Search
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Tattooist of Auschwitz in Books
May 29, 2019
“If you wake up in the morning, it is a good day.”
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Alex, Approximately in Books
Mar 14, 2019
“My name is Bailey Rydell, and I’m a habitual evader.”
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated A Tumble Through Time in Books
Nov 5, 2018
A Tumble Through Time is a wonderful frolic in the Wild West. When everything is going wrong for Anna, she suddenly finds herself in Kansas, 1870. A slow burning love for the town Marshal, Wes, develops and before you know it, it's love, but for how long?
I was provided a complimentary copy of this book by the author in return for an honest review, and I'm pretty certain Callie Hutton is going to be pretty pleased with it! But firstly, I must thank her for offering me this book to read as it was an absolute delight from start to finish.
Let's start with the plot, time travel meets romance, meets a bit of tragedy, meets a lovely ending. Hutton is spot on with her pace, plot development, writing style and story. It ambles at a lovely easy read pace, and has the feel of a book that you can easily slip in and out of, just like a pair of old jeans! But at times, the drama in the story picks up the pace and makes for irresistible reading. However, for me, the most important point to make is how familiar it feels when you return to the book after a short reading break (and believe me when I say short!) as it feels like you never put the book down. As someone who is frequently interrupted whilst reading, that's a really important thing for me.
Next, we have the characters. Anna and Wes are a delight to read, their love isn't cheesy or over the top, and the sex scenes are incredibly well written. The characters are believable and that makes it so easy to invest your emotions and time into reading about their lives, even if Anna is a bit of a 'modern woman', it's just lovely to see the contrast of times and upbringing completely demolished by their love for each other. In fact, if anything, it made me feel 'loved up' because I was bathed in their happy glow.
One of the final things I feel needs to be pointed out is how historically accurate the book is. This area of history is one of great interest to me, and I like my books to be accurate. Whether it's 'Indian Territory' or Kansas, it's clear how much effort has gone into researching this story, especially the accents. The dialects are fantastically well written, and it was easy to find yourself actually hearing the cowboys and little familiar ditties you've all heard in the classic Wild West movies, and it all adds to how believable the tale is, developing the atmosphere to such an extent you actually think you're there in Denton.
Finally, I suppose there's nothing else to say apart from go and get yourself a copy of this book. It's a delight from cover to cover, and I cannot honestly recommend it highly enough. If you like a bit of romance, a bit of action, a bit of time travel or even just something nice and easy to read sat by the poolside on your holiday then look no further. Callie Hutton is a fantastic and very talented author and I look forward to reading more of her work.
I was provided a complimentary copy of this book by the author in return for an honest review, and I'm pretty certain Callie Hutton is going to be pretty pleased with it! But firstly, I must thank her for offering me this book to read as it was an absolute delight from start to finish.
Let's start with the plot, time travel meets romance, meets a bit of tragedy, meets a lovely ending. Hutton is spot on with her pace, plot development, writing style and story. It ambles at a lovely easy read pace, and has the feel of a book that you can easily slip in and out of, just like a pair of old jeans! But at times, the drama in the story picks up the pace and makes for irresistible reading. However, for me, the most important point to make is how familiar it feels when you return to the book after a short reading break (and believe me when I say short!) as it feels like you never put the book down. As someone who is frequently interrupted whilst reading, that's a really important thing for me.
Next, we have the characters. Anna and Wes are a delight to read, their love isn't cheesy or over the top, and the sex scenes are incredibly well written. The characters are believable and that makes it so easy to invest your emotions and time into reading about their lives, even if Anna is a bit of a 'modern woman', it's just lovely to see the contrast of times and upbringing completely demolished by their love for each other. In fact, if anything, it made me feel 'loved up' because I was bathed in their happy glow.
One of the final things I feel needs to be pointed out is how historically accurate the book is. This area of history is one of great interest to me, and I like my books to be accurate. Whether it's 'Indian Territory' or Kansas, it's clear how much effort has gone into researching this story, especially the accents. The dialects are fantastically well written, and it was easy to find yourself actually hearing the cowboys and little familiar ditties you've all heard in the classic Wild West movies, and it all adds to how believable the tale is, developing the atmosphere to such an extent you actually think you're there in Denton.
Finally, I suppose there's nothing else to say apart from go and get yourself a copy of this book. It's a delight from cover to cover, and I cannot honestly recommend it highly enough. If you like a bit of romance, a bit of action, a bit of time travel or even just something nice and easy to read sat by the poolside on your holiday then look no further. Callie Hutton is a fantastic and very talented author and I look forward to reading more of her work.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Stepsister in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/New-blog-banner-28.png?w=560&ssl=1"/>;
When you are little, you watch a lot of movies. For us girls, life is filled with princesses and happy ever afters. With castles and knights in shining armours. And it’s always that the beautiful girls get their princes. Only beautiful girls get to be happy.
