Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It’s your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and fellow movie junkie with my take on of the VERY late summer movie release “Killer Elite” starring Jason Statham, Robert DeNiro, Clive Owen, Yvonne Strahovski, and Dominic Purcell.
First off, I’m just going to say that the cast alone warrents giving this movie a look. If you know at least one name on this list, you also know it’s worth watching once.
“Killer Elite” stars Jason Statham (The Transporter Trilogy) as Danny Bryce. A retired speical forces soldier who is lured out of retirement when is mentor Hunter (Robert DeNiro) is held hostage by a mysterious Middle-Eastern sheik. With the help of his former comrade Davies (Dominic Purcell Of Blade:Trinity And TV’s Prison Break), Bryce must complete the task of killing three assassins who are reponsible for the deaths of all but one of the sheik’s sons. Which also means going up against retired SAS comando Spike (Clive Owen Of Sin City, Children Of Men, And The Bourne Identity).
Despite less-than-stellar buzz, when I saw this line-up amongst the cast, I knew the movie had to have some potential and for me it did NOT disappoint. Honestly, I don’t get the beef some critics have with the movie. “Killer Elite” is a an action movie. Typically, action movies concentrate on a basic plotline or little to no plot. Action movies are all about ACTION coupled with good actors/actresses. Killer Elite is not just an action movie … it’s a GREAT ACTION MOVIE.
(Sidenote: The 1975 film of the same title, starring Robert DuVall and James Cann has a similar story line, but the movies are based on entirely different events. Both movies are worth checking out though).
“Killer Elite” is based on a book entitled The FeatherMen written by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, which he claimed to be based on true events to much controversy. It follows the assassinations of members of the British Special Air Services, by a hit squad known as The Clinic. The FeatherMen was a group of retired/vigilante special forces members who went head to head with the hitmen of The Clinic to protect members of the regiment.
Look, if you like action movies, this is one for the books. Even the flashbacks with Statham and his love interest are good. There’s even a litle bit of comic relief provided courtesy of Dominic Purcell who looks alot like Lemmy from Motorhead in this movie, just 30 years younger. There is NOT a dull moment int the movie. Pay the cash. Whether it’s in theaters or DVD or other digital medium. An excellent movie for a Friday night!
First off, I’m just going to say that the cast alone warrents giving this movie a look. If you know at least one name on this list, you also know it’s worth watching once.
“Killer Elite” stars Jason Statham (The Transporter Trilogy) as Danny Bryce. A retired speical forces soldier who is lured out of retirement when is mentor Hunter (Robert DeNiro) is held hostage by a mysterious Middle-Eastern sheik. With the help of his former comrade Davies (Dominic Purcell Of Blade:Trinity And TV’s Prison Break), Bryce must complete the task of killing three assassins who are reponsible for the deaths of all but one of the sheik’s sons. Which also means going up against retired SAS comando Spike (Clive Owen Of Sin City, Children Of Men, And The Bourne Identity).
Despite less-than-stellar buzz, when I saw this line-up amongst the cast, I knew the movie had to have some potential and for me it did NOT disappoint. Honestly, I don’t get the beef some critics have with the movie. “Killer Elite” is a an action movie. Typically, action movies concentrate on a basic plotline or little to no plot. Action movies are all about ACTION coupled with good actors/actresses. Killer Elite is not just an action movie … it’s a GREAT ACTION MOVIE.
(Sidenote: The 1975 film of the same title, starring Robert DuVall and James Cann has a similar story line, but the movies are based on entirely different events. Both movies are worth checking out though).
“Killer Elite” is based on a book entitled The FeatherMen written by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, which he claimed to be based on true events to much controversy. It follows the assassinations of members of the British Special Air Services, by a hit squad known as The Clinic. The FeatherMen was a group of retired/vigilante special forces members who went head to head with the hitmen of The Clinic to protect members of the regiment.
Look, if you like action movies, this is one for the books. Even the flashbacks with Statham and his love interest are good. There’s even a litle bit of comic relief provided courtesy of Dominic Purcell who looks alot like Lemmy from Motorhead in this movie, just 30 years younger. There is NOT a dull moment int the movie. Pay the cash. Whether it’s in theaters or DVD or other digital medium. An excellent movie for a Friday night!
David McK (3562 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Aug 14, 2022
Insect park?
Jurassic Park (the original) is a masterpiece of cinema.
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019 (Updated Dec 4, 2019)
The thing that annoys me most about Jurassic World is how good it could have been. There was a long break between movies here - almost taking time to regroup a bit - and the trailers looked good enough.
