fi disaster film directed by Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla) and written by Emmerich, Harald Kloser (2012, 10000 BC), and Spenser Cohen (Extinction, The Expendables 4).
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
On January 12, 2011, during what is referred to as routine outer space maintenance (it’s a thing), an unidentified technological swarm caused significant damage to the astronaut’s shuttle; killing one of them and incapacitating the surviving two crew members. Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) maneuvers the shuttle back to earth with no power while his navigator Jocinda Fowl (Halle Berry) is unconscious. Brian takes the fall as he’s labeled incompetent despite previously being an acclaimed hero and he loses his job with NASA.
Ten years later, the moon suddenly begins changing course as a hole 26-kilometers deep is discovered in the center of it. People on earth have three weeks before the moon begins falling to earth in city-sized pieces. While NASA scrambles to discover a solution, an orbital megastructure aficionado and conspiracy blogger named K.C. Houseman (John Bradley) knew about the moon’s shift in course before NASA and may end up being the savior of mankind.
The opening scene of Moonfall lets its audience know that they’re in for an excruciating two hours. Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry argue over the lyrics to Toto’s “Africa” as Wilson musically screeches the 80s rock ballad to annoying results. The film does a few things right like earth’s gravity being a complete dumpster fire and the ocean literally being at foot of everyone’s door like Bo Burnham talked about in Inside. But then introduces the aspect of orbital megastructure in an attempt to not adhere to believable physics while lethargically committing to it.
Flooding, earthquakes, and birds falling to the ground due to gravity alterations are the culmination of the insanity in Moonfall. The moon coming closer to earth also apparently means humans can lift trees above their head and jump over gaps left by fallen bridges with little effort. There’s an awkward car chase between some redneck looters and the main characters of the film.
It’s awkward due to the fact that it’s really funky visual effects (literally everything taking place on the road and in the background) with green screen (the actors driving the cars), but it’s difficult to distinguish what’s what in a bad way. The CGI and special effects in the film are that peculiar blend of not necessarily being bad, but are just off-putting enough to look weird in some capacity. It’s a high speed chase involving a gravity wave, which is mostly just cars and debris floating in the air as the sky turns red. Coincidentally enough, the disaster effects are the best part of the film because they do what they’re supposed to do without overstaying their welcome.
The dialogue in the film is atrocious and Halle Berry is a filter for most of the bad lines. Some of her gems include, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people and I don’t like keeping them in the dark,” “I am…(the longest pause ever between one word and another)…thinking about our son,” and something overwhelmingly corny about earth’s hourglass and our time running out. Donald Sutherland can barely stomach a brief cameo appearance shared with Berry’s character before excusing himself to the loaded gun he left back in his room (yes, this actually happens).
The evacuation route in Moonfall seems to involve fleeing to Colorado. What is in Colorado and why that’s important is never really explained other than because everyone else is there. Jocinda Fowl becomes the lead director of NASA during the film and her ex-husband (played by Eme Ikwuakor) works for the military. Ikwuakor does nothing but squint like French Stewart the entire time. NASA wants to survey the activity of what’s transpiring on the moon, fly inside of its new fancy made hole, and come up with a plan to save earth in the process. The military just wants to blow up the moon with nukes; screw the consequences, this is America!
With Moonfall, Roland Emmerich has essentially made an even dumber version of Michael Bay’s Armageddon. There’s not a lot to enjoy here apart from KC Houseman’s house cat being named Fuzz Aldrin. With its idiotic premise, hammy dialogue involving some of the most exaggerated emotional speeches ever, stiff acting, unfunny humor, and purposely distorted CGI, Moonfall features an overwhelming amount of frenetic nonsense and has no excuse to be as boring as it is.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) in Movies
Jan 30, 2022
The mimicking raptor (1 more)
The, "power of our spleens," line of dialogue.
Horrendously ugly animation. (2 more)
A terribly boring screenplay.
Humor that is so painfully unfunny.