In this book, we get to really see the reality of what I have said above. It is all true. Only beautiful girls get the happy ever after. <b><i>But beauty doesn’t always mean pretty.</b></i>
In a world of prejudice and bullying, Stepsister by Jennifer Donnelly shows people, especially girls, that it is okay to be different. It is okay to be brave and follow your dreams. It is okay to be wild and strong willed. The people that truly love you, will always be by your side.
Meet Isabelle – Cinderella’s ugly stepsister. The girl that cuts her toes to get into the glass slipper. For those who didn’t know, the original Cinderella story by the Grimm brothers indeed has a scene where both ugly stepsisters cut their heel and toes, just to fit in the slipper and marry the prince.
<b><i>‘’The little toe was the hardest. Which didn’t come as a surprise. It’s often the small things that hurt the most – a cold glance, a cutting word, laughter that stops when you enter the room.’’</b></i>
Isabelle has never really wanted to be evil, but jealousy and mum’s pressure have been doing their own thing. When she gets a second chance in life though, she goes for it. She must complete an impossible task to find her happy ever after. And while doing so, she will find her true self.
<b><i>‘’Most people will fight when there is some hope for winning, no matter how slim. They are called brave. Only a few will keep fighting when all hope is gone. They are called warriors. Isabelle was a warrior once, though she has forgotten it.’’</b></i>
Be prepared to feel all emotions, and cheer for Isabelle, when she is fighting against the world. Relive the magic of an amazing retelling and be ready for an unforgettable adventure. What Jennifer has done to bring the Grimm feeling into a powerful story is to be admired. I will admire and cherish this book forever.
I am not a fan of re-reading books, but this will definitely be one book I will always come back to.
<b><i>‘’Algebra comes from Arabic. From al-jabr, which means ‘’the reunion of broken parts’’. Al-Khwarizmi believed that what’s broken can be made whole again if you just apply the right equation.’’
”If only there was an equation that could do the same for people.”</b></i>
Thank you to the team at ReadersFirst, for sending me a paperback copy of this book, in exchange for my honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/New-blog-banner-28.png?w=560&ssl=1"/>;
When you are little, you watch a lot of movies. For us girls, life is filled with princesses and happy ever afters. With castles and knights in shining armours. And it’s always that the beautiful girls get their princes. Only beautiful girls get to be happy.
In this book, we get to really see the reality of what I have said above. It is all true. Only beautiful girls get the happy ever after. <b><i>But beauty doesn’t always mean pretty.</b></i>
In a world of prejudice and bullying, Stepsister by Jennifer Donnelly shows people, especially girls, that it is okay to be different. It is okay to be brave and follow your dreams. It is okay to be wild and strong willed. The people that truly love you, will always be by your side.
Meet Isabelle – Cinderella’s ugly stepsister. The girl that cuts her toes to get into the glass slipper. For those who didn’t know, the original Cinderella story by the Grimm brothers indeed has a scene where both ugly stepsisters cut their heel and toes, just to fit in the slipper and marry the prince.
<b><i>‘’The little toe was the hardest. Which didn’t come as a surprise. It’s often the small things that hurt the most – a cold glance, a cutting word, laughter that stops when you enter the room.’’</b></i>
Isabelle has never really wanted to be evil, but jealousy and mum’s pressure have been doing their own thing. When she gets a second chance in life though, she goes for it. She must complete an impossible task to find her happy ever after. And while doing so, she will find her true self.
<b><i>‘’Most people will fight when there is some hope for winning, no matter how slim. They are called brave. Only a few will keep fighting when all hope is gone. They are called warriors. Isabelle was a warrior once, though she has forgotten it.’’</b></i>
Be prepared to feel all emotions, and cheer for Isabelle, when she is fighting against the world. Relive the magic of an amazing retelling and be ready for an unforgettable adventure. What Jennifer has done to bring the Grimm feeling into a powerful story is to be admired. I will admire and cherish this book forever.
I am not a fan of re-reading books, but this will definitely be one book I will always come back to.
<b><i>‘’Algebra comes from Arabic. From al-jabr, which means ‘’the reunion of broken parts’’. Al-Khwarizmi believed that what’s broken can be made whole again if you just apply the right equation.’’
”If only there was an equation that could do the same for people.”</b></i>
Thank you to the team at ReadersFirst, for sending me a paperback copy of this book, in exchange for my honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Plain good fun
Rebooted again, and just as fun.
One of the pleasant movie surprises of Christmas 2017 for me was "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I expected it to be a tired retread of the original classic, but instead it turned into a highly entertaining action comedy. Reading my review again, I was rather po-faced about it and scored it with a rather measly 7/10. But this rather belies my secret love of the movie: it is a film that I can invariably watch and enjoy again and again.
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Of Mice Not Men in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Genre: Science Fiction, Non-Romance
Page Count: 350 pages
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
After manmade natural disasters wiped out most humans and life around the world, war breaks out among the remaining humans. The faction called the Developers want to take the resources from Earth and leave the dying planet behind to join the stars. The Harmonizers want to stay and restore Earth’s resources. Both factions race to stop the other, using deadly, even sadistic measures. After all, the fate of the planet and the human race lies in the balance.
