Search
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Lords of Chaos (2018) in Movies
Nov 19, 2019
Let the Churches Burn
I feel I need to mention that I was into the Black Metal scene when all this was going down.
Oysten "Euroymous" Aarseth is a young Metalhead who thinks Metal isn't extreme enough, so he starts an extreme "Black" Metal band called Mayhem. Mayhem are heavy, screechy, blasphemous and absolutely shocking, resulting in them being an instant hit with the other Metal fans of Norway. Black Metal is born! Unfortunately, their lead vocalist, aptly named Dead suffers from severe bouts of suicidal depression and it leads to his self inflicted demise. Upon discovering Dead's corpse, Euronymous does the very Black Metal thing of taking pictures of his dead body (which appeared then on Mayhem's "Dawn of the Black Hearts" album), and also taking parts of his bone and brain to put on a Necklace.
Euronymous shortly after opens Helvete Records, which attracts a newcomer to the scene called Kristian "Varg" Vikernes. At first, Euronymous scoffs at Varg and thinks he's just a poser... but he soon starts paying attention when Varg's one man band Burzum starts getting more notoriety than Mayhem. Also, Varg is admitting responsibility for a series of Church Burnings in the area, and Euronymous starts to also get involved. Will Euronymous and Vargs constant need to one-up each other go too far? Who in the Black Metal scene will also be dragged in to their crimes? And will their volatile relationship reach a breaking point?
As mentioned, I was (and still am) into the Black Metal scene when this was all happening and I have also read "Lords of Chaos" by Michael Moynihan and Didrik Søderlind a few times. Don't get me wrong, there are a few... embellishments in the Movie, but there is also a large portion that is true. I really enjoyed Lords of Chaos because I'm glad they've done a Movie about this Scene... even if some of it is fictional. I think the people who are really trashing this are taking it more seriously than they should, honestly. It's well acted, great cinematography and is an interesting story! I feel like this appeals to a wide audience, not just those of us who are partial to a bit of the ol' True Norwegian Black Metal. My only hang-up is that I think there are a few unnecessary scenes in the Movie that serve no purpose and just make the Movie feel long. But for me, it's a nice piece of fucked up nostalgia from my own Black Metal loving days!
Oysten "Euroymous" Aarseth is a young Metalhead who thinks Metal isn't extreme enough, so he starts an extreme "Black" Metal band called Mayhem. Mayhem are heavy, screechy, blasphemous and absolutely shocking, resulting in them being an instant hit with the other Metal fans of Norway. Black Metal is born! Unfortunately, their lead vocalist, aptly named Dead suffers from severe bouts of suicidal depression and it leads to his self inflicted demise. Upon discovering Dead's corpse, Euronymous does the very Black Metal thing of taking pictures of his dead body (which appeared then on Mayhem's "Dawn of the Black Hearts" album), and also taking parts of his bone and brain to put on a Necklace.
Euronymous shortly after opens Helvete Records, which attracts a newcomer to the scene called Kristian "Varg" Vikernes. At first, Euronymous scoffs at Varg and thinks he's just a poser... but he soon starts paying attention when Varg's one man band Burzum starts getting more notoriety than Mayhem. Also, Varg is admitting responsibility for a series of Church Burnings in the area, and Euronymous starts to also get involved. Will Euronymous and Vargs constant need to one-up each other go too far? Who in the Black Metal scene will also be dragged in to their crimes? And will their volatile relationship reach a breaking point?
As mentioned, I was (and still am) into the Black Metal scene when this was all happening and I have also read "Lords of Chaos" by Michael Moynihan and Didrik Søderlind a few times. Don't get me wrong, there are a few... embellishments in the Movie, but there is also a large portion that is true. I really enjoyed Lords of Chaos because I'm glad they've done a Movie about this Scene... even if some of it is fictional. I think the people who are really trashing this are taking it more seriously than they should, honestly. It's well acted, great cinematography and is an interesting story! I feel like this appeals to a wide audience, not just those of us who are partial to a bit of the ol' True Norwegian Black Metal. My only hang-up is that I think there are a few unnecessary scenes in the Movie that serve no purpose and just make the Movie feel long. But for me, it's a nice piece of fucked up nostalgia from my own Black Metal loving days!
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Story of Silence in Books
Jun 17, 2021
An Arthurian tale, adapted from a 13th century lost poem, containing dragons and knights but tackling the fluid notion of gender? Sign me up! Literally! Thank you to Eidelweiss+ and HarperVoyager for the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
Silence is born a girl, but due to the laws of inheritance is raised a boy, with only 3 people knowing their true gender (one of whom, initially, is not Silence). The Story of Silence follows Silence from birth, showing their struggles between Nature and Nurture in the medieval period.
The writing style of this fantasy novel is remarkable, with an almost lyrical, ballad quality to it. The settings of Cornwall, and later Brittany, are described in such a way that captivates the reader, transporting them to the jousting fields, the towering castles and the courts of Earls and Kings.
The writing is at a slower pace, a literary journey rather than a sprint and for that reason I didn’t quite get the feeling of “I can’t put this down”, particularly in the middle of the novel. However, the twists and turns in Silence’s life were always quick to pull me back in.