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild is the first Disney produced film of the franchise and the first Ice Age film to go directly to streaming. None of the original cast members return other than Simon Pegg as Buck Wild. Scrat is nowhere to be found and the animation is a noticeable downgrade. This project began with the intention of being a new Ice Age TV series, but was then repurposed into an 81-minute feature-length film.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 8, 2021
More Fun Than I Expected
It is almost an effort in futility to review a movie such as THE SUICIDE SQUAD, for most folks fall into 1 of 2 camps:
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been 84 years... Well, not quite but that long, but near enough.
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html
Dani wakes in a facility, chained to a bed with no clue how she got there after a disaster that devastated her home. She soon meets four other patients, all teens with mutant powers that have been gathered to learn how to control their powers so they can safely join others like them in another facility. But with Dani's arrival, everyone is about to learn what real nightmares are made of.
I sat and stared at this blank space for a while, I have been looking forward to New Mutants for so long and I've been contemplating if that anticipation has affected my enjoyment of it now that I've finally seen it... sadly, I don't think it did.
The promise that this film had in the trailer was pretty big, it looked much darker, a lot scarier, and I was excited for such a big diversion from what we're used to. Yes, the final product was definitely different but, as always, the trailer oversells aspects that aren't really representative of the completed film.
Watching New Mutants was very familiar. There's a certain amount of X-Men/mutant recognition, but there's also touches of Glass (unfortunate considering NM was scheduled for release before it originally) and Runaways. Without a bigger hook in the story it started to feel like an ironing film... something you put on while you have other things to do. Even with all new material it lacked any punch to give it some thrill.
The film is very much an origin story for these characters rather than something in its own right. Similar to Birds Of Prey you've got a lot of new people to meet and learn about, but in BoP this is done with a traditional base story and the characters on top and here everything is new... powers, characters, environments... that excess of new information is not quite as cohesive. In the hospital environment they're all understandably at odds with the doctor and each other, but that seems to change at the drop of a hat for no logical reason.
Out of everyone I was only really impressed with Henry Zaga's portrayal of Roberto da Costa, that was probably because of the humour in his role that broke the seriousness of everything around him. There were solid dramatic moments from him too but the role of Berto did suffer a knock with one of my other issues, and that was the seemingly shoehorned sex. We get it, teens are horny in films, but why was it necessary at all? Berto's storyline could easily have been adapted into something different and Rahne's backstory seems to have been twisted slightly to include it when there was a perfectly good story there already.
I'm not massively familiar with these characters outside of the film, Berto/Sunspot was in Days Of Future Past but I didn't realise this connection until afterwards. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't really a crossover with the rest of the universe when there were opportunities all over the place. Rahne is connected to Moira MacTaggert, Sam has mutant siblings, Illyana is Colossus' sister and the Essex Corporation is likely the same company that ran the orphanage in Deadpool 2... yet the only mentions of the outside universe are thrown in and felt like they were added without much thought and only because we'd expect them to say something about it.
I'm sorry, at this point my rant is just flowing... stay with me a little longer.
What New Mutants felt like it was missing was a villain, which is odd when there are so many bad guys. You have Essex Corp, but there's not enough about them to be anything more than a thought for the future. We're then left with the inner demons from Dani's mutant power, but they're technically undefeatable because they're a creation... so this just makes the film a bonding exercise between the five of them. Something to contemplate though... if they're experiencing their own demons because of Dani's power then how is it that Illyana's smileys go for Berto and Sam when she isn't there? Surely they should vanish when she does? I'm going to have to do more reading about this team, if you know about them then please do give me a crash course.
There are still some good effects and the idea of a darker tone to the universe has a lot of potential, but let's face it, we're never likely to see it again... though the end of the film would like you to believe otherwise with its walk off into the sunset-esque moment. They went full Artemis Fowl with us and lined up a sequel... we're not getting a sequel out of that no matter how much potential they have in the wings... surely?
