Search
Debbiereadsbook (1472 KP) rated Trust Me in Books
Feb 20, 2022
a bit too much, for ME!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I received my copy of this book via Netgalley.
I'm not 100% how I feel about this book, so I'll try to explain (which is not always possible!)
I liked the premise of this book. Delaney's boyfriend was sent to prison for the manslaughter of her brother. He maintained his innocence throughout. The day of his release, she finds her best friend killed the same way, and Hunter is now prime suspect. What follows is a race to not only prove Hunter's claim, but to prevent any more deaths.
I liked that we hear from more than just Delaney and Hunter. I do like to hear from everyone.
I liked the suspense aspect. I wasn't fully certain whodunnit, til it was revealed in the book.
It is a bit violent, with the death discoveries being described in detail. I did think that was appropriate though, for the most part, for this book.
It is clean. I didn't mind that. I do prefer my books on the more explicit side, but I'm big enough to say when a book does not need it.
It does drag a bit, between about 40 to 70% and I very nearly dumped it, but I wanted to know how it would all turn out.
And we come to my biggest issue. I'm quite happy to read Christian books, religious characters, deeply faithful or mindly thoughtful about higher powers. But this book takes the references to God and faith and belief a little bit too far, FOR ME. It felt like, at least every page had a reference to God or faith. A bit like it was shoving it down my throat. It really was, for ME, too much. I stress this point, this is MY OPINION, and how I felt about it.
This is the first I've read of this author. Will I read more? Probably not. A quick search shows a back list of religious themed books, and if they are anything like this one, I won't like it.
So, because of the major dragging bit, and because of the constant God/faith thing . . .
3 stars
I'm not 100% how I feel about this book, so I'll try to explain (which is not always possible!)
I liked the premise of this book. Delaney's boyfriend was sent to prison for the manslaughter of her brother. He maintained his innocence throughout. The day of his release, she finds her best friend killed the same way, and Hunter is now prime suspect. What follows is a race to not only prove Hunter's claim, but to prevent any more deaths.
I liked that we hear from more than just Delaney and Hunter. I do like to hear from everyone.
I liked the suspense aspect. I wasn't fully certain whodunnit, til it was revealed in the book.
It is a bit violent, with the death discoveries being described in detail. I did think that was appropriate though, for the most part, for this book.
It is clean. I didn't mind that. I do prefer my books on the more explicit side, but I'm big enough to say when a book does not need it.
It does drag a bit, between about 40 to 70% and I very nearly dumped it, but I wanted to know how it would all turn out.
And we come to my biggest issue. I'm quite happy to read Christian books, religious characters, deeply faithful or mindly thoughtful about higher powers. But this book takes the references to God and faith and belief a little bit too far, FOR ME. It felt like, at least every page had a reference to God or faith. A bit like it was shoving it down my throat. It really was, for ME, too much. I stress this point, this is MY OPINION, and how I felt about it.
This is the first I've read of this author. Will I read more? Probably not. A quick search shows a back list of religious themed books, and if they are anything like this one, I won't like it.
So, because of the major dragging bit, and because of the constant God/faith thing . . .
3 stars
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Redemption in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I did not read the first book in the series, Protector, but that did not seem to matter all that much in reading this book. I caught up relatively easily to what the author felt I needed to know about Jane Perry's story so that I could dive into the action-packed, suspense-filled plot of this book.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Ashes of Glass in Books
Jan 4, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ashes of Glass is a gorgeous retelling of Cinderella, and you all know what a sucker I am for a retelling!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!
Arella's upbringing is one we have heard numerous times, both through print and on screen. For this reason Emma Hill presents this chapter of Arella's life almost as a misty, memory montage; preferring to focus on the upcoming tale she has to tell. I must say I greatly appreciated this originality and confindence: Hill knows she has an absolute gem of a story here and doesn't need to pad it out with the sad turn of events we all know.
Anyone who has read "So, This is Love" by Elizabeth Lim will see some similarities within the two storylines in that Ella begins working in the Palace. However, Hill's Ella is , in my opinion, a much stronger character from the outset. She has no qualms in challenging Prince Freddie's prejudices in respects to gypsies and, on the whole, does not change her behaviour towards Freddie once she discovers he is the Prince.
Ella and Freddie are only two of a whole cast of characters who are beautifully portrayed within this novel. I really loved the added details such as the King's interest in elephants, the fact that the Duke was nicer (but still quite strict) and the fact that Ella had a friend alongside her. All of these factors made the story a lot more real than the classic fairy tale. Hill made it so easy for the reader to fall in love with Ella and Freddie as a couple, especially because they were not perfect and experienced real emotions such as doubt and jealousy. If anything, our love for these two made it even easier for us to hate the villain, Lord DiFortunato.
Now, we all love to hate the sleazy, slimy villain in a story, but this guy was something else! Emma Hill's villain literally made my skin crawl and, at the point in the story where Ella's curiosity puts her in a whole heap of danger, the suspense was too much I had to skim read just to know whether she was going to be OK.
The one character I did want a bit more of was Lady Izabella: I suspect she was likely Freddie's godmother due to her friendship with the Queen and I think this could have been cleverly played on a little more. Don't get me wrong she was a charming (and necessary) background character but I would have liked to see her a little more.
EJ Hill also included a lot of nods to the original fairy tale which were really appreciated. Of course the iconic pink dress becomes ruined and the ballgown is a must but Ella's affectionate use of Prince Charming as a nickname for Freddie was just gorgeous. Oh and losing the shoe: genius!
This is not to say this story lacks originality though. There is a thrilling sub plot into the investigation into the King's death which moves alongside and intersects Arella's plotline beautifully.
I would say that the chapters do shift from Arella to Freddie quite often and this could be quite confusing at times. Also faith plays a huge part within the story. I already knew Emma Hill was a Christian so this wasn't a surprise and it didn't put me off the story at all. I do think that it was included quite heavily though.
If you want the story of Cinderella, with a swoon-worthy Prince, more action, less Stepmother/sisters and an underlying murder mystery. This is the book for you!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.