I had my ups and downs with this book to be sure. Aside from the book badly needing a proofreader, the writing itself is well done, only dipping into preachiness about human’s greed a couple of times. The brain curdling torture scenes were deliciously awful and made me stop reading a couple times to look up pictures of pet pigs until I calmed down enough to continue.
I thought I had a stomach for violence. I read Stephen King books and have watched plenty of horror movies. In middle school I reveled in shocking my classmates with presentations of General Sherman’s March to the Sea and torture practices from the Spanish Inquisition. In high school I was the only one who could watch the video of a shark eating a turtle without looking away ( but I ended up crying about shark fin soup later that year).
The point is, violence in books usually doesn’t bother me. But Canterbury takes it to a whole new level in a few of the torture scenes. It wasn’t just the twisted sadism in the scenes that bothered me, however. It was the fact that both sides are tooth achingly aware of the finite resources left and yet they both spend resources making inefficient weapons. The Developers do it in the name of sadism and the Harmonizers end up with weapons that are less effective than gun powder guns. I guess it shows that humans don’t make sense.
There are a lot of characters in this book, but Jasmine is the main character. I didn’t like her at first. I found her too cold-hearted and hot-headed. Granted, she’s in deeper and darker shit than I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, but despite her parents dying, she isn’t a sympathetic character for most of the book. Her relationship with Thomas feels as forced as a cheap jigsaw puzzle. Mostly she is indifferent to him or pushing him away. For awhile the only reason she was still with him was out of fear of being alone. And then suddenly she loves him? I never really bought it. Cynthia’s relationship with an alien artificial intelligence robot feels more real and she thought she was hallucinating it.
But I ended up really liking Jasmine in the end, and even Thomas. The plot was fascinating, even a couple of parts I was skeptical about at first and this book turned out to be entertaining, even though I guessed two of the biggest plot “twists” (if you can even call them that) as soon as the foreshadowing again. But one plot twist I didn’t see coming at all, which was great.
I do wish the sides were not so black and white. The Developers were clearly evil with practically no human sides in any main characters while the Harmonizers were clearly peaceful with no dark streaks to be found. It ended up making what could have been a great story about needless conflict and saving the world sound a little like anti space exploration propaganda. That being said, it is still entertaining.
While Canterbury’s writing skills are rough, he has the potential to be a great science fiction/horror writer.
Page Count: 350 pages
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
After manmade natural disasters wiped out most humans and life around the world, war breaks out among the remaining humans. The faction called the Developers want to take the resources from Earth and leave the dying planet behind to join the stars. The Harmonizers want to stay and restore Earth’s resources. Both factions race to stop the other, using deadly, even sadistic measures. After all, the fate of the planet and the human race lies in the balance.
I had my ups and downs with this book to be sure. Aside from the book badly needing a proofreader, the writing itself is well done, only dipping into preachiness about human’s greed a couple of times. The brain curdling torture scenes were deliciously awful and made me stop reading a couple times to look up pictures of pet pigs until I calmed down enough to continue.
I thought I had a stomach for violence. I read Stephen King books and have watched plenty of horror movies. In middle school I reveled in shocking my classmates with presentations of General Sherman’s March to the Sea and torture practices from the Spanish Inquisition. In high school I was the only one who could watch the video of a shark eating a turtle without looking away ( but I ended up crying about shark fin soup later that year).
The point is, violence in books usually doesn’t bother me. But Canterbury takes it to a whole new level in a few of the torture scenes. It wasn’t just the twisted sadism in the scenes that bothered me, however. It was the fact that both sides are tooth achingly aware of the finite resources left and yet they both spend resources making inefficient weapons. The Developers do it in the name of sadism and the Harmonizers end up with weapons that are less effective than gun powder guns. I guess it shows that humans don’t make sense.
There are a lot of characters in this book, but Jasmine is the main character. I didn’t like her at first. I found her too cold-hearted and hot-headed. Granted, she’s in deeper and darker shit than I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, but despite her parents dying, she isn’t a sympathetic character for most of the book. Her relationship with Thomas feels as forced as a cheap jigsaw puzzle. Mostly she is indifferent to him or pushing him away. For awhile the only reason she was still with him was out of fear of being alone. And then suddenly she loves him? I never really bought it. Cynthia’s relationship with an alien artificial intelligence robot feels more real and she thought she was hallucinating it.
But I ended up really liking Jasmine in the end, and even Thomas. The plot was fascinating, even a couple of parts I was skeptical about at first and this book turned out to be entertaining, even though I guessed two of the biggest plot “twists” (if you can even call them that) as soon as the foreshadowing again. But one plot twist I didn’t see coming at all, which was great.
I do wish the sides were not so black and white. The Developers were clearly evil with practically no human sides in any main characters while the Harmonizers were clearly peaceful with no dark streaks to be found. It ended up making what could have been a great story about needless conflict and saving the world sound a little like anti space exploration propaganda. That being said, it is still entertaining.
While Canterbury’s writing skills are rough, he has the potential to be a great science fiction/horror writer.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB