Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Absolultion in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The third of a planned four content packs for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has arrived with Absolution. The collection was first available for the Playstation 4 system and was released for the Xbox One and PC platforms about five weeks later and contains the usual offerings of four new maps and a new chapter for the Zombie mode of the game.
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mel Rodriguez recommended GoodFellas (1990) in Movies (curated)
Montage photo and video Best!
Photo & Video
App
This is a powerful photo editor and powerful stop-motion tools which we created because we wanted a...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Just when you thought it wasn't possible for Willem Dafoe's expressions to haunt you in your dreams they go and cast him as a crazed lighthouse keeper in a moody black and white film.
This won't be like any of my other reviews because honestly I'm mainly done with this film.
There's no denying that the look of the film was amazing and it captured an "authentic" oldie feel. The film was shot in 1.19:1 ratio which left you with an almost square frame. I have no problem with that as an idea but it's not like the rest of the screen disappears, if it was shown on that sized screen then fine but it's not, it's shown on modern wise screen and it's distracting.
Dafoe gave nothing less than you'd expect, though I don't know if I was sad or relieved to learn that they added his farts in post. Pattinson, despite that accent, gave a good performance and I honestly never thought I'd say that out loud.
Despite these great performnces I couldn't have cared less about the story and anything that happened. I'd say it felt pretentious but I really feel like this was a short that somehow got away with itself.
Two final things:
A24 have not managed to change my love/hate relationship with their movies.
Pattingson as Winslow does something that I think everyone in Bristol has thought about doing at least once with a seagull.
What you should do
I imagine you're all going to watch it regardless of what I say.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
You can take anything you want about this film, I don't want it.
This won't be like any of my other reviews because honestly I'm mainly done with this film.
There's no denying that the look of the film was amazing and it captured an "authentic" oldie feel. The film was shot in 1.19:1 ratio which left you with an almost square frame. I have no problem with that as an idea but it's not like the rest of the screen disappears, if it was shown on that sized screen then fine but it's not, it's shown on modern wise screen and it's distracting.
Dafoe gave nothing less than you'd expect, though I don't know if I was sad or relieved to learn that they added his farts in post. Pattinson, despite that accent, gave a good performance and I honestly never thought I'd say that out loud.
Despite these great performnces I couldn't have cared less about the story and anything that happened. I'd say it felt pretentious but I really feel like this was a short that somehow got away with itself.
Two final things:
A24 have not managed to change my love/hate relationship with their movies.
Pattingson as Winslow does something that I think everyone in Bristol has thought about doing at least once with a seagull.
What you should do
I imagine you're all going to watch it regardless of what I say.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
You can take anything you want about this film, I don't want it.
The Awakening of H.K. Derryberry: My Unlikely Friendship with the Boy Who Remembers Everything
Book
The Awakening of HK Derryberry is the inspiring story of how one man was willing to step out of his...
The Awakening of HK Derryberry: My Unlikely Friendship with the Boy Who Remembers Everything
Book
The Awakening of HK Derryberry is the inspiring story of how one man was willing to step out of his...
London Wallpapers: Their Manufacture and Use 1690-1840
Book
London Wallpapers, first published in 1992, has long been out of print. In this new, revised edition...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
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!