Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Devil Rides Out (1968) in Movies
Nov 11, 2020
Not Your Average Hammer Film
The Devil Rides Out- is not your average hammer film. It has little sexual or violent content. The film's tone is serious, lacking the intentional camp and tongue-in-cheek style of many other Hammer titles. Which makes the film more intresting. The tone of the flim is serious and focusing on that topic.
The plot: When the Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee) and Rex Van Ryn (Leon Greene) arrive at a fashionable party thrown by de Richleau's protégé, Simon Aron (Patrick Mower), they soon realize that the party is in fact a gathering of a Satanic cult, led by the high priest Mocata (Charles Gray), that plans to initiate the beautiful Tanith (Nike Arrighi) that night. It's up to de Richleau and Van Ryn to defeat the devil-worshiping Mocata and save innocent young Tanith and the others from a terrible fate.
Its a really good movie and i highly recordmend this film to others. Like i said its not your average hammer film. It takes its topic/subject very serious. And its one of Terence Fisher's best films he has directed.
The plot: When the Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee) and Rex Van Ryn (Leon Greene) arrive at a fashionable party thrown by de Richleau's protégé, Simon Aron (Patrick Mower), they soon realize that the party is in fact a gathering of a Satanic cult, led by the high priest Mocata (Charles Gray), that plans to initiate the beautiful Tanith (Nike Arrighi) that night. It's up to de Richleau and Van Ryn to defeat the devil-worshiping Mocata and save innocent young Tanith and the others from a terrible fate.
Its a really good movie and i highly recordmend this film to others. Like i said its not your average hammer film. It takes its topic/subject very serious. And its one of Terence Fisher's best films he has directed.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Oct 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 20, 2018)
Slow West
I have decided to do something totally different for my Red Dead 2 review; instead of just reviewing it as a whole once I am finished with it, I am going to start my review just now and then continually add to it the further through it I progress. There are a few reasons for this, firstly because this game is huge and is probably too vast to sum up in just a few paragraphs once I have completed the story. Secondly, because we would all be waiting weeks for me to review it; I am not going to be done with this thing anytime soon. Third is because it's something new, a break from my traditional structure of writing reviews. Finally, because I feel that my opinion on this game is going to change based on the different things that I experience during my playthrough, along with my score of the game. There will also most likely be spoilers as we move on through the game, so maybe just read up to where you have also played to. Once I have completed the game, I may write a summary of my thoughts at the bottom of this review, or I might just scrap this and write a whole new review from scratch, we shall see.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien 3 (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: How do you follow up two of the best sci-fi films or all time? This struggles to keep up with the atmosphere created in the first two. It offers nothing new to the series either. As a stand-alone film this would struggle to be a good sci-fi thriller. It’s only positive I can think of were a couple of surprise deaths. (5/10)
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Death Wish (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2018
Bruce Willis killing bad guys
5 minutes before DEATH WISH started there was just 2 of us in the movie theater (by the time the film started, there was probably around 20). I turned to the only gentleman sitting there (about 2 seats down) and asked him if he'd like break into a "discussion group" after the film. "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys.", he said.
He did not walk away disappointed.
Directed by Eli Roth, DEATH WISH is a remake of the early 1970's film starring Charles Bronson about a "normal, family man" who snaps after his wife and daughter are assaulted. The Police' hands are tied, so he decides to take matters in his own hands and starts committing "vigilante justice".
Bruce Willis stars in this remake - and he is perfectly fine as the Doctor turned vigilante. Joining him is Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Elisabth Shue as his wife and BREAKING BAD'S Dean Norris as the cop who is chasing him. All of these actors do a perfectly fine job with what they are given to work with, but (let's be honest), fine acting - or intricate plot developments - are not what you are looking for in this film.
As my new friend put it - "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys".
And "kill bad guys" he does. But...not as often as I though he would. And...not nearly as graphically as I was expecting. Director Roth is known as a Director of Horror "splatter" films, "torture porn" fare like the HOSTEL films and CABIN FEVER. I was pleasantly surprised by the restraint that Roth has shown in the graphic violence in this film - I was expecting it to be a lot worse, almost stomach churning - but it just wasn't (except for 1 torture seen involving a car). It was "basic" violent fare - and well done.
To be honest, I thought they spent too much time of the film setting up Willis' character turn to "the dark side", at one point wondering "get to killing the bad guys already". But, when the film gets there, it is entertaining, indeed.
As I walked past my "new friend" after the film was over, I asked him what he thought:
"I saw Bruce Willis killing bad guys, I'm good."
