Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10022 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Oct 21, 2022
Christian bale (2 more)
John David Washington
Margot robbie
Watched yesterday my second murder mystery movie of the month after see how they run not as good as that one but there was plenty to laugh at start to finish especially the running gag over Christian bales glass Eye plenty of good performances all around from the cast even an appearance from taylor swift only in at the beginning of the movie sets the plot up. Would I recommend the film yes
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A tiresome affair
The Fifty Shades phenomenon is something very hard to calculate. Yes, we know its sold millions of copies worldwide, but its readership is likely to be much higher. I’m sure someone somewhere will know another person who didn’t go out and buy the book, but just borrowed it.
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sean Freese (4 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2020
THE VVITCH
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Unbound (Colours of Love, #1) in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Grace Lawson is about to start the greatest internship. She gets to spend three months in London, interning at Huntington Ventures. Jonathan Huntington, the company's CEO is a gorgeous guy who is almost always wearing black. Catching the red-eye to London from Chicago, and having to rush off the plane to make it to her new job on time, Grace runs(literally)into Jonathan Huntington at the airport. Making the mistake of thinking he was there to pick her up, she gets a ride with him in his limo(along with some colleagues he was actually waiting for) to the office. Feeling embarrassed the whole time.
Once at Huntington Ventures, Jonathan extends her internship from working in the investment department to working side by side with him. Grace or no one else in the company was expecting this turn of events. Jonathan has never had an intern working with him before. Will Grace be able to work this closely with Jonathan without falling in love with him? Everyone has warned her about this man, including Jonathan himself. This is going to be an interesting and exciting three months.
Unbound is the first in the Colors of Love series by Kathryn Taylor. I'm not sure how many books total are in the series. Book two Uncovered, is set to be released in the United States on August 17, 2015.
This book starts off a lot like 50 Shades of Grey. The virgin meets this wealthy, handsome man and is enticed by his power and the fact that he is unattainable. Jonathan's sexual desires aren't sadistic the way Christian Grey's are, I would say he's just a bit kinky. Then there's a little "Eyes Wide Shut"(Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman sex club movie) thrown in. I enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes are believable. I think a few words may have been lost in translation, though, as I believe this book was first written in German. For instance, the word clit is never used, but "sensitive place" is used quite a bit and, in my opinion, in those instances, clit would have been an appropriate word to use.
I'm not a big fan of Jonathan Harrington, he seems to be abrasive to everyone. Grace seems a little naive for a woman embarking on her own to London for three months. Maybe these two are meant to be or maybe we have another erotic romance series on our hands that we will grow to love to hate like 50 Shades and the Crossfire series. Either way, come on August for Colors of Love #2 - Uncovered.
Once at Huntington Ventures, Jonathan extends her internship from working in the investment department to working side by side with him. Grace or no one else in the company was expecting this turn of events. Jonathan has never had an intern working with him before. Will Grace be able to work this closely with Jonathan without falling in love with him? Everyone has warned her about this man, including Jonathan himself. This is going to be an interesting and exciting three months.
Unbound is the first in the Colors of Love series by Kathryn Taylor. I'm not sure how many books total are in the series. Book two Uncovered, is set to be released in the United States on August 17, 2015.
This book starts off a lot like 50 Shades of Grey. The virgin meets this wealthy, handsome man and is enticed by his power and the fact that he is unattainable. Jonathan's sexual desires aren't sadistic the way Christian Grey's are, I would say he's just a bit kinky. Then there's a little "Eyes Wide Shut"(Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman sex club movie) thrown in. I enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes are believable. I think a few words may have been lost in translation, though, as I believe this book was first written in German. For instance, the word clit is never used, but "sensitive place" is used quite a bit and, in my opinion, in those instances, clit would have been an appropriate word to use.
I'm not a big fan of Jonathan Harrington, he seems to be abrasive to everyone. Grace seems a little naive for a woman embarking on her own to London for three months. Maybe these two are meant to be or maybe we have another erotic romance series on our hands that we will grow to love to hate like 50 Shades and the Crossfire series. Either way, come on August for Colors of Love #2 - Uncovered.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
remember thinking, after reading the first couple of chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey two years ago, “Is this guy a vampire?” E.L. James’ description of Christian Grey brought to mind Edward of the Twilight series and the heroine, Anastasia Steele’s clumsy entrance into Grey’s office reminded me of Bella. I was so certain I would find out Grey was a vampire in the following chapters.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator Genisys (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Not a complete disaster
Sequels and reboots are making up the bulk of 2015’s cinematic offerings. With films added to franchises like Jurassic Park, Star Wars and James Bond, it was always going to be tough for others to make much of a dent.
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.