Unfortunately, the finished product was underwhelming for me.
There's a lot of stupid going on throughout, but the movie takes itself too seriously to get away with it
(Especially the villains plot to take raptors and use them in Afghanistan - wtf)
The set up to the inevitable disaster is riddled with product placement, and an average script (and a weird sub plot about the two kids parents getting divorced), and then when all hell breaks loose, it just descends into Hollywood nonsense (the scenes with Chris Pratt riding alongside raptors on a motorbike is one of the many times I rolled my eyes), it's a far cry from the original.
Another thing - the main dinosaur threat comes in the shape of a super crazy lab created hybrid dinosaur, which just seems a little... unnecessary - just regular dinosaurs are pretty damn scary!
I like both Chris Pratt, and Bryce Dallas-Howard, unfortunately the chemistry between the two doesn't quite connect. The rest of the cast are fine, and mostly likable.
It's not an awful film by any means, it's just... Ok. I'm sure I'll find myself watching it again at some point, I guess I just wanted more!
Unfortunately, the finished product was underwhelming for me.
There's a lot of stupid going on throughout, but the movie takes itself too seriously to get away with it
(Especially the villains plot to take raptors and use them in Afghanistan - wtf)
The set up to the inevitable disaster is riddled with product placement, and an average script (and a weird sub plot about the two kids parents getting divorced), and then when all hell breaks loose, it just descends into Hollywood nonsense (the scenes with Chris Pratt riding alongside raptors on a motorbike is one of the many times I rolled my eyes), it's a far cry from the original.
Another thing - the main dinosaur threat comes in the shape of a super crazy lab created hybrid dinosaur, which just seems a little... unnecessary - just regular dinosaurs are pretty damn scary!
I like both Chris Pratt, and Bryce Dallas-Howard, unfortunately the chemistry between the two doesn't quite connect. The rest of the cast are fine, and mostly likable.
It's not an awful film by any means, it's just... Ok. I'm sure I'll find myself watching it again at some point, I guess I just wanted more!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Lonely Planet USA's National Parks
Lonely Planet, Amy C. Balfour, Sandra Bao and Christopher Pitts
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet USA's National Parks is your...
I Ask for Justice: Maya Women, Dictators, and Crime in Guatemala, 1898-1944
Book
Winner, Bryce Wood Book Award, Latin American Studies Association, 2015 Given Guatemala's record of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A plethora of clichés.
2017’s summer blockbusters fizzle to a halt with this formulaic action comedy. Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool“) plays Michael Bryce: a cocksure “Triple A rated” bodyguard, always planning three steps ahead so that he can protect his clients without killing anyone in the process. With such arrogance, a fall is inevitable. On the other side of the legal scales is Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson, “The Hateful Eight“), a contract killer who always gets his man. But the incarcerated Kincaid is offered a deal to release his equally incarcerated wife Sonia (Selma Hayek) in return for testifying against the fearsome Belarus president Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”), on trial for war crimes at The Hague. An Interpol team led by Bryce’s’s ex-squeeze Amelia Roussel (the striking Elodie Yung) now have to get Kincaid to Belgium unscathed with Dukhovich’s well-trained and well-armed thugs stopping at nothing to ensure he won’t be there to testify. Fate transpires that Bryce and Kincaid become an unlikely team in trying to bring Dukhovich to justice.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jul 26, 2018
Fun Summer Blockbuster
Taking place three years after Jurassic World, Owen (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) find themselves back on Isla Nublar where a dormant volcano is on the verge of erupting. Their mission is to safely rescue as many dinosaurs as they can, but there are others who have more sinister plans.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The Jurassic Park series has set the standard for visuals and this new installment is no exception. From the opening scene to the film's conclusion, you are treated to the beautiful dino goodness that keeps viewers coming back for more. I appreciated the consistent attention to detail and the constant refining of the traditional dinos like the t-rex and pesky raptor. I left as I always do, thinking this is how these creatures must have moved and acted when they were alive.
Conflict: 9
Genre: 5
Memorability: 5
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
It's funny how critics rag on films like these saying, "Where is the heart? This film is all over the place, big on action, lacking on script." Is that accurate of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom? Absolutely. However, sometimes we also have to remember why we came to the see the film in the first place. You came for the action. You came for the dinosaurs. In that sense, the film delivers. You want an enriching story? Go see Lady Bird. Meanwhile, I'll keep munching on my Raisinets and enjoying films the way they were meant to be enjoyed.