And that about sums it up.
Letter Grade B- (just know what you're getting into)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He did not walk away disappointed.
Directed by Eli Roth, DEATH WISH is a remake of the early 1970's film starring Charles Bronson about a "normal, family man" who snaps after his wife and daughter are assaulted. The Police' hands are tied, so he decides to take matters in his own hands and starts committing "vigilante justice".
Bruce Willis stars in this remake - and he is perfectly fine as the Doctor turned vigilante. Joining him is Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Elisabth Shue as his wife and BREAKING BAD'S Dean Norris as the cop who is chasing him. All of these actors do a perfectly fine job with what they are given to work with, but (let's be honest), fine acting - or intricate plot developments - are not what you are looking for in this film.
As my new friend put it - "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys".
And "kill bad guys" he does. But...not as often as I though he would. And...not nearly as graphically as I was expecting. Director Roth is known as a Director of Horror "splatter" films, "torture porn" fare like the HOSTEL films and CABIN FEVER. I was pleasantly surprised by the restraint that Roth has shown in the graphic violence in this film - I was expecting it to be a lot worse, almost stomach churning - but it just wasn't (except for 1 torture seen involving a car). It was "basic" violent fare - and well done.
To be honest, I thought they spent too much time of the film setting up Willis' character turn to "the dark side", at one point wondering "get to killing the bad guys already". But, when the film gets there, it is entertaining, indeed.
As I walked past my "new friend" after the film was over, I asked him what he thought:
"I saw Bruce Willis killing bad guys, I'm good."
And that about sums it up.
Letter Grade B- (just know what you're getting into)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kiruji (13 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
I'm not an X-Men fan. I know, it's strange, right? I mean, I'm a comic book fan in general. Iron Man's a dude. I dig the Hulk. I love all things Batman (except when Joel Schumacher tweaked the Batman's Batnipples). I geekgasmed all over my trousers in the lead up to THE DARK KNIGHT and actually watching it at an IMAX was like losing my virginity again. But the X-Men? Kinda leave me cold. Even though, on the face of it, it should be pretty awesome. Mutant humans with the ability to do just about anything you can imagine, fighting each other and various other bad things? Why the hell wouldn't I like that? But I could never get into it. The first X-Men movie, way back in 2000, left me feeling indifferent. It was OK, but nothing special. The second one was worse. The third one just plain awful. WOLVERINE: ORIGINS was quite fun, but then, a hard drinking, smoking, swearing brawler with friendly mutton-chops and blades in his hands was always going to be appealing to me.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
Billy Gibbons recommended Changes by Charles Bradley in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Gideon's Angel in Books
Aug 15, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
I received my copy of Gideon’s Angel through the Goodreads FirstReads program. This in no way influences my review, except to ensure that I was able to get ahold of this book and thus review it. I have to say, I really enjoyed this one. I want to describe it as “steampunk,” but my understanding is that steampunk is usually set in the 1800s (or at least that level of tech and society) whereas this work is firmly set in 1653. If there’s already a term for pseudo-historical fiction with a fantasy touch set in that timeframe, I apologize for not knowing what it is and using it accordingly.
Things are not going well for Richard Treadwell. The English Civil War is over, the King’s Cavaliers lost to the forces of Parliament and Oliver Cromwell, and Charles I has been executed. Treadwell has managed to escape the destruction of his cause, and has spent the past eight years in exile in France, performing a delicate balancing act between loyalty to his exiled king* and his employer, Cardinal Mazarin. When Mazarin informs him that someone is using the forces of Hell to tip the balance in their favor and asks him to spy on the exile court to find out if it is one of the king’s supporters, Treadwell decides that it’s time to get out of Paris. He accepts a mission for one of the king’s more militant supporters that will take him back to his beloved England–to lead a Royalist uprising, one last try to oust Cromwell and his Puritan cronies. Treadwell has other business to tend to as well, including a wife who by now probably considers herself a widow. Unfortunately for Treadwell’s simple worldview, it soon becomes clear that Cromwell’s power is the only thing preventing the more radical Puritan elements from running roughshod over the whole country. Worse still, a demon from the pits of Hell has appeared to a radical Puritan sect masquerading as an angel of light and ordering the death of Cromwell so that the Kingdom of God may be fulfilled. Now instead of assassinating Cromwell Treadwell will be forced to save him–if he can find a way to fight the forces of Hell, gain some allies in his quest, and avoid d’Artagnan, a young Musketeer dispatched by the Cardinal to bear him back to Paris….