As a character, the reader loves Silence from the very beginning. None of the struggles of their life are of their own making. Indeed, there are moments within this story where it would have been much simpler to tell the truth but Silence does not, displaying true knightly qualities of courage and loyalty. If I had one criticism of this book it is that, after his first “courses”, Silence doesn’t seem to find disguising his Nature very difficult., Yes, he binds his chest but he also travels on the road with male companions for years with no further mention of the more natural signs of his true nature.
The cast of characters surrounding Silence are also excellent, we have the troubled Earl Cador who, despite his original plan, it seems cannot love his child as he should; Griselle and the seneschal who do love and care for Silence and then there is Merlin.
Now, I know Silence should be my favourite character but Merlin stole the show in my opinion! There is no stoical wizard in Myers’ world, oh no! Merlin is a naked, disgusting old man who has an awful habit of laughing out loud at the unseen futures of those he passes. I also appreciated how Merlin wasn’t a solution to Silence’s problems (in fact the opposite is true!). Despite the magical undercurrent within this story, Merlin doesn’t fix everything with the flick of a magic wand – conversely he forces Silence to look inside and solve their own riddle, emphasising that you do not need to fit into one category or another, you can be both, you can be what you decide to be.
It should also be noted that, up to this point in the novel, Silence is referred to with the male pronoun, as that is how he sees himself. He is a boy. He is a knight! However, on processing Merlin’s world this pronoun notably changes to they and their. A beautiful detail that resonated how Silence had accepted their true identity.
The characterisation of women in The Story of Silence is something that has been picked up on a lot by my fellow reviewers and yes, the women in this book are often sex-crazed, deceitful, disloyal creatures. This is also an issue that is directly discussed within the author’s note, further proving that this was not an intentional slight on women. Alex Myers is an author, they are telling a story and that story takes place in the 13th century when, unfortunately, women were depicted like this. The main despicable action by a woman is essential to stay true to the poem. Was it frustrating as a female reader? Sometimes. But are there an equal number of ugly characteristics shown in the male characters? Absolutely!
The Story of Silence is a slow-burning tale which steadily unfurls into a captivating narrative which will stay with the reader long after the final page. The original 13th century poem captures the concept of gender so beautifully but Alex Myers takes this even further, handling Silence’s journey with love and compassion. I feel very lucky to have read this.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated War of the Cards in Books
Feb 16, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
WAR OF THE CARDS
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
Quinn Blackburn (3 KP) rated Unwind (Unwind, #1) in Books
May 14, 2018
Render Unto Cesar
Shusterman takes dystopian futures a step above the ordinary in this dark coming of age tale. In the not too distant future a war was fought in the U.S. over abortion, the 2nd Civil War. To appease all sides an unthinkable accord was reached. Instead of abortion, between the ages of 13 and 18 you can choose to send your child to a Harvest camp to be unwound, taken apart and all their body parts donated to others. We are given three characters with differing perspectives through which we see the workings of this world.
One angry young man always in fights whose parents have given up reaching him. One orphan, a Stork, left on someone's doorstep years ago who doesn't make the necessary grades to keep her off the Harvest camp bus. And Lev, who was conceived and raised by his devoutly religious parents as a Tithe, someone specifically born to be unwound in the church's name. This unlikely trio meet on their way to be unwound and all three are at a loss as to what to do when a resistance movement effort frees them from the bus.
What about Lev's glorious destiny to be unwound for God; is he still chosen, still a willing sacrifice? Where do you go when society says you no longer have the right to live? Who will help you survive in secret until you are too old to be unwound? How can you avoid the bounty hunters who live to capture escapees? What happens to the soul of an Unwound? Do they live on, a second conscience, a wisp of memories, within the body of their new host? Does anyone have the right to decide who in society has the right to live and who would be more useful unwound?
The writer immerses us completely in this bizarre yet oh so familiar society giving us plenty of perspectives from every level. He even included tv and radio commercials to help us understand how normal it has become to consider unwinding another human being. The creep factor is high and sustains itself through all three books in this set. Unwind introduces us to the world of the unwound in a well told thought provoking tale that may have you questioning everything you thought you ever knew about yourself.
One angry young man always in fights whose parents have given up reaching him. One orphan, a Stork, left on someone's doorstep years ago who doesn't make the necessary grades to keep her off the Harvest camp bus. And Lev, who was conceived and raised by his devoutly religious parents as a Tithe, someone specifically born to be unwound in the church's name. This unlikely trio meet on their way to be unwound and all three are at a loss as to what to do when a resistance movement effort frees them from the bus.
What about Lev's glorious destiny to be unwound for God; is he still chosen, still a willing sacrifice? Where do you go when society says you no longer have the right to live? Who will help you survive in secret until you are too old to be unwound? How can you avoid the bounty hunters who live to capture escapees? What happens to the soul of an Unwound? Do they live on, a second conscience, a wisp of memories, within the body of their new host? Does anyone have the right to decide who in society has the right to live and who would be more useful unwound?
The writer immerses us completely in this bizarre yet oh so familiar society giving us plenty of perspectives from every level. He even included tv and radio commercials to help us understand how normal it has become to consider unwinding another human being. The creep factor is high and sustains itself through all three books in this set. Unwind introduces us to the world of the unwound in a well told thought provoking tale that may have you questioning everything you thought you ever knew about yourself.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Mr Men the Big Match
Book
When the Mr Men and Little Miss decide to stage their own version of the World Cup, Mr Small is...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Ethereal Custody: Anthologies in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>
<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://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>