P.S.--Lady Bird is actually a phenomenal film.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The Jurassic Park series has set the standard for visuals and this new installment is no exception. From the opening scene to the film's conclusion, you are treated to the beautiful dino goodness that keeps viewers coming back for more. I appreciated the consistent attention to detail and the constant refining of the traditional dinos like the t-rex and pesky raptor. I left as I always do, thinking this is how these creatures must have moved and acted when they were alive.
Conflict: 9
Genre: 5
Memorability: 5
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
It's funny how critics rag on films like these saying, "Where is the heart? This film is all over the place, big on action, lacking on script." Is that accurate of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom? Absolutely. However, sometimes we also have to remember why we came to the see the film in the first place. You came for the action. You came for the dinosaurs. In that sense, the film delivers. You want an enriching story? Go see Lady Bird. Meanwhile, I'll keep munching on my Raisinets and enjoying films the way they were meant to be enjoyed.
P.S.--Lady Bird is actually a phenomenal film.
Merissa (12902 KP) rated Knights of Stone: Calum in Books
Sep 27, 2017
Knights of Stone: Calum (Highland Gargoyles #5) by Lisa Carlisle
Calum is the youngest of the Gargoyle brothers, and along with Gavin, has vowed never to be tied down like his brothers. However, he has been restless of late, and feels the need to fly more often. It is on one of these flights that he encounters a Pegasus and Dragon - neither of which he thought were real. His protective instincts kick in, and he fights the dragon, helping the Pegasus to escape. Once they are both on land, they speak, and Calum finds out that this Pegasus is called Arielle, and she is from a different realm. Now, apart from Bryce, all the brothers have inter-species relationships, but I never thought of an inter-realm one. And poor Calum and Arielle don't think that a long distance relationship like that (where you will never see the other one again) will work. Calum is torn because he wants to help Arielle, but he doesn't want her to leave him.
With good guys, and bad guys, and overprotective mothers, Lisa Carlisle has managed to weave another great story in this series. There is only Gavin left, and I can't wait to read his story, being as no one can see him settling down! With no editing or grammatical errors, there was nothing about this book that caught my attention in a bad way. It was a lovely story, with a smooth pace, and some angst in it for those that don't like a smooth road. All-in-all, a great read and definitely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
With good guys, and bad guys, and overprotective mothers, Lisa Carlisle has managed to weave another great story in this series. There is only Gavin left, and I can't wait to read his story, being as no one can see him settling down! With no editing or grammatical errors, there was nothing about this book that caught my attention in a bad way. It was a lovely story, with a smooth pace, and some angst in it for those that don't like a smooth road. All-in-all, a great read and definitely recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2346 KP) rated The Victory Garden in Books
Feb 13, 2019
I Was the Wrong Audience for this Book
Emily Bryce is about to turn twenty-one, and she is ready to start doing something to help with the war effort. Her parents have kept her at home with her mom hoping to find someone from the aristocracy to marry her off to, but Emily is determined to find her own path. Then Emily meets Robbie, an Australian pilot recovering from an injury at a hospital in the area. Even though her parents forbid it, she keeps seeing him behind their back. She also soon joins up with the Women’s Land Army, helping to keep the farms in England running to provide food for everyone. Will her parents ever accept her choices?
I’ve been a fan of Rhys’s mysteries for years, so I decided to give this book a try. As I suspected going in, this is not a mystery, but more of a coming of age story set in the England of 100 years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t think I was the target audience since I had trouble getting into it. There is a lot happening, and that was part of the problem. The story takes place over a year, and to get the entire time frame and the all Emily goes through into the story, at times I think we were cheated out of watching Emily deal with everything happening. That resulted in some things we were told about and not shown. On the other hand, Emily is a wonderful main character, and I was definitely rooting for her to succeed. I did tear up a time or two. And I felt we got a clear picture of what life was like in 1918 England for those who didn’t fight during the war – something that is often overlooked when we think about the cost of a war.
I’ve been a fan of Rhys’s mysteries for years, so I decided to give this book a try. As I suspected going in, this is not a mystery, but more of a coming of age story set in the England of 100 years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t think I was the target audience since I had trouble getting into it. There is a lot happening, and that was part of the problem. The story takes place over a year, and to get the entire time frame and the all Emily goes through into the story, at times I think we were cheated out of watching Emily deal with everything happening. That resulted in some things we were told about and not shown. On the other hand, Emily is a wonderful main character, and I was definitely rooting for her to succeed. I did tear up a time or two. And I felt we got a clear picture of what life was like in 1918 England for those who didn’t fight during the war – something that is often overlooked when we think about the cost of a war.