I really enjoyed this book. It’s not exactly “high literature,” but I think I’ve very well established that I care far more about a work’s entertainment value than whatever it is critics look for. The world Beal creates here feels very real, slipping in background historical information without making you feel like you’ve been lectured. Some readers will probably wish for more background on the English Civil War, and that’s fine. If they care that much, there are numerous good books on the subject. If they don’t, there’s a Wikipedia article that should give you a good rundown on what happened. Beal manages to evoke seventeenth-century London in all its grimy glory, much as it would have actually been aside from the fact that all the magic we dismiss as superstition is actually going on behind the scenes. Moreover, this magic very much resembles what you would find depicted in the folklore of the era without obvious modern embellishment. I’m not really all that well versed in the history of the Freemasons, so I can’t accurately speak to how they were portrayed here except to say that I very much doubt their claim to date back to the builders of the pyramids. Then again, I doubt they have the tools to summon demons too, so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Secondary characters generally proved to be interestingly complex, especially Billy Chard, but I am seeing criticism of how the female characters in the book act. They aren’t weak characters by any means, but they are constrained by their roles in society. Treadwell’s wife has pragmatically joined her fate to that of the officer who took over Treadwell’s land when he was banished and is pregnant with his child. Is she weak for this? Or is she a strong female doing what she has to in order to protect what is left of her family? Treadwell’s Parisian mistress follows him to England rather than stay in Paris and face the scandal of their liasion alone. Weak, for needing Treadwell by her side? Or strong, for following him into whatever dangers he may be facing? Finally, Isabelle decides to follow her father and the rest of Treadwell’s band into battle against the forces of Darkness, deciding that it would be better to fall by his side than live on without him. Possibly a sign of weakness, but look at her situation realistically. She and her father were driven from Spain for their Jewish heritage, her mother dying along the way. Jews do not fare well in the Christian world of the seventeenth century, not even in England. The lot of a young woman alone in the world is already hard enough in this time without adding the burden of religious and ethnic persecution. She would have no respectable means of supporting herself, and could conceivably find herself forced into prostitution–on her own if she was lucky, as no more than a slave if she was not. Is preferring death in battle to such a fate a sign of weakness or of strength? She certainly has no trouble speaking her mind, and in fact berates Treadwell severely for endangering her father when they first meet. I suppose I can understand where some people would find these characters and their portrayal to be weak and sexist, but I respectfully disagree. I submit that instead they are strong characters reacting realistically to a world where women are not treated equally–in fact, I would have more of a problem with them if they demonstrated anachronistic modern sensibilities.** The ending was a little deus ex machina, but on the whole I didn’t mind. I would say that I want to read a sequel, but I don’t think the author could come up with anything to top this in terms of personal impact on the characters–Treadwell’s internal conflict between hating Cromwell and having to save him is very well done, and I fear Beal would prove unable to find something equally interesting as a follow up. We never really got to find out what happened to Treadwell back during the Thirty Years War that introduced him to the world of angels and demons, so I could see maybe writing that up….I’d buy it, anyway.
CONTENT: R-rated language, occasionally harsh but I would argue not gratuitous. Moderately explicit sexual content, as you would expect from a work in this vein.*** A fair amount of violence, from both man and demon. Not usually too gory in its description. There is also a good deal of occult content, as the villains are summoning a demon they believe to be an angel. This demon’s lesser minions dog Treadwell and his friends, and there are multiple encounters with them. One is implied to be a golem, others appear as strange amalgamations of beast(s) and man. For me, this is adequately balanced by the recognition that, as powerful as the forces of Darkness are, God is far more powerful than they. Bottom line: if you’re mature enough to handle the other content, I don’t believe the occult elements should prove to be an issue.
*Charles I was executed, while his son Charles II went into exile. Just in case you were concerned with the historical accuracy of the book. So far as I can tell, this is pretty accurate. You know, aside from the demons and fictional characters roaming London…..
**Please understand, I’m neither defending nor endorsing the inequality of the seventeenth century. Neither is Clifford Beal, for that matter. I’m simply pointing out that it was how it was, and this was the world the characters would have come from. I’m all for equality, but to whitewash history and pretend it was different from it was….that way lies dangerous waters.
***This evokes more than anything a supernatural-tinged Alexandre Dumas novel for me….and you know how bawdry his musketeers could be when they wanted to be.