I still vaguely enjoyed watching New Mutants, if I had my Unlimited Card I would be seeing it again, I wouldn't even have minded getting this as a VOD title because I would have got a few viewings in for my money... but let's face it, this felt more like a double length feature at the start of a new TV series than a film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-new-mutants-movie-review-spoilers.html
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Naomi Forrest (42 KP) rated The Toy Makers in Books
Jan 2, 2019
The first thing on the very first page that I loved was the narrator setting the scene and talking directly to you:
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Pet Sematary in Books
Jul 31, 2019
Realistic horror scenes (1 more)
Great writing
Overuse of some words (1 more)
Some contradictions
Louis Creed, the main character of Stephen King's 'Pet Sematary,' wants a good life for his family. He's starting his first term as a newly appointed doctor for the University of Maine. Louis' family moved from Chicago to Maine for this very job, which consists of his young daughter, Ellie, his wife, Rachel, his infant son, Gage, and Ellie's black cat, Church (which is short for Winston Churchill). This cat quickly becomes the topic of conversation when the Creeds' new neighbor, Jud Crandall, warns them about the road in front of their house: " 'I'd get him fixed, ' Crandall said, crushing his smoke between his thumb and forefinger. 'A fixed cat don't tend to wander as much. But if it's all the time crossing back and forth, its luck will run out, and it'll end up there with the Ryder kids' coon and little Timmy Dessler's cocker spaniel and Missus Bradleigh's parakeet. Not that the parakeet got run over in the road, you understand. It just went feet up one day.' "
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!
When Louis becomes curious about a trail behind his new home that leads into the woods, Jud gladly introduces the Creed family to the infamous 'Pet Sematary.' A place where children, for years, have buried their pets when they die. This place, and the death of Church, form the starting basis of King's amazing novel.
Louis' life suddenly changes after the death of a University student named Victor Pascow, and gets even worse when Louis starts to have dreams about him. One night, even the ghost of Pascow shows up at Louis' house: " He stood there with his head bashed in behind the left temple. The blood had dried on his face in maroon stripes like Indian warpaint. His collarbone jutted whitely. He was grinning. 'Come on, Doctor,' Pascow said. 'We got places to go.' " Louis ends up following Pascow to the pet sematary where he tells him: " 'I come as a friend,' Pascow said--- but was friend actually the word Pascow had used? Louis thought not. It was as if Pascow had spoken in a foreign language which Louis could understand through some dream magic... and friend was as close as to whatever word Pascow had actually used that Louis's struggling mind could come. ' Your destruction and the destruction of all you love is very near, Doctor.' He was close enough for Louis to be able to smell death on him. "
Later on, Louis feels Pascow's premonition might be coming true when he finds that Church has been killed by a passing vehicle. Jud, who happened to find Church, tells him to follow him so that they can bury the cat, but Jud doesn't stop at the pet sematary as expected, instead he goes past a deadfall barrier and continues on to a place he calls the Micmac Burial Ground, a burial ground that was made by the Micmac Indians. Through this entire scene, Louis experiences paranormal-type things, including the maniacal laughter of a disembodied voice. Jud warns Louis to not pay any attention to anything he experiences here: " 'You might see St. Elmo's fire- - - what the sailors call foo-lights. It makes funny shapes, but it's nothing. If you should see some of those shapes and they bother you, just look the other way. You may hear sounds like voices, but they are the loons down south toward Prospect. The sound carries. It's funny.' "
Now, the real story begins when Church returns to the house after his burial, where Louis finds dried blood on the cat's face and small pieces of plastic from the garbage bag his body had been in. Breathing and eating, the cat has certainly come back to life, but Louis notices that Church isn't the same as he was before; while Louis is in a hot bath, Church takes a seat on the toilet, where we witness him swaying back and forth, from this point on, Louis starts to regret following Jud to the Micmac burial ground.
Ellie, Louis' daughter, begins to suspect that something is different about Church, but she shrugs it off and doesn't necessarily question it:
" 'Daddy?' Ellie said in a low, subdued voice.
'What, Ellie? '
'Church smells funny.'
'Does he?' Louis asked, his voice carefully neutral.
'Yes!' Ellie said, distressed. 'Yes, he does! He never smelled funny before! He smells like... he smells like ka-ka!'
'Well, maybe he rolled in something bad, honey,' Louis said. 'Whatever that bad smell is, he'll lost it.'
'I certainly hope so,' Ellie said in a comical dowager's voice. She walked off. " King spends a majority of 'Pet Sematary' addressing everyone's fear of death; he discusses parents' fear of explaining death to their children for the first time, and even makes readers face the real nightmare of losing a child.
And the realism that King writes about is what makes him the great writer that he is today. King writes about the death of a child, but also makes Louis into a very real character that any parent could relate to. While many books touch on this subject, none can touch on grief like King does: " It was well for Louis- - - well for all three of the remaining family members--- that Steve had shown up as promptly as he had, because Louis was at least temporarily unable to make any kind of decision, even one so minor as giving his wife a shot to mute her deep grief. Louis hadn't even noticed that Rachel had apparently meant to go to the morning viewing in her housecoat, which she had misbuttoned. Her hair was uncombed, unwashed, tangled. Her eyes, blank brown orbits, bulged from sockets so sunken that they had almost become the eyes of a living skull. Her flesh was doughy. It hung from her face. She sat at the breakfast table that morning, munching unbuttered toast and talking in disjointed phrases that made no sense at all. At one point she had said abruptly, 'About that Winnebago you want to buy, Lou---' Louis had last spoken about buying a Winnebago in 1981. "
Yet, this isn't a book about grief, but a horror book about grief, which King masterfully put together. He molds the darkness of losing a child with the horror of making zombies, but King makes the story seem so realistic that any parent would go to the lengths that Louis did - - -and Jud, for that matter - - - even with the dire consequences at stake: " You're slanting all the evidence in favor of the conclusion you want to produce, his [Louis] mind protested. At least tell yourself the goddamned truth about the change in Church. Even if you want to disqualify the animals--- the mice and the birds--- what about the way he is? Muddled... that's the best word of all, that sums it up. The day we were out with the kite. You remember how Gage was that day? How vibrant and alive he was, reacting to everything? Wouldn't it be better to remember him that way? Do you want to resurrect a zombie from a grade-B horror picture? Or even something so prosaic as a retarded little boy? A boy who eats with his fingers and stares blankly at images on the TV screen and who will never learn to write his own name? What did Jud say about his dog? 'It was like washing a piece of meat.' Is that what you want? A piece of breathing meat? And even if you're able to be satisfied with that, how do you explain the return of your son from the dead to your wife? To your daughter? To Steve Masterton? To the world? What happens the first time Missy Dandridge pulls into the driveway and sees Gage riding his trike in the yard? Can't you hear her screams, Louis? Can't you see her harrowing her face with her fingernails? What do you say to the reporters? What do you say when a film crew from 'Real People' turns up on your doorstep, wanting to shoot film of your resurrected son? "
Pet Sematary is an emotional thrill ride, with Louis as a very relatable character, and the writing makes this a must-read book for all readers. With one of my favorite descriptive parts taking place in the 'Little God Swamp' that exists just outside of the Micmac Burial Ground when King describes the legendary Wendigo:
" The mist stained to a dull slate- gray for a moment, but this diffuse, ill-defined watermark was better than sixty feet high. It was no shade, no insubstantial ghost; he could feel the displaced air of its passage, could hear the mammoth thud of its feet coming down, the suck of mud as it moved on. For a moment he believed he saw twin yellow- orange sparks high above him. Sparks like eyes. "
The novel is so well-written that it reads easily, and King's descriptions put the reader right inside of the book.
With a few inconsistencies here and there, and overuse of some words, Pet Sematary is a very enjoyable book for lovers of the horror genre. I highly recommend this book!