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/review-gideons-angel-by-clifford-beal/
Jenny Houle (24 KP) rated Agatha Raisin and the Witches' Tree in Books
Jan 13, 2018
I received a free ARC of this book from NetGalley for an unbiased opinion.
Agatha Raisin is at it again. Following a hanging from tree locally infamous as "The Witches' Tree" in a neighboring Cotswold village, Agatha is hired to solve the case.
To those who've been with the series from the beginning, I found this book to be the best in awhile. Over the past few books, I've felt strongly that the changing backstory of a few primary characters (Simon and Charles specifically) was starting to detract from my enjoyment over the series. This time, while both were very present, Beaton left out the details that bothered me.
Additionally, this case truly was solved by Agatha and her agency (she's often accused of bumbling along until she stumbles upon the answer, only to need police rescue for herself as well... definitely not the case in this book).
And one more reason this book got a 5 out of 5 rating from me: Agatha doesn't fall in infatuation in this book. She does date, she does acknowledge that she's happiest when she's in love, but there was no "strong woman becomes blithering idiot" subplot this time.
Characters I wish I'd seen more of: Bill and Alice. Through the last few books, Bill's clearly been distancing himself from Agatha. Hope soon his romance with Alice will grow more and he can resume a more steady role in the books as Agatha's friend.
Agatha Raisin is at it again. Following a hanging from tree locally infamous as "The Witches' Tree" in a neighboring Cotswold village, Agatha is hired to solve the case.
To those who've been with the series from the beginning, I found this book to be the best in awhile. Over the past few books, I've felt strongly that the changing backstory of a few primary characters (Simon and Charles specifically) was starting to detract from my enjoyment over the series. This time, while both were very present, Beaton left out the details that bothered me.
Additionally, this case truly was solved by Agatha and her agency (she's often accused of bumbling along until she stumbles upon the answer, only to need police rescue for herself as well... definitely not the case in this book).
And one more reason this book got a 5 out of 5 rating from me: Agatha doesn't fall in infatuation in this book. She does date, she does acknowledge that she's happiest when she's in love, but there was no "strong woman becomes blithering idiot" subplot this time.
Characters I wish I'd seen more of: Bill and Alice. Through the last few books, Bill's clearly been distancing himself from Agatha. Hope soon his romance with Alice will grow more and he can resume a more steady role in the books as Agatha's friend.
Nicole Hadley (380 KP) rated Strange, Unusual, Gross & Cool Animals (An Animal Planet Book) in Books
Jun 18, 2018
Animal Planet: Strange, Unusual, Gross & Cool Animals by Animal Planet & Charles Gingham has a wide range of interesting things to read and learn about of animals. The book is divided in four parts, Strange, Unusual, Gross, and Cool. The book has wonderful and abundant pictures.
There are more than 200 photographs in this book that is divided into four different focuses: “Galleries” to explore a theme, “Featured Creature” to spotlight particular extraordinary animals, “Creature Collections” with groups of animals to compare and contrast, and “Macroview,” showing tiny details.
The featured animals are just amazing, and include the blobfish, the deep sea octopod, the ghost octopus, the red-lipped batfish, banded gila monster, and as you can tell by the names, a host of unusual creatures. On all of these pages, you learn astounding facts about what makes these animals so unusual.
The book includes a glossary, annotated links to find out more, and an index. I really appreciate that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of books benefits the principal partners of R.O.A.R. (Reach Out. Act. Respond) - Animal Planet’s project to help make the world a better place for animals.
I highly recommend this book for animal aficionados, both child and adult. It is a book that allows readers to learn about animals and spark interest to continue learning.
I received this book from Time Inc. Books and Animal Planet via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
There are more than 200 photographs in this book that is divided into four different focuses: “Galleries” to explore a theme, “Featured Creature” to spotlight particular extraordinary animals, “Creature Collections” with groups of animals to compare and contrast, and “Macroview,” showing tiny details.
The featured animals are just amazing, and include the blobfish, the deep sea octopod, the ghost octopus, the red-lipped batfish, banded gila monster, and as you can tell by the names, a host of unusual creatures. On all of these pages, you learn astounding facts about what makes these animals so unusual.
The book includes a glossary, annotated links to find out more, and an index. I really appreciate that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of books benefits the principal partners of R.O.A.R. (Reach Out. Act. Respond) - Animal Planet’s project to help make the world a better place for animals.
I highly recommend this book for animal aficionados, both child and adult. It is a book that allows readers to learn about animals and spark interest to continue learning.
I received this book from Time Inc. Books and Animal Planet via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.